'Cellphone Effect' Could Skew Polling Predictions 836
Ponca City writes "A good deal of polling data suggest that Republicans may win the House of Representatives in today's mid-term elections. However, Nate Silver writes in the NY Times that there are several factors that could skew the election, allowing Democrats to outperform their polls and beat consensus expectations. Most prominent is the 'cellphone effect.' In 2003, just 3.2% of households were cell-only, while in the 2010 election one-quarter of American adults have ditched their landlines and rely exclusively on their mobile phones, and a lot of pollsters don't call mobile phones. Cellphone-only voters tend to be younger, more urban, and less white — all Democratic demographics — and a study by Pew Research suggests that the failure to include them might bias the polls by about 4 points against Democrats, even after demographic weighting is applied. Another factor that could skew results is the Robopoll effect, where there are significant differences between the results shown by automated surveys and those which use live human interviewers — the 'robopolls' being 3 or 4 points more favorable to Republicans over all. It may be that only adults who are extremely engaged by politics (who are more likely to be Republican, especially this year) bother to respond to robocalls. Still, when all is said and done, 'more likely than not, Republicans will indeed win the House, and will do so by a significant margin,' writes Silver. 'But just as Republicans could beat the consensus, Democrats could too, and nobody should be particularly shocked if they do.'"
I'm sitting this one out (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sitting this one out, and possibly 2012 as well. Voting for the guy or gal that lies the least still means I'm supporting a liar. The very nature of politics nowadays automatically means someone with enough clout to run for election is unfit to serve...
Polls are irrelevant (Score:2, Insightful)
The party which wins will be the party which is more successful in hacking electronic voting machines.
Demographic weighting is missing...a demographic? (Score:4, Insightful)
Cellphone-only voters tend to be younger, more urban, and less white — all Democratic demographics — and a study by Pew Research suggests that the failure to include them might bias the polls by about 4 points against Democrats, even after demographic weighting is applied.
Umm...isn't the point of demographic weighting to factor in "unweighted" demographics like this?
younger, more urban, and less white (Score:1, Insightful)
Cellphone-only voters tend to be younger, more urban, and less white -- all Democratic demographics...
And all far less likely to vote than old, white people.
Maybe the Democratic GOTV effort will surprise me, but I was less than impressed with the "historic" turnout among young people in the '08 election. The vast majority of them still are either too apathetic or too cynical to bother voting.
And will those first-time African American voters from '08 still turn out even though Obama is not on the ballot this year? Will Latinos turn out even though the Democrats did nothing on immigration reform?
collective insanity (Score:4, Insightful)
American public: "Wow, those Republicans sure fucked everything up. Better vote Democrat this time."
T+4 years: "Wow, those Democrats sure fucked everything up. Better vote Republican!"
T+8 years: "Wow, those Republicans sure fucked everything up. Better vote Democrat this time."
Umm, people? We have other choices, you know. The extremes of *any* party are going to be nut-jobs, but we can probably do a lot better to let the D's and R's set a few rounds out.
But we won't, will we. Because voting is supposed to be about thinking with other people's brains and voting with the flock.
Nice theory fails in practice (Score:2, Insightful)
Republican preference has been consistently underrepresented in polls for as long as I remember- and cellphones didn't suddenly appear in the last year.
Re:I'm sitting this one out (Score:2, Insightful)
On the other hand, if you vote third party, politicians will start changing to see how they can tap into your vote.
Incidentally, there were some very compelling reasons Abraham Lincoln would have been considered not fit to serve (he owed too many people favors by 'buying' their vote in the primaries, he was hugely driven by ambition, he had a poor family relationship, he was a lawyer), and yet he turned out ok. Everyone is flawed, great people do great things despite their flaws.
Re:I'm sitting this one out (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So... (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually I would like to see the polling banned.
It introduces way to much bias into the process. People tend to not want to throw away their vote so once a canidate is in the lead people tend to want for them or not for them instead of the person that they think is the right one.
That and they should keep primary results a secret until every state votes.
It is funny but I had a long drawn out discussion about the value of randomizing ballots and bias. This bias is probably a million times greater than who is first on the ballot.
Since everybody has the right to a secret ballot make it illegal to ask people how they will vote or have voted!
Re:Vote or Die (Score:5, Insightful)
"Now, there's one thing you might have noticed I don't complain about: politicians. Everybody complains about politicians. Everybody says they suck. Well, where do people think these politicians come from? They don't fall out of the sky. They don't pass through a membrane from another reality. They come from American parents and American families, American homes, American schools, American churches, American businesses and American universities, and they are elected by American citizens. This is the best we can do folks. This is what we have to offer. It's what our system produces: Garbage in, garbage out. If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're going to get selfish, ignorant leaders. Term limits ain't going to do any good; you're just going to end up with a brand new bunch of selfish, ignorant Americans. So, maybe, maybe, maybe, it's not the politicians who suck. Maybe something else sucks around here... like, the public. Yeah, the public sucks. There's a nice campaign slogan for somebody: 'The Public Sucks. Fuck Hope
I don't vote. Two reasons. First of all it's meaningless; this country was bought and sold a long time ago. The shit they shovel around every 4 years *pfff* doesn't mean a fucking thing. Secondly, I believe if you vote, you have no right to complain. People like to twist that around – they say, 'If you don't vote, you have no right to complain', but where's the logic in that? If you vote and you elect dishonest, incompetent people into office who screw everything up, you are responsible for what they have done. You caused the problem; you voted them in; you have no right to complain. I, on the other hand, who did not vote, who in fact did not even leave the house on election day, am in no way responsible for what these people have done and have every right to complain about the mess you created that I had nothing to do with.”
