1) The document discusses using a hypothetical "lifespan voting" system for the 2016 US presidential election where votes are weighted based on the average remaining lifespan of each voter's age group. 2) If this system was used, the analysis finds that Hillary Clinton would have won the election instead of Donald Trump by winning more electoral college votes. 3) The results show Clinton flipping key states like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan in this lifespan voting scenario.

1. 未来の声を聞く
トランプvsクリントン
成田悠輔

2. シルバー民主主義絶好調

3. 海の向こうでもSocial Parent-Child Fight?

4. 打開策？olutions? 2/2
選挙権年齢
引下げ
子供の代理投票権

5. 打開策？
Solutions? 1/2
余命投票

6. 余命投票を使っていたら？

7. データ
投票先＆年齢
American National Election Studies (ANES)
（投票者属性と行動の代表的聞き取り調査）
余命
Dept of Health & Human Service発行の
US Life Tables 2014
（国勢調査と公的保険データによる余命推定）

8. 分析手法
16年大統領選が余命投票を使用していたと想定
州Sでの候補者Cの仮想的な余命得票数
=
Σa (SでCがa才の人から実際に得た得票数) (a才の人の平均余命)
この余命得票数から各州での勝者を計算
選挙人制度を通じて余命投票下で選ばれたはずの大統領を計算
ANESデータから計算 Life Tablesから計算

9. 結論！余命投票なら
ヒラリー大統領誕生
Figure 2: 2016 Presidential Elections: Counterfactual Electoral College Voting Outcome
Notes: The figure shows the distribution of electoral college votes for the 2016 presidential elections
between Democrat party candidate Hilary Clinton and Republican party candidate Donald Trump
The yellow section represents the 3 votes for party candidates other than the major parties. Th
outcome is estimated using ANES self-reported vote choice data. I allocate electoral college vote
to each candidate based on the “winner-takes-all” rule for 48 states and Washington D.C. I exclud
the district-level electoral votes for Maine (2 votes) and Nebraska (3 votes), as I cannot estimate th
plurality winner at the granularity of congressional districts using ANES data. I also assume ther

10. 州別の勝者Figure 3: 2016 Presidential Elections: Counterfactual Plurality Party by State

11. 州別の勝者の変化Figure 4: 2016 Presidential Elections: States where Winner was “Flipped”
ペンシルベニアウィスコンシン
ミシガン
ミネソタ
バージニア
ネバタ

12. 州別得票率(民主)の変化
al Election: Di↵erence between Weighted and Actual Vote
(a) Democrats

13. 背後には世代間対立
Table 1: 2016 Presidential Elections: Voting Behavior by Generations (All Parties)
Generations Democrats Republicans Others
18-29 49.13 43.75 7.12
30-39 47.93 45.62 6.45
40-49 46.06 48.79 5.15
50-59 45.39 49.95 4.66
60-69 45.27 51.91 2.81
70-79 38.66 58.66 2.68
80-90 36.9 62.62 .48
Notes: The table shows the breakdown of vote proportions for all parties by age group for the
presidential election. The ”Others” category includes any Independent or other party candidate
choice. The vote proportions are estimated using weighted vote counts from the ANES 2016 Time
Series data set. Respondents who did not register to vote, cast a ballot, or report their age, were
dropped. Those who had inappropriate or missing answers for vote choice were also dropped.
民主は
青少年に
人気
共和は
中高年に
人気