How Close Were US Presidential Elections? 971
Mike Sheppard writes "I'm a graduate student in Statistics at Michigan State University and spent some time analyzing past US presidential elections to determine how close they truly were. The mathematical procedures of Linear Programming and 0-1 Integer Programming were used to find the optimal solution to the question: 'What is the smallest number of total votes that need to be switched from one candidate to another, and from which states, to affect the outcome of the election?' Because of the way the popular and electoral votes interact, the outcome of the analysis had some surprising and intriguing results. For example, in 2004, 57,787 votes would have given us President Kerry; and in 2000, 269 votes would have given us President Gore. In all there have been 12 US Presidential elections that were decided by less than a 1% margin; meaning if less than 1% of the voters in certain states had changed their mind to the other candidate the outcome of the election would have been different."
Thanks from the reminder (Score:5, Insightful)
"269 votes would have given us President Gore"
And eight years of being reminded of that sad fact can take a toll on a man's soul that can't be quantified.
How about (Score:4, Insightful)
Doesn't really matter how many people (Score:3, Insightful)
Never changes (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe these small margins indicate why things never change in politics. Nice work.
Re:99% off-topic question (Score:4, Insightful)
Same thing. Different pair of liars. Vote for the one you dislike the least.
Some... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:99% off-topic question (Score:3, Insightful)
The republican VP candidate is usually smarter than this year. Not necessarily 'better', mind you, but usually at least allowed to speak in public.
[/troll]
Re:Never changes (Score:1, Insightful)
Yes, this is exactly the point I take from it. There hasn't been a candidate that I actually wanted to win in... ever. In all cases the choices suck equally.
Put another way... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:99% off-topic question (Score:4, Insightful)
You know, there was this guy I actually really liked. But it seems you can't be a candidate if you are too staunch a defender of freedom!
Re:99% off-topic question (Score:4, Insightful)
Now, with so many avenues of info, there is a lot to choose from. Sadly, a lot of people only go to those sources which simply reinforce what they already believe.
Re:Thanks from the reminder (Score:4, Insightful)
If the election had gone the other way 8 years ago, we wouldn't be in Iraq fighting an unwinnable war.
Re:99% off-topic question (Score:3, Insightful)
This one started even earlier than usual, and the primary schedule (Iowa and New Hampshire excepted) tends to change every 4 years as states jockey for position. Other than that, and of course the particular candidates and issues in play, it's about the same.
One word of advice: vote for the candidate whose judgment in a crisis you trust most. Whatever they are promising will be so hacked by Congress that it usually doesn't matter in the long run. MHO, YMMV.
Showing the value of a single vote. (Score:3, Insightful)
Assuming the stats are true, it means Slashdot can determine the outcome of the election. Scary! :)
It also means that you should all make the effort to vote and be happy with the outcome or know that you have the right to bitch about the outcome because you voted for the other guy.
Efforts like "Rock the Vote" to raise awareness really are worthwhile. If you haven't voted lately, please do.
Re:99% off-topic question (Score:2, Insightful)
Same thing. Different pair of liars. Vote for the one you dislike the least.
Sad, but true.
We need instant run-off-voting. Voting should never about the 'lesser of two asshats'.
In 2000, 1 vote would have been enough... (Score:5, Insightful)
there were only 9 votes that counted, and switching 1 would have done it.
How often does the outcome matter? (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact that so many elections are so close seems to indicate that 'the people' don't have a strong preference for one candidate over another. Why? Because their policies are often nearly indistinguishable.
Look at this election for instance. Even on the issue of withdrawing from Iraq, both candidates plan to withdraw troops from Iraq based on conditions on the ground, and send them into Iraq. Neither of these candidates are going to stand up against this upcoming bank welfare bill. Even the candidate for "change" has voted with the Bush administration to protect telecoms from consequences for their illegal spying on Americans. And yet, people seem to think that this is "the most important election of our time". Bullshit.
So yeah 1% might swing the outcome of an election, but it's going to take more than 1% to cause any sort of real change. You might as well flip a coin, you'll get a 50/50 split that way too.
Re:Thanks from the reminder (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm still mad at the Republicans for not running McCain back in 2000. I think we'd be in a MUCH different situation with either Gore or McCain - that's before McCain was taken over by that pod person that's occupying his body now.
*GRMUBLING* Passing over Christine Whitman for that dingbat from Alaska....
Re:Importance of protecting the process (Score:1, Insightful)
"It also shows the importance of every vote and in protecting the rights of all to be able to cast their vote."