-George Carlin
Re:So... (Score:4, Insightful)
And even if it weren't WHY THE FUCK IS POLLING ALL THEY TALK ABOUT? Paying attention to the news will tell you 1. Who is running 2. How likely they are to get elected 3. If they are having sex with someone who isn't their spouse 4. What their opponents are saying about them, in order of most to least information.
Not on there: their history or what they will actually do (if anything) when elected. Who do I vote for, the guy who's likely to win? Because that's about the only thing you'll get from the news.
How a candidate is polling is of interest to the candidate and his staff, and to people who already know who they are voting for to either say "Ha ha, we're going to win!" or "Damnit, we're going to lose!" To everyone else, it should be trivial information.
Re:I'm sitting this one out (Score:5, Insightful)
Hmm. Taking your complaint seriously:
I'm not sure you conclusion is supportable. If you are voting for whomever "lies the least" then you're actually supporting honesty (assuming you actually can telling more lies). If other people vote the same way then you could counteract the effect of people voting for whomever tells them what they want to hear. Looking at it from a macro point of view, voting for the least dishonest person increases the value of honesty in campaigns. Failing to vote at all on that basis does the opposite of what you want, it actually encourages more dishonest behavior because it increases the relative value of the votes of the gullible (by making the votes of skeptical irrelevant).
Re:I'm sitting this one out (Score:3, Insightful)
You're right, I do have more choices...and every one of my choices is a person running under false pretenses who won't do what they say they will.
Not voting breeds apathy, you have no right to complain if you dont, etc. etc....well you know what? Voting for someone just because they aren't a part of the two-party system still puts me on record as having supported that person.
Like I said in my OP, voting for the person who lies the least still means I'm supporting a liar.
Re:I'm sitting this one out (Score:2, Insightful)
That is the most hilarious thing I've ever heard.
You actually think they don't ignore you even if you do vote?
you are the perfect slave (Score:5, Insightful)
in your words, is the perfect cattle of an authoritarian country, the perfect double plus good citizen
the simple truth of the matter is, if you wait for your perfect candidate, you will never vote. and even then you will find something wrong with them. every election, ever held, and will ever be held, will simply be a choice between the lesser of two evils. no one is pure, no one doesn't have lies spread about them
the real criminal is you: you who hold your candidates to impossible standards, and then complain no one meets those standards
what you are really doing is rationalizing your desire to absolve yourself of responsibility for the society you live in. you are detaching yourself from any crimes that happens in your society, absolving yourself of guilt: "i didn't choose our leaders"
and in a country composed of people who think like you, sits the happiest tyrant
go to work slave. don't ever complain again. even when they increase your workhours and decrease your salary. not your fault, right?
you, all by yourself, no one else to blame, have given up the right to complain, by choosing not to do the ONE TINY THING that guarantees that you live in a free country: VOTE
Re:I'm sitting this one out (Score:5, Insightful)
There are good politicians. Not all of them are hopelessly corrupt. You are just too lazy to do the research. Finding a good one to support is too much work, and your self serving and frankly lazy cynicism makes you seem wise to the ignorant, so why bother?
Re:Lopsided summary... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:So... (Score:3, Insightful)
That's not an issue with polling, it's an issue with using a terribly flawed voting system (first past the post). Fix the system and it would fix quite a few political problems. For example, preferential voting eliminates the need for strategic voting as you've described above.
Re:I'm sitting this one out (Score:5, Insightful)
Libertarians are run by big money. There is nothing big money likes better than total deregulation and a government whose only function is to protect the property of the haves from the have nots. You are a willing tool of folks like the billionaire Koch brothers, who fund libertarian and tea party candidates who promise to destroy the only thing keeping them in check: government regulation. Thankfully, by voting libertarian you are just throwing your vote away, the majority of Americans can see through the scam and would never vote diametrically opposite their true interests.
Re:I'm sitting this one out (Score:3, Insightful)
There are good politicians.
Not in Maryland, there aren't. I've done my research, and none of them come across as genuine. They all spew out talking points and they all insist they (or their "side") have all the answers.
As soon as someone tries to tell me that only they (or their "side") have the answers, they lose all credibility with me.
Re:I'm sitting this one out (Score:3, Insightful)
What does that mean? Does that mean you don't consent to your government? If so, there's a really easy solution for you. It involves moving, but you'll never have to live under a government you don't consent to again.
You think voting may create the "illusion of consent" (implying there is no actual consent), but not voting creates the reality of apathy.
If you disagree with the choices you're being presented with, then find the nearest political office of someone who does represent your views and volunteer.
Re:I'm sitting this one out (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Lead in questions to determine voter type... (Score:1, Insightful)
Most polls use the turnout numbers for last election as a baseline for potential voters, then ask questions to determine to which party the respondent belongs. If polls spit out just the raw numbers, they'd be more than useless.
Your worries about skewed numbers are mostly unjustified....it's been 50+ years since the "DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN!" days. (And younger, urban voters don't vote in mid-term elections anyhow.)
There's only so much normalizing you can do with an increasingly skewed sample before you're just making things up.
