The data was set up by cross tabulating for the different parties. In addition to cross tabulating it was set up by rows representing where the majority of all votes came from.
Party Identification:.
Party identification is arguably the most important variable in any election. Usually after looking at the totals and seeing who won the plurality one can make a good assessment on who will win the election. There are many points that are worth looking at while examining this. One in particular which usually makes the difference in close elections is the Independent vote. Who it affects generally tends to show who will undoubtedly lose the election. First point in reference is the 1992 election, in Table 1 Ross Perot received 18.9 percent of the total vote, while also sequestering a majority of his voters from the republican constituency which came out to be 21 percent of the Republican vote almost a fourth of Bush"s supposed voter constituency. This burden knocked Bush senior straight out of any contention because he received 69 percent of his total votes from Republicans while only receiving 28 percent of the total vote from his constituency. Compared to Clinton who received 78 percent of his votes from Democrats and 40 percent of the total vote from Democrats. The totals showed Clinton winning a clear plurality of votes by 47 percent compared to Bush at 34 percent and Perot at 18.9 percent. The 2000 election again showed how the independent vote can affect a candidate. Nader the independent candidate in the 2000 election only received a mere 2.7 percent of the total vote. However this seemingly trivial percentage would have boosted Gore to a clear decisive victory vs. Bush junior. Table 1 shows that allegiances within the parties were very close. This is evident in the fact Gore received 88 percent of his votes from democrats who represented 44 percent of the total vote, while Bush remained even with Gore receiving 88 percent of his votes from Republicans which comprised a totality of 38 percent of the total vote.