I would've said it's the opposite - that this shows how many elections, statistically speaking, are ties.
If voting were science, I'd have to reject the vote as inconclusive if the vote tallies are less than two standard deviations apart. What this is saying is that so many election are decided by "noise", not because there is a clear preference for one candidate or the other.
But, voting isn't science. It's politics.
Re:99% off-topic question (Score:2, Insightful)
Vote 3rd party. I don't care who, just vote 3rd party.
Voting for the same shit in a different bag is throwing your vote away. A 3rd party vote is the only one that matters.
Re:How about (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:How about (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:99% off-topic question (Score:2, Insightful)
No, you can be a candidate, you're just marginalized as a "crazy," or a "moon-bat," as in: "You think people ought to be more responsible for themselves? That's just crazy talk!"
Re:Thanks from the reminder (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:99% off-topic question (Score:3, Insightful)
Less than Margin of Error = Recount! (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't really understand this about US (or possibly any other) election system. In science, the margin of error for measurements being taken, or due to inherent flaws in a mechanism used gets quoted and becomes part of the results. If the margin of error is too large, results are inconclusive. Can we really vouch for any president elected by votes well within the margin of error for the combined effect of disparate tallying systems, vendors, and human fallibility? Has any system in the country ever been more accurate than 1% margin of error—or some ridiculous amount like 269 votes?
Seems unlikely.
Re:Thanks from the reminder (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, you see, there's this thing about military action: it's not all the same. It tends to actually matter who you attack, at what scale, with what goal, and with what strategy.
It is very possible that another leader would fuck up spectacularly too, but I have to believe that _most_ leaders would at least go after someone who actually had something to do with the attack.
Re:99% off-topic question (Score:3, Insightful)
How about just voting for the candidate you like better?
Maybe if 10% or even 20% of the voters did that, even if those candidates don't win, maybe the two parties will start swinging towards the direction those voters prefer.
Right now if > 99% of the voters vote for the two parties, the two parties can claim they are representing > 99% of the voters.
So you'd be voting for "Same Old Same Old" or "Hit Me Baby One More Time".
Re:How about (Score:5, Insightful)
Hanging chad? So the voting technology is so terrible that an elderly person who votes for Gore has a good chance of not pressing hard enough (parkisons, arthritis, weakness is a bitch you know) and thus nullifying their vote. I dont expect this kind of thing to happen in fist world countries. I think its pretty obvious what a hanging chad means. Tossing it out is borderline voting fraud.
Re:How about (Score:5, Insightful)
And that's just it. Ideally, any election would be run by an impartial third party, which is effectively impossible in the highly charged and partisan atmosphere encouraged by our system. I would be much more at ease if another country like Sweden stepped in to control the whole thing, just because theoretically they're less likely to attempt outright subversion of the process.
Or hell, at least someone less partial than one of the candidate's relatives. Fuck, even McDonalds has sweepstakes rules that employees and family members can't win prizes for similar reasons. Are we saying our elections are less important than McDonalds sweepstakes? Maybe not, but our actions sure are.
Modern electoral process (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Thanks from the reminder (Score:3, Insightful)
I suppose we've 'won' Afghanistan too eh?
notice how that's all gone quiet? That's because it's not good news.
Seriously... (Score:3, Insightful)
I live in a state that went Republican in 2000, and I realized afterward that if a thousand or so additional people voted for Gore, then the whole Florida recount issue would have been moot.
That is the example that I give to people nowadays that say, "I don't bother to vote. I mean, there are millions of people. My vote doesn't count."
If you don't vote, then you shouldn't complain when the you don't like the results of the election.
Re:99% off-topic question (Score:4, Insightful)
Too many people don't want to be free anymore. They want to be taken care of. No good can come from that mindset.
Re:Thanks from the reminder (Score:5, Insightful)
There is this thing called Phyrric victory [wikipedia.org]. Spending U.S.$ 1.5 trillion to turn one of the most corrupt states of the world into one of the most corrupt states of the world, increasing at the same time the number of political motivated killings from an average of 10,000 per year to 25,000 per year, moving from a pretty secular and multi religious state into a very fundamentalistic islamic one... technically it was a victory, yes.
Re:99% off-topic question (Score:5, Insightful)
The "cool kids" will, of course, tell you that everything is the same, everything sucks, and you should give up on trying to make a positive change in any part of your life or any part of your country.