Re:Vote or Die (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I'm sitting this one out (Score:2, Insightful)
There are other reasons to vote too - for example, the proposed Montgomery County ambulance fee is on the ballot. Ultimately, things like that & the composition of the school board have a real effect on the quality of life. The perfect is the enemy of the good, especially in respect to politicians, so I do try to go for the least bad one.
Re:I'm sitting this one out (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with write-ins is that in some states, Georgia for example, a write-in candidate gets your ballot thrown out since the Diebold machine can't handle those. I confirmed this with the Secretary of State's office.
Your ballot gets "thrown out" of the machine, and gets hand count. That's the good news.
What's the downside of that?
Who can say (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm doing graduate research involving monitoring students in computer science labs. Today the instructor asked how many students were planning to vote. Around 15% raised their hands. At least that many had a stunned look in their eyes as though they didn't even realize it was election day.
Young people may be more likely to own only cell-phones and tend to be much more progressive, but it seems as though they may be a lot less likely to vote. Most of them probably live within a few blocks of where they can vote and it's a nice day out so there's not much of an excuse.
I follow Silver's site as he often writes a lot about the statistics behind his model, which I usually find more interesting than the results or political commentary, but if these observations are true, why the hell aren't they built into his model? If these effects actually exist and skew polling results, why haven't they already been taken into consideration? Also, what effects exist that skew the results in the other direction and what evidence supports them?
This article feels sloppy, especially when compared to the usual high quality from fivethirtyeight. Let's wait another twelve hours and then we'll have a pretty good idea about the actual outcome and can start speculating what might have caused it to deviate from the expected results so that the prediction model can be adjusted accordingly.
Re:I'm sitting this one out (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, okay, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt then. There are places without any good choices.
On the other hand, what if one side is owned lock stock and barrel by corporate interests, and the other side is only fifty percent in the pocket of big money? Then all the policies coming from one side would be geared towards making more money for the rich, while only half the policies from the other side had that goal. Just an example, but I still think you've given up fighting for your own interests too easily. Remember, by default the powerful remain powerful, the status quo stays the same.
By not voting you are voting for things to stay the same, and I don't think that's what you want, or what is in your best interest.
Re:no, no bias here at all (Score:3, Insightful)
Complete wishful bullshit.
Amazing how much rationalization is going into analyzing (and trying to explain away) polling data that suggests a Democratic bloodbath. What, too much "change" in the air now?
Why do you even bother trying to pay attention? Who cares what analysts have to say about any of this? Why does everyone put so much stock into figuring out what may happen when they can just shut the hell up for a minute and watch what actually does happen? The election is going to happen regardless of what talking heads on TV do, so why bother with the predictions?
Re:no, no bias here at all (Score:5, Insightful)
Whether statistical models are good predictors of future outcomes should be a topic near and dear to every slashdotter. Bringing this up in the context of a midterm election is not "wishful thinking"-- it's an interesting problem.
The difference between your anecdotal story and the one in the article is that the effect the author is talking about is a statistical one, and he cites evidence to support his position. Regardless if the outcome of the current election cycle, if real, this is an effect that polling organizations will have to account for.
That sounds... dangerous (Score:1, Insightful)
What you're suggesting is that we make it illegal to study the correlation between who candidates are popular and who is declared the winner. It seems like quite a big leap away from open democracy... Sure, there could still be polls afterwards... But there would be far less incentive (political, financial, etc.) after someone has already been declared a winner. I really don't consider that such a good idea.
Rather, the system of "Unless your vote is the decisive one, it doesn't matter" (it doesn't help to vote for someone who would win regardless of it or to vote for someone who won't win anyways) is broken. Where I live, we use D'Hondt method [wikipedia.org] (and have quite a lot more parties) so voting is much more likely to have some effect.
Re:I'm sitting this one out (Score:3, Insightful)
What does that mean? Does that mean you don't consent to your government? If so, there's a really easy solution for you. It involves moving, but you'll never have to live under a government you don't consent to again.
Where? There used to be a pressure valve for society. If you didn't like the government, you moved to the frontier. With literally everything claimed on earth right now, (even Antarctica and effectively the sea floor) you don't have much option of 'move'.
Perhaps you meant move and hope no one notices, or move and get ready to fight.
Re:I'm sitting this one out (Score:5, Insightful)
Voting for third-party candidates (unless you can rally enough votes to actually win, which is structurally unlikely without changing the electoral system first) is unlikely to change that.
This is rather well demonstrated to be false from the fact that, in the rather rare individual elections in which third party candidates have won more than 20% of the vote, the winning major party candidates have still claimed mandates.
For the most part, the whole point of negative campaigning is to get people who might otherwise vote for the other major party candidate to, in rough order of preference, vote for the candidate on whose behalf the negative ad is prevent, not vote at all, or vote for a third-party candidate. There's a reason why major parties often are found channeling support to "independent" or third-party candidates whose natural appeal overlaps that of their major-party opponent.
Voting for a third-party candidate doesn't "send a message" to the major parties, except the message that their negative campaigning against eachother is working exactly as designed.
No, its not. It may or may not be good tactics, but its certainly not a logical fallacy.
Re:I'm sitting this one out (Score:5, Insightful)
While the high-profile election seats may be that way, local elections actually generally have people that will effect your daily life. Should the city revise your street to be more cyclist friendly, at the expense of parking? Will they approve of installing billboards in front of the local lake? You have a pretty solid voice in deciding who makes those decisions. And people at the local level tend to be genuine and earnest.
Similarly, if your state does ballot propositions, they can be incredibly powerful. California might end the war on pot. Massachusetts might kill affordable housing. These are important things which are up for a yes-or-no vote.
