Senate Candidate Wants to Ban Polling 206
Masker writes "This is just too funny. Alan Keyes, the Republican candidate for Senate in Illinois, who is running against Democrat Barack Obama, wants to ban political polling for 'a certain period' before the election, since such polls are 'manipulative and degrading and damaging to our political system.' Could his opinion be influenced by a recent poll that shows Keyes trails by 45 percentage points behind Obama?" Could be. But it could also be influenced by the fact that polls are often wrong; they influence how people vote (people are less likely to vote for someone who "doesn't have a chance"), and polls get reported on more than issues, which can't be good for anyone except the pollsters and whoever happens to be leading the polls.
polls are often wrong? (Score:5, Insightful)
"A review of the 159 Governor and U.S. Senate polls reported by the media in 2002 shows a very good performance for most polling organizations. The average candidate error for all polls was 2.4 percentage points. 84% of the polls differed from the election outcome by less than their theoretical margin of error."
I'm confused.
this + electronic voting (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the way it's done in France (Score:3, Insightful)
What's even more important in fact, is that the media is not allowed to report on the campaigns at all during that time, there's a complete black out during which voters are supposed to make up their minds, analyzing the merits of each candidate.
Great idea, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:And? (Score:5, Insightful)
With polls like that, no wonder everyone thinks the "independent candidates" are pointless to vote for -- we don't think they have a chance because we don't know how not-alone we are in our opinion, and our system makes our votes "useless" if not voting for the top two candidates.
If we had a smarter voting system, polls might make less sense -- your decision to vote for a candidate wouldn't have a reason to be influenced by who had the best chance of winning among your personal "okay" list. Rather than banning them (which is stupid and wrong) let's make them irrelevant?
Re:Great idea, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
Conducting an accurate survey would require going to a lot of strangers in public or calling them up to ask questions, and that sort of thing tends to be covered under solicitation laws.
Of course, one could still conduct a volunteer survey, but that would be known to be inaccurate, so people might ignore those.
Re:polls are often wrong? (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't think it's anything deep -- just that "often" is not the same as "usually". If polls are wrong a sixth of the time, it's not crazy to call that "often". (I haven't read the article, so I don't know whether it says that or not -- I just took 100% minus your quoted figure of 84% correct. But it's irrelevant to this comment)
Re:this + electronic voting (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:He isn't all their (Score:3, Insightful)
Furthermore, the intent to have children does not imply an intent to do so immediately. One could get married planning to have children five or however many years down the road. That's still fulfilling the main purpose of marriage by his standard, just not immediately.
Bear in mind that both of these are patently obvious problems with your argument assuming that your premise (i.e. your description of his beliefs) is entirely accurate. Which I very much doubt.
Incidentally, I don't agree with him. But if you're going to argue against his position, you need to (1) argue against his actual position; and (2) make sure your argument isn't as broken as his. I'm not convinced you did either, or in fact made a serious effort to. That suggests that you aren't arguing from reason, but from mindless belief - doubtless one of your purported objections to his beliefs. Consistency is a virtue, though not a perfect one. You should strive to attain it in at least some small measure.
Re:this + electronic voting (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Other reasons he's behind in the polls? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Alan Keyes... (Score:3, Insightful)
A few things to know about Alan Keys (Score:1, Insightful)
2> At no point in the race did Alan Keys have any chance of winning the election.
3> Alan Keys is a part a plan of either the old-line republicans to shame the fundamentalist wing of the party, or a plan by the fundamentalists to take over the republican party.
4> Alan Keys' publicly announce strategy to win this election is to say absurd and offensive things in hope of getting media coverage. Good job guys!
Re:Commentary (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:And? (Score:4, Insightful)
Some of us have an opinion that voting for something based on its popularity is damaging to the political system. We have the opinion that people should vote on the merits of the candidates or resolution being proposed.
Too bad our electoral system doesn't support real [aec.gov.au] choice [oasis.gov.ie].
I think he's right, mostly. (Score:3, Insightful)
I think Keyes is right about this mostly. Besides if the media weren't spending all their time trying to manufacture news via polls, maybe the'yd have a few extra minutes to check some facts or locate confirming sources of information.