Those people are dead wrong. Thats what they said about Gore and Bush, and I think its pretty obvious that a Gore presidency would have been 100% better for America. Dont give in to mindless peer-pressured apathy.
Re:Showing the value of a single vote. (Score:3, Insightful)
"Efforts like "Rock the Vote" to raise awareness really are worthwhile. If you haven't voted lately, please do."
I have to take issue with that. I tend towards "If you can't bother to educate yourself on the candidates' platforms and make an informed choice, please leave that responsibility to those who will."
Too much is at stake to let these elections be decided by party-line or single-issue voters.
Re:99% off-topic question (Score:2, Insightful)
I liked the idea of Ron Paul too, and his points about the banking system have become hilariously obvious in the last few weeks, but it's just not meant to be. Our elections don't run on sapient points anymore, but marketing. I'm fairly certain our system could sell snow to Eskimos, and human beings, due to their easily predictable and exploitable reactions to measured stimuli and various psychological research, are trivially manipulable.
And like it or not, the entrenched Republican and Democrat parties have too much terminal momentum to be so easily thwarted. It'll probably be different in a couple generations, but different isn't necessarily better. I'm curious, but not too optimistic, given how closely history is repeated due to human nature.
Re:What's the point of the Electoral College? (Score:3, Insightful)
I know it sounds a little off, but what it protects is the rural/suburban voter and the states with smaller populations, so that they have a say in the overall process. It helps put the state of Iowa, for example, on a little more equal footing with New York with its higher population. It also helps keep candidates from completely pandering to high-population urban areas and ignoring the rest of us. Its main problem is that it could be more proportional (divide electoral college votes proportionally within a state rather than winner-take-all), and tends to relegate the final outcome to a handful of states (Florida in 2000, Ohio 2004).
Re:How about (Score:2, Insightful)
At this point, who cares? There's no rewind button to back us up 4 or 8 years.
Really. Big Fucking Deal. Going back over all the crap from the past is a waste of time. Instead, we should see what we can do to make sure the mistakes of the past are not repeated. At least that way we get to make fresh, new, mistakes.
Re:Thanks from the reminder (Score:5, Insightful)
oh wait... well at least Mossadegh was elected, whereas Hussein killed his way to the top of the Ba'ath party. Either way, we've paved the path for fundamentalists to take over yet another major region with our manifest destiny pompous attitude. When you kill all of the secularists, the only ones left will be the fundamentalists.
Re:Thanks from the reminder (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How about (Score:2, Insightful)
I called the state headquarters of the party that did this to me and asked if they had a courtesy do not contact list. They did, and I added myself (of course, because they are assholes, it is on a per-organization basis, contacting the party won't stop candidates, etc.).
As a bonus, I wasted a few minutes of the contact persons time. Be sure to be polite, that will mind-fuck them way more than being a dick about it.
Re:What's the point of the Electoral College? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:99% off-topic question (Score:4, Insightful)
Do your research and vote for the candidate you like most, major parties be damned. You'll hear people tell you, "a vote for a third party is a vote for (whichever candidate they don't like)." This is not true, and is the very thing which keeps us locked in a two party system.
Vote with the person who seems intelligent, and qualified to lead. Not the one who uses amorphous taglines like, "hope," "change," and "new America" (this isn't a slight against Obama, however he is using these words with very few actual moves towards any real genuine change in politics - on slashdot this is more evident than most places).
Finally, its your vote. Don't get bought, sold, or caught up in rhetoric. You are an intelligent person. To quote yet another musician, "There is a war being waged for your mind. If you are thinking, you are winning."
Re:How about (Score:3, Insightful)
You're missing the point (Score:1, Insightful)
As grandparent said, if such a differentially small amount of voters can have such a drastic change in how a country is governed, something is wrong. You say 50% is happy with the result, but you might as well say that 50% is unhappy with the result. If a political system results in such an outcome, then perhaps it needs to be changed in such a way as to make compromise outcomes more likely. You'll have to agree with me that if say 80% were sort of happy with the result, that would have been a much better outcome than what we actually got.
P.S. I'm saying this as a fairly conservative person, so don't go all 'you're just sour you lost' on me. Also, ad hominem is a logical fallacy.
Re:Thanks from the reminder (Score:5, Insightful)
Gore would have known that Bin Laden was in Afghanistan/Pakistan, not Iraq.
What makes you think Bush didn't?
Re:Thanks from the reminder (Score:1, Insightful)
You are absolutely correct.