I once thought like you do. In 2000, I thought "These guys are both sellout corporate tools who are only interested in money." "They both must be equally bad," I thought. OMFG did Bush prove me wrong.
The lesser of two evils might still be evil, but damn can the greater of two evils get us into some huge intractable problems.
Re:you are the perfect slave (Score:5, Insightful)
such a person doesn't exist. everyone lies, including you
every election, forever, to ever be held, in any society, forever more, will be a choice between two imperfect human beings
all you can EVER do is merely steer society in the direction you want by voting for the person who is closer to your way of thinking, even if only slightly closer, and even if only very distant from your beliefs
that's the best you will ever get
deal with it
Re:I'm sitting this one out (Score:5, Insightful)
Voting for the lesser of two evils is not necessarily a bad strategy.
Let's say you have an election between candidates A, B, and C. You really want A to win, you think B is somewhat evil but much better than C, and you really really don't want C. Polls show A at 2% of the vote, B at 49% of the vote, and C at 49% of the vote. Now, who do you vote for? No question that C is out. But the choice between A and B is tougher - if you vote for A, you increase the chance C will win. If you vote for B, A can never get the support they need. As an individual voter, you're in a bind - voting for A will help in the long run, but voting for B will be an improvement right now.
It also matters a lot how bad the various evils are. If, in the above situation, you'd rate A at +100, B at -10, and C at -10000, B is probably the better choice. If you'd rate A at +100, B at -100, and C at -150, then A is probably better.
Re:I'm sitting this one out (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Vote or Die (Score:4, Insightful)
As a result of the 2000 election, hundreds of thousands of people died.
And to you, it's the same as a TV show.
Why, exactly, should it surprise you when we're left with only lousy politicians?
Re:Vote or Die (Score:5, Insightful)
So you only want to vote for the person you think is going to win?
I voted this morning. Most of the people I voted for were never mentioned on the news, in the papers, and most people don't even know about them. I did my research, found the person I liked and I voted for them even though they are likely to win. Waste of time? I think not. Every time I vote that's one more little bit of the percentage of being recognized.
Re:I'm sitting this one out (Score:4, Insightful)
I did vote, but nobody still seemed to want to hear me complaining...
Re:I'm sitting this one out (Score:5, Insightful)
Amazingly enough, NOT casting your vote is consenting to ANYONE representing you. You basically put on a blindfold, pull down your pants and bend yourself over a fire hydrant on a busy street corner with a sign reading "Use me however you like." You are not mounting some brave resistance to the system by not voting. You are saying you don't even care whose bitch you are.
Re:I'm sitting this one out (Score:4, Insightful)
But if that radical gets enough attention, maybe the party will have some pull and bring in a more level headed person next time. I don't buy the "abstained vote is a vote" line. If you want to bring change, you have to vote for someone... even if you think they will never win. Even more so.
Re:I'm sitting this one out (Score:3, Insightful)
You are not mounting some brave resistance to the system by not voting. You are saying you don't even care whose bitch you are.
And that's somehow worse than choosing whose bitch I am?
Re:you are the perfect slave (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I'm sitting this one out (Score:4, Insightful)
Bullshit. Without government regulation, there is nothing stopping corporations and other powerful players from using extra-market forces to skew the market in their favor.
Government is not evil. We can, at least in theory, exercise control over it, and use it as a tool to protect ourselves from oppression by the powerful. We can not exercise control over the powerful, or over corporations, in any other way. Unless we control and regulate the powerful, they will control and regulate us. That is what power is, and what it does.
Getting rid of government will not decrease the power imbalance between the haves and the have-nots, it will only increase it. Getting rid of the rules that prevent the powerful from taking advantage of the weak will not protect the weak.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Vote or Die (Score:5, Insightful)
When you vote, you legitimize the process.
I've never understood this argument.
The people in power never cared that only 40% of the people vote and in fact it shows that if no one bothered to come to polls to vote against them, then it most likely occurs to them that they should keep doing the things they way they want to.
I mean... People who can't be bothered to vote won't likely be bothered to go into the streets to protest either, much less take arms up against a legitimate government.
Re:I'm sitting this one out (Score:4, Insightful)
Absolutely, yes. Some pimps won't beat a ho. Others are quite liberal with the pimp slaps. Refusing to vote does not get you out of being someone's bitch, someone is going to win, you might as well make an effort to ensure that you get a pimp who won't beat you too much.
why you have to vote (Score:5, Insightful)
http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm [fec.gov]
the results of the 2000 elections were decided by a razor slim margin. meaning those who chose not to vote had a real effect: they helped bush win
and if you say "politicians are all the same": tell me with a straight face gore would have invaded iraq
those who don't care, or don't want to be involved, are just as guilty as everyone else for the sorry state of the world, if not more so
Re:I'm sitting this one out (Score:4, Insightful)
Why vote for the lesser of two evils?
This message brought to you by the Cthulhu/O'Donnell 2012 campaign.
Re:Vote or Die (Score:3, Insightful)
So you want your vote to be a certified winner and you're not going to vote until it happens?
The republicrats have definitely bought you.
Re:Vote or Die (Score:3, Insightful)
. So a two-party system isn't really all that bad, as far as maintaining balance goes and keeping things from getting too corrupt.
Wait, I get a choice between the party that wants to take all my money and give it to business, and the party that wants to take all my money and spend it on social services, and this is balance? Neither seems particularly concerned about collateral damage.
