'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...
Re:I'm sitting this one out (Score:5, Informative)
You should vote, if only to vote for a write-in or third party candidate. This election is as much about the "Two Parties" screwing things for "Joe Sixpack" in favor of their corporate overlords. The problem is that we don't have much of a choice from the two major parties.
So, vote, but send a message. If third parties get more than 20% combined, there can be no call for "mandate" from either of the two parties.
Voting for the lessor of two evils is a logical fallacy. There are more than two evils running for most posts.
Re:I'm sitting this one out (Score:5, Interesting)
In many cases, I agree. In 2000 I voted green even though I didn't agree with half their agenda, I've been disenfranchised by moving around for several years since then. But I just voted strait democrat in this election because the republicans in my area decided to go with comic book villain style candidates.
Rick Scott (R, FL gov) = Lex Luthor
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: the logic of voting 3rd. party (Score:4, Informative)
You make several good points, but ultimately, I still find I disagree with you on some of it.
Although major party candidates of the "2 party system" may in fact use a 3rd. party candidate as "leverage" to get more votes (channeling support to them so votes for them siphon them away from their direct competitor), I'm not sure that should be viewed as a "problem"? If you happen to believe that neither a Republican or a Democrat that's running for a given position is right for the job, you're stuck with the following options:
1. Refuse to vote. (Useless, because by sitting it out, you're ranked among the apathetic. Everything goes on without your input.)
2. Go to the polls and vote for the "lesser of 2 evils" of the Republicans/Democrats in question. (That means your vote just counted the same as the next guy who was in FULL SUPPORT of the candidate you disliked, but only voted for because you hoped they were slightly better than the alternative.)
3. Vote for a 3rd. party candidate who is closer to your own beliefs than the others in the running.
4. Vote for a write-in candidate. (Practically-speaking, this option seems to accomplish nothing except in some oddball case where you knew the majority agreed to go with a write-in. Otherwise, it's pretty much a statistical impossibility your random write-in candidate is going to be selected over people actually named on the ballot as choice, who spent money actively campaigning.)
So optimally, I think your options really boils down to either 2 or 3 here, if you're wanting to accomplish anything at all? And the way I look at it? If nobody cast any votes for the 3rd. party guys or gals on the ballot, they'd eventually just go away completely. Sure, their chances of actually winning might be slim to none, but your vote for them helps legitimize what they're doing. For example, the Libertarian party has pretty much always managed to get somebody onto the ballot in every election I've ever voted in. They may only get 3% of the vote in the end -- but that's enough so they know some people out there are listening to what they're saying. In turn, they may influence some of the Democratic or Republican voters to demand more Libertarian-minded solutions from their candidates down the road.
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:4, Interesting)
This is why some form of range voting is ideal.
I favor negative voting as it also preserves one person 1 vote. Basically you can vote for someone as normal, or against someone and that negates one of their for votes. A candidates final count is the difference of their for and against votes.
Other forms of range voting offer more subtle gradation at a slightly increased level of complication.
more reasons to vote (Score:3, Interesting)
Local is pretty important. The small suburb I live in was briefly taken over by social conservatives when most everyone except their base stayed home. Probably the corruption of the incumbents, involving a land deal and favorable zoning changes to bring the worlds tallest building (!) to town. The deal collapsed, but not before the mayor made a bundle off the land where the building was to go. After they got the boot, the social conservatives proceeded to screw up big time. Went on a holy crusade again
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?
Re:I'm sitting this one out (Score:4, Informative)
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: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:4, Interesting)
The major parties hate third parties and have every incentive to make third parties look bad. From draining votes from their candidates to possibly undermining their control of the legislative process, they are a threat to Democratic or Republican control & influence.
The media likes to portray them as part of the lunatic fringe because controversy pumps up ratings and sales. The media also has a vested interest in the two party system, in terms of influence, contacts and its defacto role as arbitrator/kingmaker.
Take Christine O'Donnell for example. I don't personally think she's a great candidate, but the criticism of her is severe considering that the head of the House banking committee, Barney Frank, had a young lover running a male prostitution ring out of Frank's apartment and claimed he didn't know. OK, Christine's a doof, but that's worse than Frank? Or worse than any of the other sex/bribery scandals R or Ds have been in?
What I think is missed in both the smug, "Daily Show"-type dismissal of the Tea Party & third party movement this cycle and the attacks from both parties is that *despite* the negative publicity and outright hostility shown to these candidates (and their own foot-in-mouth syndrome), people are so annoyed at the traditional parties they are willing to vote for them anyway.
The media is too busy either joining the denouncements or smugly dismissing them to see this.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
But the winner got the Will of the People. All people who didn't vote were essentially saying: "I don't care who wins", which is nothing else than silently agreeing with the majority of those who voted.
You might by not voting mean something different, but you weren't actually saying it.
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:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Athens was an oligarchy, you had to be racially and economically privilged to get a vote.
Re:I'm sitting this one out (Score:5, Insightful)
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: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).
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
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:I'm sitting this one out (Score:5, Interesting)
While the high-profile election seats may be that way, local elections actually generally have people that will effect your daily life.
