Let the predictions begin – again.

Back in August, an overwhelming number of predictions claimed the outcome of this year’s election. But now that November is a week away, the only predictions catching eyes are the ones with credentials.

One such eye-catching prediction comes from two Colorado University professors who combined their brains and computer screens to manufacture a prediction program for election seasons. 

Their program has accurately predicted the election outcomes since 1980. It even predicted Al Gore, former Democratic presidential nominee, would win the popular vote and former President George W. Bush would win the electoral votes. 

This year, their program gives Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney the win by a landslide, even in spite of President Barack Obama’s current lead with 237 electoral votes and Romney’s 206 electoral votes.

According to the results, Romney will take 330 of the total 538 Electoral College votes. Obama is estimated to fall behind with only 208 votes. 

The characteristic separating this prediction from the rest is that the program analyzes electors, not the public. After all, we don’t elect the next president, the electors do.

Despite the program’s accuracy, there are some factors worth noting. 

The professors used state-based economic data to build the model – data that has been available since 1980. The program has not been around since 1980, but has simply applied the data to past scenarios. 

A model can be built based on the trends of the past, but anything can still happen. The real question is whether the program will be able to accurately predict an election outcome before it occurs. 

Also, the model has an average error rate of five states and 28 Electoral College votes. 

But when the rates of error numbers are applied, Romney’s dominant 330 lead reduces to 303, and Obama gains the losses, moving him to 236. Romney still wins. 

Complacency kills, though. 

Let’s assume for a minute this prediction is, in fact, correct. That means we’ve seen the future and therefore have changed the future. 

We are right back where we started. 

When it’s all said and done, predictions don’t matter that much. Yet, we love to gamble and have predictions for almost everything. 

Predictions influence the way we perceive the futurethe way we carry ourselves until judgement day. 

Coming into the season, Romney was not so hot on the polls, and most predictions had the president winning. Nonetheless, Obama was said to have little competition. 

In fact, Romney was mocked so often that it wasn’t until after his performance in the first presidential debate that he was taken seriously. 

Correlation is not causation, but it’s incredibly helpful that Obama was as unprepared as he was in the first presidential debate. 

Will the same thing happen to Romney at the finish line? 

Prior to the final presidential debate, Romney and Obama said it would be their last campaign. 

I think we all know what that means: more political propaganda to attack the opposition.

Romney has a few weeks left to slip up, but if he can hold his smile until election day the model predicts he can win. 

In the end, though, a model will never be able to predict everything. Abrupt and trivial changes could flip the prediction on itself. 

Considering the model’s accuracy, though, it’s worth paying attention to.