Re:I'm sitting this one out (Score:3, Insightful)
So if you are disenchanted by Maryland's options, you must try to disenchant the rest of the country?
Re:Vote or Die (Score:3, Insightful)
As a result of the 2000 election, hundreds of thousands of people died.
And to you, it's the same as a TV show.
I was assured as a result of the 2008 election, we would end two wars, bring em all back home, close our concentration camp in Cuba, and implement a REAL federal medical plan. Nothing happened. Correct, to me its the same as a TV show, its gonna turn out the same regardless if I "participate" or not.
Re:I'm sitting this one out (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I'm sitting this one out (Score:5, Insightful)
Two points:
1. Moderate incumbents are being dumped by the major parties. Ending up with major party support is no indicator of sanity, either.
2. Has anybody (other than pundits from the major parties) proven that "the vast majority of 3rd part(sic) candidates" are the lunatic fringe? How much time have we spent studying their views, talking to them?
Re:I'm sitting this one out (Score:3, Insightful)
Not everyone should vote (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I'm sitting this one out (Score:4, Insightful)
No, refusing to vote means accepting any pimp who wants to beat you. Voting means rejecting at least one pimp. By not voting, you are saying you don't even care who your pimp is. You are not hurting them by not voting. No one even notices. Refusing to vote in no way hurts anyone or refutes anything. It is a meek and passive stance, the stance of a powerless whore. Sorry, that is my opinion. I will never respect the refusal to vote.
Re:Vote or Die (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I'm sitting this one out (Score:3, Insightful)
Bullshit, insurance companies fought tooth and nail against HCR. They spent billions fighting it. The watered down crap we got is because we let them use their money to buy policy. We believed their lies, because they have the money to repeat them often and loudly enough. And we are to blame for letting money dominate politics. We, the citizens and voters, and no one else.
But that means we have the power to change it, too.
Re:I'm sitting this one out (Score:4, Insightful)
Have you been to Canada? There is plenty of uninhabited terrain where you won't run into anyone. Maybe Siberia would be another option, or Brazil for that matter.
Then you will fall under the domain of the Canadian, Russian, or Brazilian government. It's one of the MAIN reasons why even though I often disagree with the US government, the concept of a collection of states appeals to me. It's also why I'm a huge advocate for a weaker federal government.
If I don't like it where I live, I can move to a different state which is several orders of magnitude less difficult than moving to a different country. Yes, it does mean that there will be states which do things I disagree with, but it does leave open of at least moving to a place where the people DO agree with me.
As you expand the jurisdiction and scope of the governments with the largest landmasses, the capability to avoid concepts you disagree with decreases tremendously.
It bothers me tremendously that people believe that there is somehow a 'right' way to do government. I don't believe that my way is flawless either, but that's the point, it won't be right for everyone, but we should work to make sure that everyone has the maximum amount of freedom to live under the system they prefer.
I liked living in PA, but disliked their liquor laws and their roads. When I lived in Upstate NY, I loved the area, couldn't stand the property taxes. Now that I live in Virginia, I enjoy the climate the reduced restrictions on my firearm ownership (again, I used to live in NY), but dislike the motives of the Atty. Gen. (Attacking scholars, etc) and some of the other politicians.
It scares me that some people think we can get everything right and then apply it uniformly across 300 million people. Get the basics right on a large scale, and then leave the details to the locals.
Re:I'm sitting this one out (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I'm sitting this one out (Score:3, Insightful)
No, most people are all the same in certain, limited ways. But some people are born without empathy or a sense of remorse. They are not like you and me. Those people are the reason we have laws and society, most of us would do the right thing without being told. Those people are flat out monsters, not human beings, and they want to own you, control you, and utterly dominate you, because to them, you are an object, not a person.
Putting power into a democratically controlled system is very different from putting power into an autocratically controlled system.
We are the watchers. That is what elections are for. We don't need watchers watching us.
When regulations are broken, people are punished. Without regulations, they can just say, "Yeah, and what are you going to do about it? Nothing, now sit down and shut up."
Re:I'm sitting this one out (Score:3, Insightful)
For the people I have meet in the past with your stance that was basically the point. They were just after an easy out from the whole political process. In other words they did not want to see the person they support not make it in or worse make it in and then do a horrible job. So order to avoid the painful cognitive dissonance of hating someone they voted for they just don't vote.
I know this sounds harsh but I don't blame you or any from giving up on the system, Politics is a mess. But it's a mess because NO system works not because our system it particularly bad. In order to fix issues in the system people need to vote in every election for people who are closer to what they want. Abstaining until the perfect candidate descends from heaven is not a real plan. Furthermore even if your perfect candidate does arrive and most people think like you your perfect candidate will be the ONLY perfect candidate in the system, an ignored minority. You need to find and vote for the people who are closest to your ideals so that next election the candidates will hopefully be even closer.
Re:I'm sitting this one out (Score:4, Insightful)
Look, if you think you can do a better job, use yourself as a write-in candidate. The point here isn't to get someone elected, it's to draw votes away from the idiot who eventually does win.
Or, hell, run yourself. You won't win the primary if you're not a sell-out, but you might draw a few votes away from the people who do win. If the "winner" of the election only gets 39% of the vote, then they won't feel so much like they have a mandate to rule as they would with 59%, and will at least try to placate the masses instead of trying to work on their ideology.
Re:I'm sitting this one out (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Vote or Die (Score:4, Insightful)
. Nothing happened.