Instead, we'd be doing things that matter - like solving global warming by hunting down ManBearPig.
Re:Statiscial errors should substitute popular vot (Score:2, Insightful)
The winner-take-all selection of state electoral votes isn't something described or even mentioned in the U.S. Constitution.... and it is a mistake to think that it has to be the only system for selecting candidates for the U.S. Presidency either.
I think California would benefit from having a proportional selection of electors, where even a 4%-5% shift in votes would still be gaining a few extra electoral votes for each candidate. It would also give a chance for 3rd party candidates to actually get some legitimate electoral votes... which is perhaps why it won't ever be done.
Re:99% off-topic question (Score:5, Insightful)
Absolutely. The fact is that neither of the major candidates represent the people. They represent corporate interests first and foremost. Voting for one or the other simply continues the mandate of the corporate oligarchy. The two party system is an illusion, there is one corporate party with an absolute stranglehold on American politics. If we ever want to restore freedom to this country, we have to break it, and voting 3rd party is the only way short of revolution.
Don't blame Nader voters for following their conscience. Blame Gore for not representing policies they could vote for in good conscience.
Re:How about (Score:1, Insightful)
269 people alone would not have made a difference. It took 5,824,747 other people to make that margin so close.
Re:Thanks from the reminder (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, you see, there's this thing about military action: it's not all the same. It tends to actually matter who you attack, at what scale, with what goal, and with what strategy.
It is very possible that another leader would fuck up spectacularly too, but I have to believe that _most_ leaders would at least go after someone who actually had something to do with the attack.
First off, I too hate Bush. This still sounds to me like "Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos".
Don't believe me? How many democrats voted against the Iraq war?
The whole 50/50 coin toss election process the article points out suggests to me a bigger change is needed than a mere switch from Rep to Dem or vis. versa every couple years.
Re:Thanks from the reminder (Score:1, Insightful)
He made more and more people dependent on him and the government dole. That's an excellent way to stay in office.
Re:Thanks from the reminder (Score:5, Insightful)
What Gore has done in the past eight years scares me even more than what Bush has done.
(spit-take)
What planet are you living on? Do you actually read newspapers or anything? If an unnecessary war wasn't enough, then Gitmo, the Patriot Act, suspension of Habeas Corpus, rampant cronyism and corruption, then a $700 billion bailout for an economy that's been run into the ground doesn't phase you?
Yeah, what Gore has done over the past eight years is MUCH worse. We can't have people actually be aware of global warming!
Re:99% off-topic question (Score:4, Insightful)
I liked Ron Paul's views on the economy and his foreign policy, unfortunately he is also a misogynist, homophobe, and a religious nut.
Re:Thanks from the reminder (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Showing the value of a single vote. (Score:1, Insightful)
Actually the simple fact of voting means you forfeit your "right to bitch".
In theory you can't bitch at all since, by participating in the vote, you support the idea that the majority has the right to decide what's good for you, even if you don't agree.
This is what democracy is about. Sorry, no bitching allowed.
Re:Thanks from the reminder (Score:5, Insightful)
What the Iraq invasion was a campaign to establish a sphere of influence that would secure usa economical and geopolitical interests in the region.
Years later and the usa has not only failed at that but (and this is what's killing you) in the process shown its true colors to the whole world. The fall of the dollar, the collapsing economy, the conflict with Russia, that's just the beginning. The tide is turning, the world is starting to realize that "the world's only superpower" is more like a paper tiger and just as inertia pushed the usa forward despite the arrogance and ineptitude it's shown these last years, it will also send it crashing rock-bottom now that it has begun its fall.
Re:How about (Score:4, Insightful)
>>>>>>"did not have enough ballots according to Florida legal standards (where hanging chads are called null votes).
>Ahh, but that would have ignored "voter intent"....
>
Yes true, but I'm sorry, the law is the law. You don't change it after the fact (although bleeding-hearts like to ignore the law). If the law states hanging chads are "null votes" then that's what you follow. No exceptions.
Thank god we have George W Bush in office to uphold the law and protect the constitution. Who knows what a bleeding heart liberal like Al Gore would have done with it?
Re:Thanks from the reminder (Score:5, Insightful)
Welcome to fan psychology.
Because your candidate was terrible and you were told how terrible he would be before you voted for him. You are now partially responsible for his actions. So logically the other candidate had to have been equally bad.
