Study Notes on Noncompetitive States and Competitive Elections

Authors: Jonathan R. Cervas and Bernard Grofman
Publication: Public Choice, December 2017, Vol. 173, No. 3/4
Key Concept: Noncompetitive states are significant in determining outcomes of presidential elections through the Electoral College.

Main Idea: Noncompetitive states can decisively influence Electoral College (EC) outcomes and campaigning strategies, especially when there are asymmetric partisan balances.
References: Previous work by Brams and Kilgour (2017) identifies the relevance of noncompetitive states and introduces new indicators for analysis.

Winningness: Measures the probability that a candidate wins given the outcomes in noncompetitive states. - Calculated as follows: - Consider m competitive states; - Winningness is the proportion of outcomes in which the candidate leads in noncompetitive states.
Vulnerability: Defined as: - The proportion of winning coalitions in competitive states where switching a vote in one state can change the winner or create a tie.
Fragility: Measured by: - The expected number of competitive states that could disrupt a winning coalition.

The study expands Brams and Kilgour's analysis to include every presidential election from 1868 to 2016, totaling 38 elections.
Findings: - The Winningness measure accurately predicts winners in the analyzed elections. - A simpler metric, termed Non-Competitive Advantage, was developed, showing equal or better predictive power than more complex measures.

Swing States: Focus of campaigning is typically in competitive states (i.e., purple states), which are believed to determine election outcomes, based on prior elections (e.g., Trump's focus on Florida, North Carolina, etc.).
Asymmetry Impacts: Candidates with significant advantages in noncompetitive states can afford to perform poorly in competitive states.
Campaign Implications: - Noncompetitive states, despite being seen as predictable, play a critical role in shaping election outcomes and strategies. - Neglecting noncompetitive states can lead to decreased voter engagement and turnout.

Correlations Observed: - High inverse correlation (from -0.88 to -0.98) between Winningness, Vulnerability, and Fragility. - Winningness strongly correlated with final EC seat outcomes.
Example of Predictive Success: - In the 2012 election, Obama had a Winningness value that predicted his electoral success accurately. - Winningness is calculated from known outcomes in noncompetitive states, reducing the necessary competitive wins for the candidate leading in those states.

2012 Election Analysis: - Competitive states: m = 8, Obama needed fewer votes from these to secure victory. - Winningness score results: 80.9% of possible outcomes favored Obama.
Comparison of Performance: - Dual analyses using both Winningness and Non-Competitive Advantage illustrate good predictive performances. - The simpler Non-Competitive Advantage variable showed a regression analysis of adjusted R2 = 0.96, outperforming the Winningness model (0.81).

Electoral College Dynamics: The imbalance in noncompetitive states results in varied strategies by advantaged and disadvantaged candidates, affecting campaign allocations.
Campaign Concentration: Candidates focus resources on competitive states, leading to expectations of low turnout and engagement in noncompetitive ones.

Significance of Research: In looking at how noncompetitive states impact election outcomes and strategies, this research supports a broader understanding of electoral dynamics in the U.S.
Political Debate Context: The findings engage with ongoing discourse about the legitimacy and functionality of the Electoral College system, raising points regarding representation in competitive versus noncompetitive states.
Future Analysis Directions: Further investigations may examine the evolution of battleground states over time, linking to campaign strategies and voting behaviors.