Correction: nothing positive happened. Plenty of happened: we've got troops in foreign lands where we have 'officially' ended the wars and combat operations entirely; we're wasting millions of US taxpayer money trying Gitmo combatants in civil courts; we've dedicated trillions to a healthcare system which will bankrupt employers and be unaffordable to citizens.
As an added bonus, we've also nationalized the banks and one of the largest automotive makers in the country. We've inflated the dollar to the point of being worthless and have continued to accelerate the rate of borrowing from China.
I've seen this TV show, except I saw an earlier visioning of it. I think it had something to do with Germany or Italy in the 1930s - I can't quite remember. (Argentina in 2000 is a good enough example as well.)
Re:Nice theory fails in practice (Score:3, Insightful)
Republican preference has been consistently underrepresented in polls for as long as I remember
So I suppose you have evidence to back up this rather bold assertion?
No?
Oh. Well, I'm sure we should all believe you, then...
Re:why you have to vote (Score:5, Insightful)
that supreme court was put in place by a previous president. the vote would have been 5-4 for gore, if someone in 1980 or 194 or 1988 had gotten off their duffs and voted
for example:
by a vote of 5-4 in january of this year, our supreme court said it is basically ok that corporations spend freely on elections. this is a supreme court put in place by bush. bush barely won the 2000 election
therefore, if the tiniest minority more had voted in 2000, gore would have won, we would not have invaded iraq, and the ridiculous pro-corporate dollars in elections decision in january would be 5-4 AGAINST
meaning YOUR VOTE MATTERS, IT REALLY DOES
when you don't vote, you are basically saying "i am completely happy with the way things are going, don't change a thing". if you think by not voting you are somehow being noble or acting principled, you are a complete and utter fool: corporations WANT you not to vote. an electorate that feels helpless and uninvolved is an electorate that can be raped
Re:Lopsided summary... (Score:3, Insightful)
Democrats kept spending and spending in the time of a recession--what did they expect would happen? Most people, in tough times, tighten their belts and save their money. They saw that their government wasn't doing that and felt that their leaders weren't listening to them.
But this is what all of their economists are telling them they are supposed to do to help the economy recover. And of course, were the republicans in power, they would be doing the same thing.
Re:I'm sitting this one out (Score:2, Insightful)
Im not an american. I just dont get you guys.
And I didnt get you either when you elected GWB fucking TWICE.
And I dont get how can you guys pass the check on the economy to Obama when he received a wreck of a country that was made first and foremost by the republicans and GWB.
Its really amazing.
When Republicans and GWB were running the economy, we were doing damn well. Unemployment was less than 4% and the government was raking in record tax receipts, AFTER tax cuts. I don't expect you to remember that since it was more than 3 years ago. Things didn't go to shit until the D's took over Congress starting in 2007. It's gotten worse since 2008 when the D's got the White House and a filibuster proof Senate. The unemployment [bls.gov] rate in Oct 2006 was less than 4.5%. What's the unemployment rate now?
Memorize this:
CONGRESS CONTROLS THE ECONOMY
Stop blaming Bush. Stop blaming Obama. Don't give credit to Bush or Clinton. It is all CONGRESS.
Re:I'm sitting this one out (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I'm sitting this one out (Score:3, Insightful)
Alright, but the rationality of the decision to run is based on evaluation criteria that are pretty much at odds with the general public's rational criteria for who they'd vote for.
Who we want to run: selfless, competent, fair, and intelligent folks who want to serve the public interest (and happen to agree with us on every issue).
Who wants to run: thieving, lying, pathological gits who are out to serve only #1 (and are willing to deceive anyone into thinking they support their position, long enough to get the vote).
But yeah, the decision to run for office is pretty rational in an egoistic and sociopathic way. It's a shame that the only people who want to get into office are exactly the wrong people to do so.
Re:Vote or Die (Score:3, Insightful)
Everyone votes becomes white noise that drowns out third parties. Of course if uninformed voters could be convinced that their vote is most effective by voting against BOTH parties via a third party, then we would see improvement.
Re:Vote or Die (Score:1, Insightful)
We propped up the banks and that automaker. All are on schedule to buy themselves back out. It was a temporary measure, and you're being disingenuous by stating otherwise. Furthermore, neither industry is nationalized -- control is still private, though with oversight; and private competitors remain in the marketplace.
What? That's an extraordinary claim, considering inflation has been markedly low the past several years considering the shape of the economy. Inflation was higher under Bush than it has been under Obama.
What? The deficit is smaller under Obama than it was under Bush. This means less borrowing from creditor nations.
You sir, are chock full of either delusion or lies. I don't care which it is, but it would be nice if you stopped spewing your misinformed/lying bullshit.
One other note...
Disembark from the crazy train, dude. Stop listening to the demagogues like Beck who spew this nonsense.
Re:I'm sitting this one out (Score:1, Insightful)
In California, the police tell you to vote against the anti-union candidate.
You do know the cops have one of the biggest/worst unions, right? 40 year pension at over 100% starting salary off a 20 year job. Less than 1% die in the line of duty.
That'd be like joining the army as a private at 20, serving for 20 years and then getting a colonel's salary until you die at 80 or so of old age. Soldiers don't get that, why the F should cops?
Re:Vote or Die (Score:2, Insightful)
It's funny you say that!
Personally, I'd vote Democrat in a snap if they weren't so goddamn pushy about wanting to give my tax money to people I have moral problems supporting.