In the 2000 race Bush was already known bad, even terrible, a hypocrite extraordinaire. Gore was known to be BORING. These are not the same. While the Neocons waged their standard slimy smear campaign the Dems sat there and turned the other cheek. Good God, how do you lose against a cocaine junkie? These days Neocons and stupid people still believe the lies.. AL Gore said he invented the internet!
TLDR: Just because you supported the worst president in history doesn't mean that other guy was just as bad. E.G. you liked the guy who has killed more than a million innocent people VS that peace prize winner guy.
Re:How about (Score:3, Insightful)
We have these problems now precisely because Bush stole the election of 2000, and quite possibly stole the 2004 election in Ohio and Flordia (see http://blackboxvoting.org/ [blackboxvoting.org]). There is a very real possibility we NEVER elected these neocons to power, and the mess we see, and the failed leadership we suffer under, was no more democratically elected than the recently deposed president of Pakistan.
Re:Designed that way (Score:4, Insightful)
That's probably what everyone has heard, because that's what tends to be written in the history books that make it past school boards.
However, there are actually good historical records of the deiliberations at the constitutional convention, and this is not true. The system we have, along with the Senatorial system and the now obsolete 3/5ths rule [wikipedia.org] and a whole buch of other little rules and clauses nobody pays much attention to anymore, were all pushed by the slave states, and their allies in the north. Their worry was that in a straight democracy the more populous (and at the time more religous) North would simply vote slavery out of existance. The entire system of government we have was designed to prevent the North from ever being able to do that. Nearly any good or bad feature of the electoral college system is just a side-effect.
Re:Thanks from the reminder (Score:3, Insightful)
Wow that was ignorant. Do you really think Gore would have been just as bad as Bush? You are sad.
False, it's the system ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Thanks from the reminder (Score:5, Insightful)
When you kill all of the secularists, the only ones left will be the fundamentalists.
Apparently you're not aware of how the US military, especially the Marine Corp, operates. They're job is to kill people and break things. They don't discriminate, they're equal-opportunity. When it comes to anyone, fundamentalists or secularists, taking up arms against them it's "kill 'em all and let Allah sort 'em out"!
You make it sound like Iran in the 50's or something. Its not like we led a coup against a secularist leader who dared to nationalize their nation's oil...
oh wait... well at least Mossadegh was elected, whereas Hussein killed his way to the top of the Ba'ath party.
Yes, and every other country and people throughout history has done bad things to other people and countries, especially if you're looking at it from the losing side. That's human nature. Life, the world, and the people in it generally aren't fair. Countries change allies, make new friends and new enemies. Interests shift. The US and Russia were allies in WW2.
At least the US has tried, for the most part, to be a force for good in the world when it could without damaging it's own interests too badly. Most other countries don't, haven't, don't care what happens to any other peoples/countries, don't even pretend to try to be "good guys", and ruthlessly pursue their own interests and power.
I'd say that most other countries, if given the power that the US has been wielding for the past 60 years or so, would have been on a total blitzkrieg-like war campaign to completely conquer the world. How do you think things in the world would be if the US had collapsed and the USSR had been left as the sole superpower? Or China? Maybe the US isn't all sweetness and light and kumbaya, but trust me...it could be much worse! Could it be better? Sure. But let's try to have a little perspective here, although I know that US-bashing is the cool thing to do, especially here.
Yeah, I know this will get modded to extinction for violating the group-think and group-hate. Someone has to say it though, and I've got the karma.
Cheers!
Strat
Re:Thanks from the reminder (Score:4, Insightful)
In 1991 the mission didn't include toppling the power structures and trying to enforce peace amongst the people in a democratic way.
It just involved spanking Saddam out of Kuwait, much easier task, much more defined results. The iraqi army were defeated in days the second time too, it's just that the objective was more sophisticated (and less well thought out) this time around.
Constrained Optimization Problems (Score:5, Insightful)
Large constrained optimization problems get solved all the time, algorithms like simplex scale nicely and the computer doesn't care that you've thrown hundreds of variables at it (well, it bogs down a bit, especially with non-linearities).
I've been paid rather well to consult on problems like this. The biggest they thought there was something wrong with their solver, but it was just bad data. The people collecting the data had been given inconsistent instructions, things like "measure at the beginning of the year" vs "measure halfway through the year". Garbage in, garbage out, and no fancy algorithm is going to save you.