More importantly high-profile candidates almost always come from these positions first. If you shut them down before they become "somebody" you've prevented that future bad candidate from being a possibility.
The reason we have such a huge problem with representatives is because politicians are practically ignored at the time when they are most easily influenced.
For example, Obama started out as a state senator (some funny business there, of course, but that's Chicago politics), became a US Senator for the state of Illinois 8 years later, and is now the president. He could have very easily been shut down at the state level by a competent opponent and a few thousand votes.
Don't tell me your vote doesn't matter. It doesn't have great influence when you think it should, but it certainly has a huge impact when you aren't really paying attention.
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:Vote or Die (Score:5, Insightful)
Translation (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!
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: (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:Vote or Die (Score:5, 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: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:4, Informative)
Not that I'm claiming either of them was competent. I'm just making sure when listing either of their long list of flaws, that they are accurately represented. Well, unless you are one of those strict Constitutionalists that hypocritically asserts that Obama should have unconstitutionally ignored Bush's last budget, in which case I'm calling you a hypocritical ass.
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:Vote or Die (Score:4, Interesting)
You could in theory vote democrat until the republicans become so marginalized they are forced to become "republican-lite".
Personally, I'd vote Republican in a snap if they weren't so pushy about legislating morality.
Re: (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:4, Informative)
So what you're looking for is a financially conservative party that doesn't give a crap about what you do for entertainment, as long as those involved are consenting adults.
Is that correct?
Aren't those people called "libertarians?" I hear that they actually do exist. You can vote for them, and if their isn't a libertarian on the ballot in your district, then you could run yourself.
You don't have to win the election to make a difference: Ross Perot and Ralph Nader have both demonstrated that third party candidates can have a huge impact in the result even when they don't win.
(BTW: "You" in this post doesn't refer to Beardo even though I'm replying to his post)
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: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: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:Vote or Die (Score:4, Funny)
People who would take political advice from a comedian probably shouldn't be voting anyway!
Re: (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: (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: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: (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: (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 eas
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: (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: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.
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:I'm sitting this one out (Score:5, Funny)
Can we please go back to car analogies?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So if you are disenchanted by Maryland's options, you must try to disenchant the rest of the country?
Re:I'm sitting this one out (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I'm sitting this one out (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I'm sitting this one out (Score:5, Interesting)
My country allows you to mark "blank" on the ballot, in theory, if "blank" wins (thing that never happens due to your same thinking), the election repeats and none of the candidates that were in that election can go to that round.
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: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.
Re: (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)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I really don't understand Americans. You guys are the craddle of modern democracy, you invented the damned thing, fucked it over, killed each other, and then emerged with something a big country could be governed by.... for a while. Yes, you guys are right in that perhaps the model doesnt fit in into todays balance of power: money is power today, not votes. And there is no turning back that particular clock (BTW, you guys also invented that one).
However, you still need to choose between people that will hav
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I really don't understand Americans
No kidding, you really don't, as you demonstrated quite well with the rest of your rant.
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: (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 voluntee
Re: (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 on
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:5, Interesting)
It doesn't matter who you elect - voting simply creates the illusion of consent.
Not exactly true.
There are key differences in Democrat and Republicans.
That said, I disagree with both of them, but I vote against the party which I see the greatest threat to my personal liberty and well being.
Which I view as of now as the Republicans as they seem to be willing to trade my personal rights and freedoms off to either security issues, morality through legislation, and or various other issues that affect me personally.
Its not that the Democrats do similar things, but they do less of them.
I originally, voted against the democrats in 2000 simply because of the DMCA, anti-violent video game laws, and anti-smoking legislation only to find out that the republicans created the Patriot act and various laws that were started to make it feel like we were heading towards a Police state.
So given the choice of living in a Nanny State vs a Police state, I'd rather put up with a Nanny state... (catch my drift)
Of course if you really want change, you should start raising awareness of STV [wikipedia.org] and Proportional Representation [wikipedia.org]
You see... As one of the first major nationalized democracies which instituted the First past the post system [wikipedia.org] which was seen as the best way to handle the situation as no one had tried this before in such a way. Although people like Jefferson did point out the mathematical problems with the system, no one bothered to change it.
Now when European monarchies were overthrown and replaced by democracies over the 19th and 20th centuries a great deal of the instituted proportional democracies (most notably the Wiemar republic) simply because it is more mathematically fair and prevents the dominance of 2 major political parties we face in our first past the post system.
Arguably the UK has the same issue as they've also had a first past the post system in voting system that has lasted longer than the US system and are actually talking about trying out STV or a watered down version of prop rep.
Re:I'm sitting this one out (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes actually...
The Green Party [wikipedia.org] in Germany comes to mind.
The Pirate party is really close to getting seats in the Swedish Parliament.
Also... Israel had a 3rd party called Kadima [wikipedia.org] which not only was founded in 2005, but was able to get a majority coalition in the Israeli parliament shortly thereafter.
Proportional representation clearly is the best way to get 3rd party candidates and political turnover over any other system that has been tried.
Re:I'm sitting this one out (Score:4, Insightful)
I did vote, but nobody still seemed to want to hear me complaining...
So... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (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
Re: (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:So... (Score:4, Informative)
I understand your sentiment but polling is free speech. Someone should be free to ask, and others should be free to answer, or not. If someone does ask a bunch of people a question, they should be free to share those results. If there is a chunk of the population that is too stupid to filter those results or understand what they may or may not mean - then the solution is education not the restriction of speech.
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.
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?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
His problem (and mine) is that the summary basically says "After you adjust for not polling enough democrats, you need to adjust for not polling enough democrats."
New Polling Measure Hastens Process! (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Poll Phone Operator: Excuse me, sir or ma'am, do you have a free minute to answer a few simple questions anonymously about who you plan to vote for?
...
Phone Respondent One: Well, let's see, what would Jesus do?
*Poll Phone Operator hangs up the phone and puts a check mark next to the Republican candidate*
Poll Phone Operator: Excuse me, sir or ma'am, do you have a free minute to answer a few simple questions anonymously about who you plan to vote for?
Phone Respondent Two: Sorry, what did you say? It's cloudy and my solar powered phone is cutting in and out.
*Poll Phone Operator hangs up the phone and puts a check mark next to the Democratic candidate*
Poll Phone Operator: Excuse me, sir or ma'am, do you have a free minute to answer a few simple questions anonymously about who you plan to vote for?
Phone Respondent Three: Yes I do, just let me put NASCAR on mute, I can talk and watch at the same time.
*Poll Phone Operator hangs up the phone and puts a check mark next to the Republican candidate*
Poll Phone Operator: Excuse me, sir or ma'am, do you have a free minute to answer a few simple questions anonymously about who you plan to vote for?
Phone Respondent Four: I'm so sorry but I just put on a 180 gram vinyl Arcade Fire album and I fear that if I remove the needle prematurely I would
*Poll Phone Operator hangs up the phone and puts a check mark next to the Democratic candidate*
Poll Phone Operator: Excuse me, sir or ma'am, do you have a free minute to answer a few simple questions anonymously about who you plan to vote for?
Phone Respondent Five: Fuck you and fuck the establishment you rode in on.
*Poll Phone Operator hangs up the phone and puts a check mark next to the Independent candidate*
Lopsided summary... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Lopsided summary... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re:collective insanity (Score:4, Informative)
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.
It sounds insane, but as long as you have this winner-take-all voting system then you're always going to have two dominant parties. If you feel strongly enough about fixing the broken system* then what you should be campaigning for is a Proportional Representation [wikipedia.org] voting system where you vote for as many candidates as you want in ranked choice. This would discourage a lot of the populist appealing to the extremes and bring politics closer to the center IMHO. You'd also see a lot more people registering as independents and better quality candidates defecting to the smaller parties and making them more credible, whereas right now anyone who's serious about getting elected has to pick their poison, R or D, and hold their nose and run on that ticket.
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Exit Polls (Score:3, Interesting)
This reminds me of the great exit poll kerfuffle [washingtonpost.com] when John Kerry was seen to be leading in exit polls to a greater extent than the actual poll results bore out.
Question about Robopoll effect (Score:3, Interesting)
Back in the days of ELIZA and people wondering whether computers really could be used to augment, if not replace, human therapists, I recall people describing their surprise at how readily people would confide in such software; perhaps people's inclination to post everything on Facebook is related. But:the existence of a difference between what people tell automated polls and human pollers doesn't, by itself, tell you which of those responses reflects what the people polled really think. For all I know, that ELIZA effect still holds, and people will tell the machine something that they wouldn't tell a human. A robocall won't turn on you and say "You favor tax cuts?! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!" (at least not yet!) or give you a dirty look or inflection that indicates disapproval.
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
meaning those who chose not to vote had a real effect: they helped bush win
Nope. Bush won by just one, repeat just one, vote. 5 to 4.
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
Not everyone should vote (Score:4, Insightful)
I DON'T TALK TO ROBOTS!!! (Score:3, Funny)
But robots don't listen.
Although, if I ever get a political push-poll robocall that starts by asking "are there stairs in your house?" I will answer long enough to ensure them I am protected.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I know, for instance, which administration I would rather be homosexual under. Corporate money(albeit slightly different types between the parties) is a constant; but the relative influence of religiosity is a pretty
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
They know what they have always known:
People will pay money for poll results that favor them.
Re:no, no bias here at all (Score:4, Informative)
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?
Fwiw and purely anecdotally, I've always seen results skew 4+ percent to the right of polls, because consevatives (even 'engaged' ones), are far more likely to share their view with a pollster, while liberals - especially the young - LOVE to tell everyone how liberal they are.
That's great. Exactly the opposite of my experience, but it probably depends on where you live. I live in a town with a pretty strong liberal majority, so nobody ever goes around spouting anything about it. It is the more conservative types who go around telling everyone within earshot how conservative they are (but you're right, it does tend to be the younger ones - I think because they are so excited about being all "rebellious" going against their liberal parents).
Come to think of it, it may actually be the independents that are the worst in this respect (but around here independents are usually conservative, so same difference).
Re: (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.