They (the media) are forgetting how to do the one thing that really separates them as a legitimate news source from the tabloids and bloggers, and I think the introduction of manufactured news sources like political polls are partly to blame.
Re:He isn't all their (Score:2, Insightful)
Perhaps we should take this a step further and deny "marriage" to:
Of course, if we do that, then we have to start seeing the lack of universal health care for children for what it really is; an assault on the institution of marriage, a "family" tax penalty, and something no upstanding conservative Republican worth his salt would ever stand for.
A Republican response... (Score:5, Insightful)
When all is said and done, I think that overall, the GOP will win big this year. But when you ask party leaders what they'd do differently, in private they'll tell you that importing Keyes was a huge fuckup, and will likely hurt them in Illinois for years (a state with a not-insignificant 21 electoral votes). Maybe Barrack Obama was going to win no matter who ran against him. But something about the mindset of the GOP in Illinois really bugs me. When Ryan backed out of the race, and Ditka wouldn't run, there was this assumption that since the Dem's were running a black candidate, hey, we have to have a black candidate too. That's stupid thinking number one; just get a good candidate, color or sex not being part of it. Stupid thinking number two comes in when they've decided that they HAVE to have a black candidate, and we've found this woman that's a doctor, and a loyal republican, longtime resident of Illinois. BUT WAIT......Let's bring in Alan Keyes instead! Never mind that he's never LIVED in Illinois before.
Put this one into the "what not to do" section of campaigning.
Re:This is the way it's done in France (Score:0, Insightful)
Can we also ban.... (Score:1, Insightful)
I mean the [cable] news media is bias on 2 fronts:
I think because polls are simple to report and the current administration posts simple explanations and buzzstories (which are simple to report, though few) is the reason why we see more coverage on that stuff than real stories/issues/analysis/op-eds. No one cares about details nowadays and hence polls are the hot thing currently. As for Alan Keyes, it appearing he's against everything...
Re:Other reasons he's behind in the polls? (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, I thought it was pretty clearly stated that it means congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. Appearing to believe in a religion is a far cry from passing laws enforcing it. Would you say that if Joe Liberman were elected that he couldn't wear a yamaka?
FWIW, I consider myself to be agnostic, so the 10 comandments aren't part of my belief system. But they don't give me the impression that my right to practice any religion I want is being oppressed (including the right to not practice *any* religion).
I recommend you have look at The Jefferson Bible Where he specifically eliminates all supernatural events, and considers Jesus a philosopher, not god.
With all due respect to Mr. Jefferson, he was not the only person involved in the creation of this nation. He was an idealist (and a hypocrite, but that's neither here nor there) and a great statesman. But his word is not law.
Re:Other reasons he's behind in the polls? (Score:3, Insightful)
Allowing a court house to have the 10 commandments in front of it is hardly passing a law respecting or prohibiting the free exercise of religion. This is called "Freedom of Religion" people. The right to actually have a religion.
Sure putting a 10 commandments in front of a court isn't passing a law, but it's dangerously close. Even if the 10 commandments aren't used in court, is implies an endorsement of one particular set of religious laws by our court and our laws of justice. It subtly tells Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and Hindus that while you're here, you're going to be judged by christians, and therefore you're at a disadvantage. It's intimidating.
Let's turn the situation around. Atzanteol, if you found yourself in a part of the country where a mayor somehow happened to be a liberal (not fundamentalist) Muslim, and you got a speeding ticket. On your way into the courthouse you passed a big decorative plaque that simply listed Muslim laws. What would you think? How would you feel?
Besides, nowhere in the bible can I find anything that says "any country needs to have the 10 commandments out in front of a courthouse." I never understood how putting the 10 commandments in a public courthouse could be equated to practicing freedom of religion.
Re:He isn't all their (Score:2, Insightful)
We're likely to trip-up on the word "marriage" here. As it's used today in the context of this discussion, "marriage" implies a union recognised by the Federal Government for tax and benefit purposes. (Gay's can already get "married" where "married" implies a religiously sanctioned union which is not recognized by Federal Law)
The Federal Government is within it's right (through Law and, in my opinion, in a moral sense) to craft laws and legislation to promote causes where there is a compelling reason to do so.