Re:What are the odds these were random? (Score:1, Insightful)
This is an ill-formed question at best, nonsense at worst. We don't randomly select people to vote from the population, then we could make some inferences like you mention. We, in essence, have the complete census of those that voted, so inferential statistics are not needed, and in fact, meaningless. If we do assume that random people showed up to vote, I suppose we could easily compute p-values, but I don't know how valuable that would be. The sample size is so large that in all but extreme cases (e.g., FL/2000), we would find highly significant results even with a small delta...
Re:Thanks from the reminder (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Thanks from the reminder (Score:3, Insightful)
In fact, I can't believe I'll ever hate ANYONE as much as I hate Bush.
You don't even know the man. All you know is a caricature handed to you through your television and news papers.
Re:Thanks from the reminder (Score:5, Insightful)
We know his actions, and that is the true measure of a man. GWB, while possibly a nice guy, has done many many evil things.
Re:Thanks from the reminder (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with Iraq is that the war was/is based on lies. Lies about WMD, about ties to Al Quaeda, lies about oil and more. The problem is Bush lied to the people and has used those lies to line the pockets of corporate friends at the expense of the American public's financial well being and the Iraqi people's lives and well being. Maybe Iraq will become a better country in the future, but this mess has been about as poorly handled as it could have been at the executive level.
I believe (but can not know) that Gore would have focused on the real issue in Afghanistan. I believe Gore would have focused on reducing national debt, not increasing it. I believe we would mostly be better off if Gore had been elected. All except Gore and many of the wealthiest Americans.
InnerWeb
Re:Thanks from the reminder (Score:1, Insightful)
I'm disputing that we have 'won' by any reasonable measure in either theatre.
The US situation in Iraq and Afghanistan isn't all that dissimilar to the situation the Romans faced in places like Germany, N-Britain, Palestine and, surprise, surprise, what is today parts of Iraq. The Roman were mostly in control of the area but suffered constant casualties due to ambushes, raids and small scale battles. Basically what we call 'asymmetric warfare' these days. All they achieved was to suppress the locals but they never quite managed to extinguish the hostility that smoldered away underneath the surface. What is wearing the USA down is the same thing as wore down the Romans. It isn't so much the steady drain of casualties as it is the immense cost of these operations even the USA can't sustain this effort indefinitely. The problem is that if the leave the shit will most probably hit the fan unless they put some pretty brutal people in charge int these countries. Of course that will in turn make them look like hypocrites after they claimed to have removed Saddam because he was a brutal dictator.
Re:How about (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps that is the simplest solution, but it is not the correct one. The correct one is to fix the system of plurality voting which when combined with the illogical way that most states allocated electoral votes, produces a system that is just mathematically wrong.
I could think of simpler and equally foolish approaches, such as coin tosses or foot races. Both are as random as forcing non-voters to vote.
Re:Thanks from the reminder (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, that seems to be the entire point. They havn't even tried to change anything or make a fuss over much of anything. Get a bill rejected and vetoed 5 times. Hold the votes on the controversial issues to let everyone see where who stands.
Instead, we have soaring gas prices (they weren't over 2 somthing a gallong until the dems took over). We have a failing financial market with the biggest bail out ever being of concern over something that congress knew about and at least one presidential candidate attempted to do something about before now.
It's really a let down when you look at the party that is supposed to fix things, see how the country has gone down hill since they took control, and instead of seeing failed attempts indicating that they were at least trying, you see, "elect more of us". Am i/we the only ones who think that's a little screwed up?
Re:Thanks from the reminder (Score:5, Insightful)
Imagine that, going back to the way things were supposed to be (wars requiring a Declaration of War from Congress), rather than the President simply being able to jump on a plane and invade any country he wants under false pretenses.
Re:Thanks from the reminder (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem was this was a huge game of chicken against a player who is proven to be extremely reckless. There's a good chance that Bush would simply have attempted to muddle through, counting on the inevitable disaster to get Congress to open the purse strings.
Re:Thanks from the reminder (Score:5, Insightful)
Where's the moderation for "+1, Depressing"?
Re:We win. (Score:1, Insightful)
"Deregulation caused it" (Score:4, Insightful)
"I suggest you read up on corporate finance because your post indicates a profound misunderstanding of the current economical crisis' ACTUAL source : Deregulation of investmebnt banking"
You sir, are quite full of shit. The repeal of Glass-Steagall simply allowed regular banks to get into other financial activities... stocks, bonds, etc. It didn't have a damn thing to do A) the government pressuring banks to give home loans to people that didn't qualify for them, and B) banks caving and giving those loans out of fear of being labled "racist". One political schmuck was saying last night that these "ninja loans"... no income, no assetts, were morally good because "the free market doesn't work for poor people".
