![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjnoKJmeYN4yl5_Vuxf3Es4m5p4y5DLy5nWB5NZCYQW-Lh_w_3yPeRTZ95QeHi6iVZoYZ57I4YTlKhswKMUxvOJEnGHW5fL3f68ggi8s0w_VM_kUGhBrHsknGEyYbHaneFmjXrRmQ/s400/Pie.jpg)
![](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjsBylfRZPMVky9U_vFVbduExEZZwHVT9bXW7_jdzEm3_aqne5hSzr6PupxA660GubGPRYW4IpUy1qeikCsnH4KD8BJ60fUD-dHejWI5iyGguQYlMktxfqVcTb6eVO41MpriwhaCA/s400/map.jpg)
As most Americans know all too well, the popular vote doesn't determine the winner of the presidential election. Al Gore actually won the popular vote in 2000, but lost the election due to electoral votes. (For more details Google: +Florida +2000 +"hanging chads"). So if The Scientist wanted to determine a "true" presidential winner, then The Scientist would have to breakdown the voting by state in an attempt to calculate the electoral votes. Using Google Analytics to determine state locations of our voters, The Scientist found that Barack Obama would carry a whopping 464 electoral votes (the most since Ronald Reagan) and that's not even including the 45 votes still up for grabs.
Full Monty at The Scientist.
0 comments:
Post a Comment