I believe family values constitutes such a compelling reason. I believe raising children represents another. I believe these two are seperable, meaning I believe there is a compelling reason to promote family values even when no connection to raising children is present, and I believe there is a compelling reason to promote the raising of children even when no connection to a family is present.
So if a pair or group of people shows effectiveness in raising children, their success should be rewarded regardless of their individual races, religions, sexes or biological relationship to one another. As such, I support the work of orphanages, foster homes, grandparents raising their grandchildren, step parents, single parents, people raising a child resulting from an affair with a third party, and people raising adopted children (including Gays.) So, to answer your question, I would approve the Federal Government crafting laws and legislation to assist those engaged in the task of raising a family.
Your question didn't ask it, but I would include in that set a brother/sister pair, regardless of the fertitity of either of the two.
Similarly, I might support Federal Legislation supporting what s been called "family values"; that is, promotion of close bonds between people working together in long-term relationships to offer support, guidance, etc. I'd have to see the details. But in this vein, such a "family unit" wouldn't have to include (or even be intended to eventually include) children of any type. Such a family could consist of two married people, or them and their children, or include adopted children. It would apply even if one parent of the children died (or left through divorce) but only if there were dependent children in the mix. You don't get the benefit if you live alone. And, again, under this definition, a family which loses both parents is still a family, even if there are only two (but at least two) children making up the remaining family unit; even if one is male and the other female, and whether or not the male has had a vasectomy. I don't believe you could exclude polygamy from this benefit. Not unless the Federal Government could show a compelling reason to do so.
Of course, I've been avoiding the term "marriage".
In my opinion, "marriage" is a strictly religious function, and as such, the Federal Government is forbidded from either sanctioning it or outlawing it.
This would mean Gays would be more than welcome to get married, but they'd have to find a religious institution to sanctify the marriage, and they'd gain no Federal benefits simply by having been "blessed".
On the other hand, as soon as they declared themselves "domestic partners", they'd qualify for all the same "family values" benefits "married" people (under today's definition) are granted. And if they chose to adopt a child (or if one of them produced offspring with the biological involvement of some third party) they would qualify for the same "raising children" benefiits "married" people (under today's definition) are granted.
So, to answer your question Should a guy be allowed to marry his sister if he gets a
As nutty as Keyes is... (Score:3, Insightful)
Polls are a way to make a good story out of campaigns that are way too long. If I actually got the information I needed about the candidates' record and proposals (with facts, not spin), I could choose in a day (and many people wait until the last day anyway). Polls are pointless.
Re:Alan Keyes... (Score:3, Insightful)
No one is pushing crap on you, that's your own paranoia. No one is demanding that you participate in gay marriage, no one is forcing your church to hold ceremonies for gay couples. Where is there a law that requires a Christian church to marry Muslims? Absent compelling state interest, denying marriage contract rights to millions of couples is arbitrary discrimination.
It's legal to drink alcohol in this country but my Southern Baptist relatives never have, my Muslim friends also abstain. How does my buying a six-pack infringe on their rights? After all, in their opinion, I'm sinning.
In the role of a US Senator, Alan Keyes would have no business discussing sin. He has no authority for his opinion of what is sin and what isn't. 1500 years of Western Civilization, countless wars and misery have led us to the logical conclusion that the liberty of conscience is the dearest. You have no more authority to push your moral worldview on me as I do on you. This liberty is not granted to me in the Constitution, it is guaranteed. If you attempt to push your morality upon me, I have the right to oppose you with violence if necessary. No one is telling you that you may not consider homosexuality a sin, anymore than you have to believe people who worship a diety other than yours will get to heaven. You do have to respect their rights to disagree with you however. Just as you cannot tell a Buddhist that he cannot pray to an idol of Buddha, you cannot deny rights to homosexuals just because you believe it's a sin.
That is the reasoning of the courts, logically consistent with the body of law that preceeded the decision. No state interest was proven in discriminating against homosexuals for secular marriage contracts. We do not make law based on moral or religious basis in this country, we make them based on rights. While the legislature and population may not always follow this principle, the courts are there to remedy the situation. Denying homosexuals the right to the secular contract of marriage violates their equality under the law and in this country we believe in the rule of law.