The Glass-Steagall repeal also wasn't responsible for the culture of easy credit that helped get us into this mess. This is largely a failure of responsibility on the part of all the American people, rich and poor, democratic and republican. We abandoned responsibility, and now the bill is coming due. Victor Davis Hanson had it right... we're victims, but not innocent victims. We stopped seeing homes as a place to live, and starting seeing them as a way to make a quick buck by "flipping" them after some minor improvements. We all did things that made the price of homes shoot through the roof, far above any rational standard, and now reality has set in. The McMansions were never worth a million dollars or more. That was paper inflation, and we greedily, eagerly helped keep their prices inflated. We made it worse by taking out mortgages we couldn't afford.
One finance guy on Bloomberg made an excellent point yesterday. There would be no crisis if these mortgage holders were paying their bills. That's what it all comes down to. So spare me the bullshit about deregulation. This isn't about regulations, it's about responsibility. When the government did try new regulations to reform Fannie/Freddie in 2003, it was blocked, largely by Democrats, because the tightened lending standards for minorities and the poor would have been "unfair".
Re:Never changes (Score:3, Insightful)
Very nicely presented; thank you.
To take this a bit further, in any party system where the populace elects representatives and each individual has one vote, the system will tend to develop two major parties where each party on any issue tries to represent the center of the bell shaped curve while simultaneously trying to be somewhat more attractive to either the left or right nearly-on-center voters than the opposing party. The end result is that most of the time, elected officials are pretty representative of the views of a large block of almost average citizens. That's the basis of the US system, and it works. Unfortunately.
The following is very USA centric.
This is unfortunate because change always develops at the margins, not the center. With the problems that your generation faces, you need meaningful change, not just mild shifts in the status quo. (I will be around to experience the early results of the outcomes of these changes, but basically this is a fight that needs to be fought by younger persons than my cohort. This is mostly your problem, you twenty, thirty, and forty year olds.)
The US system fills elected roles with persons who are opposed to significant change. Persons who are committed to moving the status quo just slightly toward a more conservative (the Golden Age was yesterday and we need to get back there) or progressive (we can usher in a Golden Age tomorrow if we just do this little change today) position. This kind of system does not provide true leadership: leadership arises from the thin margins of the bell curve, not from the center. When significant changes have to be made, you need something other than a US type of system to put persons with true leadership qualities into effective roles. Another way of saying this is that the current system institutionalizes the tyranny of the majority and we cannot afford that suppression when we know we need fresh approaches to meet the challenges that are on the horizon.
In the past, democracies were limited to one vote per individual due mostly to the technical problems in trying to audit any other approach. That is no longer the case, and as we look at how to prevent further Diebold corruptions, we might as well start thinking about a larger overhaul of our voting system. There are several really interesting multiple vote systems where a voter records his first and second choice candidates in one way or another.
For instance, an individual voter could have selected Nader as his first choice, and either Bush or Kerry as his second choice. Nader would still have lost on the first ballot count, but those votes would have then transferred to the second choices. We would possibly have had President Kerry and a very different recent history with a very different set of current problems.
The differences are more subtle and profound than simply making the spoiler role a contributory role. Knowing that your second choice will be used if your first choice doesn't win would allow voters to more freely express what they would really like. It would also mean that candidates from the two major parties would have to change campaign tactics and argue that they will do a better job of representing Nader's interests than their opponent, so they should be your second choice. It would also lead to alliances between the major parties and smaller parties, where a smaller party would offer its support to a candidate as a second choice in return for concessions on something important to its constituency. Rather than the elected government being representative of a two almost average groups, the influence of a broader range of groups would come to bear on the issues. Including groups that have been actively working on the issues, and can take the lead in developing solutions.
I'm guessing that core elements in both the Republican and Democratic parties would oppose this. But this kind of change could be brought about in the next few years by grassroots efforts. It is, after all, a relatively simple concept that both average and almost average US citizens are capable of understanding, and who would see personal benefits in such a constitutional change.
Re:How about (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is that the people who live in urban New York cannot appreciate the viewpoints of people in rural Montana, and vice-versa. Reducing the election to a purely populous vote would result in Montana being ruled by New York. Why would Montana willingly subject themselves to that? The guys who started this thing worked out a compromise called the electoral college, and both New York and Montana agreed to the deal.
