2012 Election Season

[Dantius]

Originally Posted By: Harehunter

P.S. I don't put much stock in polls. Ever since that college course, I have always been a curmudgeon with respect to statistics unless I see the basis upon which they are formed; sample size, how sample was chosen, % of non-respondents, weighting factors, standard deviations.

Ah, then you'd be a fan of RAND's American Life Panel. They ask the same stratified sample of voters the same questions week after week, then ask them to rate the likelihood of their voting, which is then used to weight the responses. The large sample size means that it's possible to get a consistent estimation of the true lead that one candidate has and whether or not that's due to statistical noise, a bad sample, or a true lead. It's very transparent and probably one of my favorite indicators of the state of the race, behind RCP's aggregation and Nate Silver's models.

[Randomizer]

Originally Posted By: Harehunter

As for the process of purging the voter registry of deceased people, well even that is a contentious problem as evidenced in Florida. There are claims that people who are still living have been dropped from the registry. I can see how this could happen, given the mobility in our society. The procedures to verify if a citizen is dead or alive vary from state to state, but I would presume that it involves matching a persons name with their address. In that case, it is up to the individual to apply for a new registration card with their current address.

The problem of removals of valid voters is more due to poor computer data bases. Lots of government data bases have out dated information that they never bother to fix. But in Florida's case it seems that the removal lists were deliberately set up to remove certain types of voters.

Excuse me while I toss some mail that belongs to the previous owner from 10 years ago that the government sends because they went back to an older data base.

[Dikiyoba]

Originally Posted By: Harehunter

@Lilith,
Again and again I hear that "There is no evidence that voter fraud exists". I agree with that because there is no evidence at all, period. None, zero, zip, nada. Whether you wish to prove or disprove it, there is no evidence.

There's no evidence that Bigfoot and a ginormous herd of elephants lives in every backyard, either, but you'd be a fool to believe me if I told you they were there and oh by the way, I can keep those elephants from eating your roses if you just pay me 10,000 dollars.

Don't worry, though, Dikiyoba is certain that neither Bigfoot nor the elephants commit voter fraud. It's the unicorns that do that.

[Khoth]

Originally Posted By: Harehunter

@Lilith,
Again and again I hear that "There is no evidence that voter fraud exists". I agree with that because there is no evidence at all, period. None, zero, zip, nada. Whether you wish to prove or disprove it, there is no evidence.

As to the premise that voter ID laws will / have disenfranchise 10% of the population, again, how can one prove that theoretical estimation without actually testing it and making quantifiable observations? An assertion that is simply being repeated many times by many people does not make it a fact. What quantitative method is being used to count that 10%? I also assert that if that 10% of the population could be verified to have been denied the right to vote, we would also have identified those individuals and be able to correct the problem.

So apparently sometimes if there's no evidence for a problem it means we should take it seriously, and sometimes if you haven't seen evidence for a problem it means we shouldn't take it seriously. How do you distinguish between the two cases?

[Jerakeen]

Quote:

Your assertion that absentee ballots traditionally favor Republicans is very intriguing. What demographic is most likelyto haveto voteby absenteeballotthatwould also favor Republicans? Surely you can't be talking about our men and women in the armed forces who have volunteered to put themselves at risk, and have been deployed by the Commander In Chief to overseas stations?

Um, why can't I? Is it somehow insulting to suggest that service members lean Republican? In any case, absentee ballots are often used by the elderly, especially those in nursing homes. How's that for a conservative demographic?

[Erebus the Black]

Originally Posted By: Jerakeen

Um, why can't I? Is it somehow insulting to suggest that service members lean Republican? In any case, absentee ballots are often used by the elderly, especially those in nursing homes. How's that for a conservative demographic?

I thought he meant that military minded people are more republican biased and therefore the absentee bias is not surprising.

Anyway, I am kind of confused by what you mean as proof.
*If you mean proof as in scientific proof, then you need to remember that sociology and state sciences are very soft sciences. As you probably know it is very hard to prove something in a science like physics then let alone in the social sciences mainly because, as House puts it, people lie. Even if you put the surveys anonymously people are more incentivized to lie to you about their ill-doings because it will mean a higher chance of them being caught the next time.


*If you mean proof in the legal sense then
** Firstly you must assume that both parties are innocent until proven guilty (as is practiced in modern law) until sufficient proof of their ill-doings are shown to the contrary, which, if as is you say is unattainable, holds them all as innocent of the act.
And as I see it, modern law is set up to protect people from being wrongly accused and the rich who can hire enough lawyers to swamp the opponent side with enough useless information to prevent them from reaching the core of their inquiry and that are charming enough to convince either judge or jury (depending on the type of tribunal) that an alien could have done it and made it look as if their client did it. But since we have no better system we have to make do with the current one which at least grants some protection to the innocent.