If the Democrats would stick to getting us out of GATT/NAFTA/WTO, rebuilding American industry, and did more than talk about busting up the vertical monopolies and non-taxpaying overseas megacorporations, I'd be all for them.
Instead, all I hear from the Democrats round here is how I'm somehow morally obligated to let my tax money support thieving, lying illegal aliens and the babies they drop (who have, because they keep running off on the bills, caused two hospitals in my area to shutter their maternity wards completely).
It is a really stupid, crazy thing in the US system: if a friend of mine from overseas is here on a tourist visa and goes into labor early, her kid doesn't become a citizen. But if the kid of some lying, thieving lawbreaker pops on US soil, somehow that kid becomes a citizen.
It's a mad, mad world.
Re:I'm sitting this one out (Score:4, Insightful)
But the point is that a lot of people who could be voting for third-party candidates sit out because they feel it's a futile effort.
Which looks to a politician like they have a mandate:
Demublicans: 45%
Republicrats: 53%
Independent (Combined): 2%
or
Demublicans: 36%
Republicrats: 34%
Independent (Combined): 30%
In the first scenario, there's a clear winner. The Republicrat can go about their party-line business and doesn't need to listen to the "other side" at all on any issue. They have a clear supported mandate from the voting public, which means they stand a good job of getting any referendums or popular votes go their way. Impeachment is nearly impossible since they have majority support from their eligible voting public. They can lose significant amounts of their support base while still getting re-elected, and there's no real reason to pander to the other side or compromise at all.
In the second scenario, even the winning candidate is going to know he/she doesn't have the full support of 50% of their eligible voting public, and that means they have to work their asses off to make the majority who did not vote for them happy enough that they don't lose the next election. Impeachment and defeat of popular vote initiatives are higher-risk items.
The only real difference between the two scenarios is that Independents decided to get off their asses and participate, even if the candidate they voted for was less than ideal for them. If you're thinking about sitting out anyway, you don't have a "throwaway vote" to worry about, just go vote your straight conscience or as close as you can find, and hope it at least sends a message that the two-party monopoly is unacceptable.
And, every now and then, you get an independent who is interested in working the center of the aisle.
Re:Vote or Die (Score:4, Insightful)
The President isn't actually all that powerful, but what he does have can be used effectively.
The problem is, the past few have been supremely good at drawing attention - "Only six people in the Galaxy knew that the job of the Galactic President was not to wield power but to attract attention away from it", and "anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job", respectively. (Thanks to the late, great Douglas Adams).
What you really want is divided government. "Ambition must be made to counteract ambition." The whiny partisan asswipes will scream "waah gridlock", but the BEST thing we can have is for only those things which both parties manage to agree on happening. Remember, 99% of the real business of governing happens not in the President's office, but instead in Congress. In this respect the most powerful person in our government is the Speaker of the House, who can single-handedly ensure that a proposed bill never sees the light of day.
Where it goes to pot is when the majorities in Congress, Senate, and then the President are all from the same party.
Look at the times we've been fucked in the last three decades. Jimmy Carter had a Democrat congress and nearly doomed us all. Bill Clinton, for his first two years, almost did what Obama has done to us now. Most of the people on this site are probably too young to understand how truly horrible both of those time periods were.
Shrub 43 is an oddity. For his first couple years, there was a major crisis. Then, "dealing with" that major crisis, his advisers convinced him and Congress to run around spending like drunken sailors.
When it came time to be a lame duck, Shrub 43 may as well have been a democrat. Count up the number of vetoes he issued once the Democrats took congress following the 2006 elections and it's pretty clear he was nothing but a joke. Effectively, Pelosi and Reid were running the country even before they got an official rubber-stamper put into the White House.
Of course, this kind of crap is why George Washington warned us about forming political parties at all in his farewell address: political parties effectively take the checks and balances system and make it meaningless unless the people are smart enough not to let one party get hold of House, Senate and Presidency all simultaneously. It's a damn shame nobody listened to him.
Re:I'm sitting this one out (Score:3, Insightful)
You know what? I'd vote for Lex Luthor. At least I'd know what I was getting.
A man with enough kryptonite to protect us from Zod.
Re:Vote or Die (Score:4, Insightful)
According to wikipedia [wikipedia.org] you are incorrect. Please forgive the formatting, I dont think slashcode will let me drop a table in my comment.
Fiscal year Value % of GDP
2001 $144.5 billion 1.4%
2002 $409.5 billion 3.9%
2003 $589.0 billion 5.5%
2004 $605.0 billion 5.3%
2005 $523.0 billion 4.3%
2006 $536.5 billion 4.1%
2007 $459.5 billion 3.4%
2008 $962.2 billion 6.6%
2009 $1785.6 billion 12.5%
2010 $1471.0 billion (est.)10.0%
Re:Vote or Die (Score:3, Insightful)
Certainly by not linking to a politically biased blog with known credibility issues.
So, the economic crisis did NOT happen under Bush (Score:5, Insightful)
My god, you are delusional. LOOK up when the economy in the US crashed. Bush was in power. In fact Obama was elected because people couldn't believe the mess Bush had made of things. And now they get the republicans who created the mess back because Obama can't fix decades of mis-management in two years.