The contract may create problems, but it was the only compromise that allowed for the United STATES to come together in the first place.
Re:Thanks from the reminder (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem with WWII for the U.S. is that the U.S. didn't experience it the way the other involved countries did. Like, remember the Blitz, when bombs were dropping on New York City? Oh, that was London. Remember when San Francisco and Chicago were destroyed by firestorms? Oh, that was Tokyo and Dresden. Remember the long war of attrition that took place in Detroit? Oops, that was Stalingrad.
Not only that, but the U. S. had a similar experience with WWI.
So, basically, the rest of the industrialized world was in ruins, but America was in fine shape, relatively speaking. This caused a lot of Americans to draw the wrong lessons about war, and War Socialism.
The truth is the Second World War didn't so much help America as it destroyed all of America's competitors across the world.
Re:Thanks from the reminder (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Thanks from the reminder (Score:4, Insightful)
Its pretty clear in hindsight that had all the ballots been counted in FL, even not counting the loose chad ballots, but including the absentee ballots (that for no reason weren't counted) and letting that one county of old folks that incorrectly used the butterfly ballots revote, that Gore won FL by about 20,000 votes. At election time, the Republicans really begin to play dirty, and Democrats, for all their befuddlement, are generally not dishonest (maybe to a fault). The FL Republicans and the SCOTUS stole that election. Gore should hold his head high, there is no shame in being boned out of an election.
Re:Thanks from the reminder (Score:5, Insightful)
Not everything is Bush's fault, but a lot is. Bin Laden launching an attack on the U.S. isn't Bush's fault. But failing to watch Bin Laden beforehand is his fault. Failing to catch him afterwards is his fault.
Sunnis and Shiites hate each other. That's not Bush's fault, but when the administration invades Iraq without an occupation plan or enough forces, dismantles their army, and then ignores the growing insurgency and civil war, that is Bush's fault.
Hurricane Katrina isn't Bush's fault. Hiring incompetent guys like Brown, and failing to respond to the disaster, that is Bush's fault.
Afghanistan being a failed state, that's not Bush's fault. But not being able to secure it because you invaded Iraq, that is Bush's fault.
Bush isn't to blame for everything that's gone wrong in 8 years, but he has a lot to owe up to. That's why he's in the running for the title of Worst President in U.S. History. And finally, it's worth considering that not everything that happens to the U.S. is Bush's fault. But everything that happens to the U.S. is his responsibility. It's just sad that he never seems to have understood that.
Re:WTF??? (Score:3, Insightful)
I've wondered about that too. How does someone with $3000/month income get into a $3000/month mortgage?? Oh, adjustable rates. THIS year it's just $1000. NEXT year, it'll be $3000. You'll get a raise by then, won't you??
From your previous post, "We stopped seeing homes as a place to live, and starting seeing them as a way to make a quick buck by "flipping" them after some minor improvements."
No shit. And the upshot is that now ordinary people on ordinary wages can no longer afford to buy an ordinary house, and often can't afford to RENT it either.
Check out these threads for how it affects real people in real life:
http://www.city-data.com/forum/montana/44408-why-some-people-so-mad.html [city-data.com]
This is the same mentality as everywhere tho -- CEOs are doing the same thing with business. Get in, "improve" the bottom line, grab that golden parachute, get out before the "improvements" collapse the business; take your very selective resume to the next company, rinse and repeat. It's just flipping for businesses.
No one seems content with steady and stable anymore. Gotta have "growth" or they're not happy.
Re:WTF??? (Score:3, Insightful)
Greed is the real problem and if you even say the word greed you might as well have stripped naked and said FUCK on TV. Short run thinking like the kind we've been seeing that took down Tyco, Enron and now the collapse we're seeing, is fueled typically by greed. Who cares if the company's not around in 2 years if I can make a million in a year and a half and get out?
Re:Thanks from the reminder (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, like Bush's anti-terrorism plan has gone so well.. Starting a war with a country completely unrelated to those who attacked us over 7 years ago, killing thousands of our citizens, spending billions, and he STILL hasn't caught those who planned/directed/masterminded the attack.
As much as people attack Obama for saying he is willing to talk to our enemies in some circumstances, he has also said he would be willing to invade Pakistan to actually find the attackers.
(I say this as someone who probably agrees with a higher number of *specific* ideologies of McCain's, but won't vote for him because of my strong disagreement with his views on a few of his most strongly held, like about the war in Iraq.)