That One Vote: The Election Comes Down to...

American Eclectic posts articles twice a month, on the 1st and 15th. This is the third year of publication; previously published articles can be found on my site.

November 1, 2024

Isaac Asimov started his short story, Franchise (1955) by writing:

It was a frightening thing to happen to a person; the responsibility was just too great.  But Norman Mueller couldn’t back out.  Multivac had chosen him, and the entire nation awaited...

Multivac first picked a state and then a location within that state and then picked someone within that location who would decide the outcome of the Presidential election.  A friend of Norman’s says, “Listen, I was around when they set up Multivac.  It would end partisan politics, they said.  No more voter’s money wasted on campaigns.  ...So what happens?  More campaigning than ever.”

Asimov’s story does not refer to the Electoral College:  Before Multivac, the president was whoever won the most votes.  Multivac came about because “machines” (the word Asimov uses) could predict the election outcome with fewer and fewer votes until, eventually, they could predict the outcome with just one vote.

Multivac picked Indiana as the state and Bloomington as the city where the one voter would be chosen. Norman was chosen to choose the President on November 4, 2008. The public was told on November 3rd, the day before the election, that Norman would be the one vote. The Secret Service blocked off his house to keep people away from Norman.

One site calculates (Nate Silver) that no more than 3 percent of the voters, those few undecided voters, will determine the next President.  Silver sees the figure as closer to 4 percent, but about 1-1.5 percent will vote Independent, leaving 3 percent. While the 3 percent is thrown around as a national average for undecided voters, the figure might be higher in swing states (although why that might be the case is unclear), particularly if undecided voters in swing states are being placed as more than 10 percent of a swing state’s voters. The Kamala Harris campaign tends to assert that 10 percent of the voters in swing states are undecided. Furthermore, among undecided voters, as many as 21 percent are black voters, higher than the African American population of Americans, which is 14 percent. This 21 percent figure seems odd, considering Harris is black. One study showed President Biden got 90 percent of the black vote in 2020, while Harris is estimated to have around 78 percent. A recent poll indicates that Harris has 70 percent of black male voters supporting her, down from 85 percent who supported Biden in 2020. Black men, more so than black women, have expressed concerns over the economy, which might be adversely affecting support for Harris and indicates why the black undecided vote is 21 percent. I am sure this issue of black backing and whether Harris can persuade some segment of the undecided voters within this category will be examined in political science doctoral dissertations. While the tendency is to assume these undecided voters, regardless of skin color, will make up their minds and vote one way or the other, studies suggest that as many as 40 percent may simply decide not to vote.

The difference between national undecided voters and swing states’ undecided voters seems statistically unusual. If there is something to it, it may be because voters in the swing states know they matter more than voters in states like Illinois (Democratic) or Texas (Republican), where the vote outcome is already determined. Problems determining how many undecided voters exactly have come down to semantics of who should be included in this category. Should the category include “leaning,” “weakly aligned with,” “willing to change,” or “made up your mind but maybe not completely.” In addition, “moderates,” who hold political views that are neither strongly liberal nor conservative views and are aligned with neither the Democratic nor Republic parties, may include a high percentage of undecided voters. One study places the number of moderate voters as one-third of the electorate, and another study places the percentage of moderate voters who are undecided about who they will vote for as high as 40 percent of moderates. Then, there is the issue of whether a moderate voter differs from an independent voter. One difference might be that moderates tend to occupy a center between liberal and conservative views; independents can have strong opinions. The two can sometimes overlap, complicating where to place voters, particularly undecided voters. Terms frequently used in politics can seem so clear-cut when used on a television news show, but political analysts struggle with clearly understanding these terms. (*) However, it is determined or guesstimated how many undecided voters there are, just days away from the election; it is no doubt somewhere between small and approaching infinitesimal. Asimov added a point that can be considered as this coming election is almost upon us. 

Asimov wrote:

He, Norman Muller, ordinary clerk of a small department store in Bloomington, Indiana who had neither been born great nor achieved greatness would be in the extraordinary position of having had greatness thrust upon him.

The historians would speak soberly of the Mueller Election of 2008.  That would be the name, the Mueller Election.

How different is the weight of this election resting on those few undecided votes from Norman Mueller and his one vote?

Asimov gives some insight into Norman.  The little gleaned about him is that he has a family and his wife supports him.  When talking to the Secret Service agent assigned to protect him until he votes, his wife, Sarah, says of her husband, “[H]e’s very well-read, and he always follows politics closely.”

Contrast the Franchise with the movie Swing Vote (2008, starring Kevin Costner, Paula Patton, Kelsey Grammer, and Dennis Hopper).  Ernest “Bud” Johnson (Costner) is a drinker who lives in a trailer with his daughter in Texico, New Mexico.  Bud comes across as someone with no ambition and is frequently late for work.  His daughter Molly (Madeline Carroll) registers Bud as an Independent without his knowledge.  Bud is annoyed that she did that since he sees it as now putting him in the position to be called for jury duty.  Bud has no interest in politics but promises his daughter he will vote.  Unfortunately, he gets drunk after being fired from his job, and, as he is in a bar, he sees his daughter being interviewed on television and remembers his promise to vote.  Bud, however, true to his character, passes out in his truck on the way to vote. Eventually, while attempting to vote, the machine malfunctions.  Through a complicated process, it is determined that he tried to vote but did not, so he is still eligible to vote.