The US economy was fucked over by reagonomics were the intrests of wall street and short term speculators have ruined the American industrial base leading to more and more Americans contributing nothing to the economy. Basically, the US has since WW2 played the "lets pump up economy X and sell them our movies". It worked for the EU, it worked for Japan, ir worked for Korea. Then they tried it with China and forgot that China is far far larger. Sony went from a crap copy maker to a company that beat US companies down. Korean car makers do better then US companies, but they are as nothing to the growing industrial might of China. Once China stops like Japan and Korea to copy US tech and make its own (In Japan, nobody thinks the iPhone is the best, there are far better phones available already) and in China already you can get very decent LOCALLY designed gadgets that start adding their own tech.
Meanwhile Detroit is a ghost town and it ain't the only one. All so wall street could score a quick win by stripping American business for their last penny and fire every American worker and then claim employment is good because families can only survive holding down a double job per person.
And you blame congres... my god. You sure get the wool pulled over your eyes. Wall Street controls the economy.
Re:I'm sitting this one out (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Vote or Die (Score:4, Insightful)
First - FORD pardoned Nixon. Carter didn't. So your whole first paragraph is raw idiocy.
Obama has not wreaked this economy upon us, the Bush administration and the prior Congress did.
"The prior Congress" - you mean the one Obama was a part of as a US Senator, when Obama voted for every last one of the fucked-up policies that said Congress passed and Shrub43 signed...
Clinton fixed a broken economy,
Please, do tell me what alternate reality you came from. The economy was already on the mend [wikipedia.org] well before Clinton got elected, just too late to save Bush41.
Between being scared to death of Hillarycare and reeling from Clinton's tax hikes, the economy took another nosedive until 1994. And that we can blame squarely on Clinton and the Democrats he had in Congress.
Re:why you have to vote (Score:3, Insightful)
And, it was no surprise about that corporate personhood vote. John Roberts made his living arguing corporate personhood cases in front of the Supremes. He gets the Chief Justice seat, and a few years later the right case comes along for him to enshrine his world view. Way too coincidental IMO, but I'm admittedly way too conspiracy-prone.
Re:Systems Analysis (Score:3, Insightful)
Voting for someone who doesn't stand a chance of winning is equivalent to not voting in every practical measure.
False. For several reasons.
First - to illustrate the logical fallacy of your argument, let me test its corollary: e.g., "By voting for the winner, my vote is worth more." By "voting for a winner," one of the following must be true, either your vote is necessary for the winner to win, or it isn't. If your vote isn't necessary for the winner to win, then you are voting for someone who is already going to win, so they don't need your vote, therefore your vote is worthless. If your vote IS necessary for the winner to win, then whoever your vote goes to will win, right? So why then are you letting someone tell you that the other candidate(s) can't win?
This brings me to the second reason
Second -- Who tells you that someone "doesn't stand a chance of winning?" How is this determined? Someone else decides it, that's how. So essentially, you're letting someone else decide who you can or can't vote for. The justification for the determination of "doesn't stand a chance" -- not enough funding, not a member of a major party, not the right skin color -- is irrelevant. The fact is, you are allowing someone else to limit your choices artificially, and often to the exclusion of a candidate whose positions are much closer to your own that the ones who do "stand a chance."
And there are not only logical failures to the argument, but ethical ones.
Third -- Third party candidates don't get invited to debates, and don't get press coverage because they "don't stand a chance." But if they did get exposure, and were allowed to participate in debates, they might have a chance. Therefore, it becomes self-fulfilling, to the point of unfairness... both to the candidates and the people who share their views.
And the most fundamental reason of all... IT MISSES THE POINT.
Fourth -- if you're really concerned about who "stands a chance" and who doesn't, you're basing your vote on the wrong reason... voting is not about "being on the winning team" or "casting the vote for a winner." It's not a competition for the voter. You're supposed to vote for the person who expresses positions you believe in, who you believe will do their job the best -- it's not a bet at a casino. Unfortunately, this fallacy is extremely common in American politics -- people feel like they should cast their vote for the one who will allow them to claim they voted for the winner, as if they were rooting for a team in the world series, so they can go to work the next day and feel affirmed by saying "I voted for the winner, and you voted for the loser. You LOSER."
Gahh - this last one makes my blood pressure rise. Because as a direct result, we get candidates who are perpetually campaigning, who feel as if winning elections is the only purpose to politics, and therefore the policies they enact are juvenile, foolish, and unwise... and as a result we get massive spending, eternal tax cuts, unbalanced budgets, kneejerk prohibitions ("OMG someone died eating a hotdog sideways, ban hot dogs!"), and now as it turns out, Big Lies repeated over and over again with no examination or critical analysis by the media.
If everyone voted their conscience, then we wouldn't be in this fucking mess. Bottom line.
you've just demonstrated your problem (Score:3, Insightful)
" What's so wrong about wanting the person who will be representing me to actually represent me?"
you are only one constituent among many, and you are representing a colossal narcissism in your words. you are holding your vote hostage to an impossible demand, the only effect of which is that person who will actually represent you, will represent less of you than was possible if you only voted. and they will represent you, in reality. i know that in your lofty ivory tower you think you can retire from the world. how selfish of you. you don't represent the high road or a sense of nobility, you represent foolishness
you want the person who is the closest to your ideology. even if very far away, and only slightly closer than the other candidate
if you live forever, and see an infinite number of candidates, they will never represent you, ever, in any democracy, for all possible societies, for all future times. they will represent THEIR CONSTITUENTS, which will be at best an average of the ideologies of their district, and that will never overlap with only you
you are a vain narcissist, and the only real world effects of your choice not to vote is to doom whatever you believe to less representation, and therefore less realization