In Swing Vote, the election comes down to New Mexico and its five Electoral College votes. Both candidates have the same number of votes across the country, and Bud is the swing vote that will decide the outcome.

The attention on Bud is overwhelming.  One interview with a television reporter goes:

Kate Madison: Why don't we get started with your opinion of gay marriage?
Bud Johnson: Oh, shit, do we uh, do we have to?
Kate Madison: So you're against it?
Bud Johnson: I?! No, uh, I didn't say that.
Kate Madison: Oh. Then what is your position?
Bud Johnson: Well I don't have a position, all right. To tell you the truth I don't give a rat's ass about it. My dad always said whatever king does in his castle is his business, I guess the same can go for... Ah, I guess the same can go for two queens.  

The contrast between Asimov’s Norman and Costner’s Bud is interesting in that two extremes are presented regarding how to look at voters.  Since the interest is in those last remaining undecided voters, the issue is what will sway them to vote one way or the other.  I thought the revelations that Donald Trump may have had seven or more conversations with Vladimir Putin after he left the White House might matter, but that does not appear to be the case. A Trump campaign spokesman said of Bob Woodward, the Washington Post reporter who raised the issue in a new book, “None of these made up stories by Bob Woodward are true and are the work of a truly demented and deranged man who suffers from a debilitating case of Trump Derangement Syndrome.” A Kremlin spokesman also denied the story. It is interesting, however, how quickly this just faded into the woodwork. I expect this issue to resurface after the election. I have trouble believing it will remain an, apparently, nothing issue. If Trump had these conversations, I suspect the National Security Agency had to monitor them. Putin may understand these conversations were recorded, but Trump may not have known. However, the Kremlin spokesman confirmed that Woodward correctly stated that Trump sent COVID-19 tests to Putin. This revelation of Trump contacting Putin after he was out of the White House seemed to carry the prospect of moving some undecided voters, but that has not been the case. I would not call it an October Surprise, but it seemed like it had the potential to present Trump in a way different from what we have gotten used to. It seems strange, well more than that, to think about Trump sending COVID tests to Putin and how little that has mattered to voters.

When I was a television political analyst in St. Louis, we constantly tried to figure out what finally motivated undecided voters to make up their minds: How did last-minute voters decide who they were voting for?  At one point, we spoke with several voters who stated they had been undecided during the month before the election.  Inevitably, we heard that they were waiting for a candidate to address some specific issue, supposedly in a way that they wanted it addressed.  When pressed about what specifics they wanted to hear, the conversations broke down to usually vague ramblings, with a reporter and myself walking away without any clear insight into exactly what these undecided voters were looking for.  One undecided voter recently told a reporter, “[I] can’t find a clear path on who feels good at this point,” and saying that one week from election day can seem perplexing.

What I found interesting is that I contrasted conversations with undecided voters with exit polls I conducted on local elections. I do not necessarily think of these as interviews; they are just conversations where we try to understand voters’ thinking. With exit polls when covering local elections, where issues such as bonds, local taxes, and various municipal issues were on the ballot, this was a whole different political animal than a Presidential election. The emotions, the frustrations, anger, the excitement were not there. The voters who stopped to talk with me after voting were surprisingly knowledgeable about a wide range of local issues—ones that could seem difficult to grasp fully, such as local government charter changes or proposed ordinances.

One oddity that emerged from our conversations with voters deciding who they would vote for as a presidential election approached was hearing interest from undecided voters in reading lawn or street signs. We see them during elections, but they can often blend into the scenery. Admittedly, more than signs will sway undecided voters one way or the other, but it is unclear if one thing matters more than anything else as to what gets those undecided voters to make up their minds finally.

Almost 159 million people voted in the 2020 Presidential election. It seems odd that the outcome can come down to a few voters in a few select states and how they feel about the signs they see and decide whether they like or do not like a candidate based on aesthetic reasons (how they like a particular sign, maybe the color).

Asimov’s Norman is an ideal citizen, while Costner’s Bud is someone who would never be put on a pedestal. The Secret Service does not protect Bud, and one campaign consultant says, “I want to know what he reads, what television shows he watches,” to influence how he votes. In a debate where Bud gets to ask questions of the two candidates, he says something that should hit a nerve with most people, “You both made a lot of promises that you won’t probably be able to keep.” The true believers of a candidate assume everything will be done that their candidate promised during a campaign. The reality is more complicated. Once a President is in the White House, they may push to achieve their campaign promises. Still, the American political system is fragmented, and roadblocks will be thrown up to make achieving all those campaign promises more complicated than it seemed during the campaign.

When the election is over, the usual will be heard that the people have spoken and that a new President has a mandate. But that is simply momentary euphoria trumpeted by the victorious side. Elections are not a kumbaya moment. The passions people put into an election and all that leads up to that moment of knowing the outcome will not fade. Passion will carry over and be played out over the next four years. Yard and street signs will be dumped and forgotten.

Interestingly, yard and street signs can help determine a Presidential election's outcome. Asimov’s Norman or Costner’s Bud may not be that far off the mark where one person can determine the result of an election. Signs are seen as increasing voter turnout and candidate name recognition (although you would assume that even the most casual of election followers know who is running for the Presidency). In addition, they are seen as increasing volunteer turnout for a candidate. What is not addressed is those last-minute voters looking for a sign from the heavens regarding who they will vote for (and maybe finding it in a yard or street sign that strikes their fancy). This election may come down to a bundle of Buds making decisions on whom they will vote for, and what should stand out is their lack of definite opinions on various issues. Just as Bud did not have a position on gay marriage, many of these voters do not have firm views on many of the hot-button items that were addressed throughout the campaign. Those voters who made up their minds well before election day may have strong opinions on everything under the Sun, but those Buds may be a different story, with moderate to no views on a whole host of issues. It is odd to think who the election outcome hinges upon.

(*) At some point, I will write a piece on political words and terms. Commonly used and assumed to be clearly understood, words and terms are thrown around in television and public conversation as though they are used the same by everyone, which is not the case. “Politics,” “liberal,” “conservative,” “big government,” “freedom,” “liberty,” “democracy,” “accountability,” “power,” “national interest,” “leadership,” and a host of words and terms are addressed in political science courses where the emphasis is placed on getting students to appreciate the need to clearly understand how they are using words and terms before they use them. It would be useful if the broader public appreciated the difficulty of understanding this process. This might matter in helping a broader public develop a way to converse about political topics with people who differ in how they see the world around them. I often wonder how a TV news program might start if the host of the show asked people with strong opinions to explain how they use and understand the words and terms they frequently use.

Notes

Isaac Asimov, “Franchise,” If: Worlds of Fiction (August 1955): https:// www.astro.sunysb.edu/fwalter/HON301/franchise.pdf

Molly Ball, “Moderates: Who Are They, and What Do They Want?” The Atlantic (May 15, 2024): https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/05/moderates-who-are-they-and-what-do-they-want/370904/

Terry Collins, “Undecided voters carry weight,” USA Today (October 29, 2024): https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/10/17/undecided-voters-2024-presidential-election/75482752007/

Ben Donahower, “Don’t Give Up On Signs,” Campaigns & Elections (March/April 2015): https://web-p-ebscohost-com.library3.webster.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=7&sid=8f755816-602b-4a3f-a5bb-2caeefdc63b8%40redis

Reid Epstein and Shane Goldmacher, “Inside the Last-Ditch Hunt by Harris and Trump for Undecided Voters,” New York Times (October 21, 2024): https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/21/us/politics/trump-harris-undecided-voters.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare&tgrp=cpy&pvid=13D99B45-2D6E-44A7-9D7B-34518AB8DEA0

Jay Caspian Kang, “The Unknowability of the Undecided Voter,” New Yorker (September 20, 2024): https://www.newyorker.com/news/fault-lines/the-unknowability-of-the-undecided-voter

Maya King, Jonathan Weisman, and Ruth Igielnik, “Black Voters Drift From Democrats, Imperiling Harris’s Bid, Poll Shows,” New York Times (October 12, 2024): https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/12/us/politics/poll-black-voters-harris-trump.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare&tgrp=cpy&pvid=ADEBEA16-9D99-40AE-8301-F799962C161A

Maya Mehrara, “Donald Trump’s Intel Chief Suspected Putin’s ‘Blackmail’: Bob Woodward,” Newsweek (October 20, 2024): https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/donald-trumps-intel-chief-suspected-putins-blackmail-bob-woodward/ar-AA1sAybn?ocid=BingNewsSerp

“Moderates Vs Independent: 25 Differences in Political Identity,” Inside Political Science: https://insidepoliticalscience.com/moderate-vs-independent/

Gloria Oladipo, “Harris is panicking over the Black male vote-but polls don’t show full picture,” The Guardian (October 19, 2024): https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/oct/19/harris-black-male-vote-polls

Brian Schaffner and Caroline Soler, “How Will Undecided Voters Affect the Presidential Election?” TuftsNow (October 18, 2024): https://now.tufts.edu/2024/10/18/how-will-undecided-voters-affect-presidential-election

Nate Silver, “Kamala Harris needs weird voters,” Silver Bullet (October 15, 2024): https:// www.natesilver.net/p/kamala-harris-needs-weird-voters

Berwood Yost, “Who are the Undecided Voters? Are There Really Only 3%.” Center for Opinion Research (September 5, 2024): https://www.fandmpoll.org/undecided-voters-three-percent/