**In order to show their guilt you must show motive, means, and a "body" or the act itself.
***The motive is held by any voter, superpac and party, to win.
However another motive might be to sully your opponent by sending people under the pretense of his name to commit voting fraud.

***The means is money and manpower, that while they might not swim the English Channel for their candidate, will jump through hoops if it might mean getting him elected.

***The act itself is the big question, and if you actually do catch someone in the act, how can you tell which motive drove him?! For all you know the party that knew he will be caught, set up a deal to open a bank account in one of the offshore banks in his name and place 750000$ for each year he will spend in jail or prison and be given to him when he is released.

I had it better framed in my mind but it is late and I'm tired, so I will leave you with this for now.

[Dikiyoba]

Originally Posted By: Microsoft lacky

Originally Posted By: Jerakeen

Um, why can't I? Is it somehow insulting to suggest that service members lean Republican? In any case, absentee ballots are often used by the elderly, especially those in nursing homes. How's that for a conservative demographic?

I thought he meant that military minded people are more republican biased and therefore the absentee bias is not surprising.

The tendency for absentee ballots to favor the Republicans is irrelevant by itself. What matters is that the Republicans calling for "voter fraud reform" are concerned entirely about in-person fraud--complete with a solution that makes it harder for certain groups who favor Democrats to vote--but are not concerned by absentee voter fraud. That implies that the Republicans who initiated the voter fraud controversy are doing it in order to get an unfair advantage in elections. And that's disgusting.

Dikiyoba.

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: Harehunter

@Lilith,
Again and again I hear that "There is no evidence that voter fraud exists". I agree with that because there is no evidence at all, period. None, zero, zip, nada. Whether you wish to prove or disprove it, there is no evidence.

again, there's no evidence that i didn't commit murder yesterday. does that make it okay to lock me up? you're talking about disenfranchising literally MILLIONS of Americans. that is an absolutely shocking blow to civil rights. you need much, much more than a lack of evidence to convince me that it'd be even remotely acceptable

in any case, i already pointed out what kind of evidence we'd expect to see if there was widespread voter fraud. that evidence has been looked for and not found. so you're being massively disingenous here

Quote:

As to the premise that voter ID laws will / have disenfranchise 10% of the population, again, how can one prove that theoretical estimation without actually testing it and making quantifiable observations? An assertion that is simply being repeated many times by many people does not make it a fact. What quantitative method is being used to count that 10%? I also assert that if that 10% of the population could be verified to have been denied the right to vote, we would also have identified those individuals and be able to correct the problem.

again, read the links that have been posted. there's plenty of evidence that in states that have implemented strict voter ID laws, voting has decreased dramatically among minorities. and the problem hasn't been corrected because the people putting voter ID laws in place don't WANT to correct the problem. disenfranchising minority voters is their GOAL. if minority voters are being disenfranchised, that means voter ID laws are working exactly as intended. complaints about fraud are a smokescreen.

[Kingdom of West Brom]

Look like your gonna get Obama for another 4 years, you lucky lucky people, keep out Romney the Thatcher lover

 

UK Labour party member

[Dantius]

Originally Posted By: The Kingdom of West Brom

Look like your gonna get Obama for another year, you lucky lucky people, keep out Romney the Thatcher lover

UK Labour party member

Another four years. On the minus side, it doesn't look like the Dems will get the house or a supermajority, so it's a minimum of two more years of obstruction and filibuster. Sigh.

[Randomizer]

Another year of guess what the tax code will be with the do-nothing Congress. *sigh*

[Callie]

And thus the great cycle of tyranny continues, and all politicians will lament the passing of the 111th congress.

[Soul of Wit]

Some thoughts:

 

• Republicans have admitted that voter ID has the purpose of disenfranchising the Democratic portion of the electorate. That's all that I need to hear to make up my mind. Most other comments sound like the illogical ramblings of a conspiracy theorist. The American way is to err on the side of preserving rights.

 

• The incumbent usually loses the first debate (at least in US Presidential politics that is true.) The why of this is less important than the fact that the advantages of an incumbent are significant. "Anybody but <incumbent's name here>" is usually a losing proposition. There must be a worthy challenger to unseat an incumbent.

 

• The first thing that the Democratic majority in the Senate should do in 2013 is to dump the 60% rules. This requires only a majority vote, and would immediately improve both the function and perception of Congress. There are other arcane rules in the Senate, but that one has been abused so often that it now needs to be thrown in the dustbin of history.

[Prince of Kitties]

Imagine what a Republican-dominated Senate could do with that though!

[Randomizer]

Neither side wants to change the rules because they plan on using them when they are in power. Instead they both use loop holes and complain when the other side takes advantage of them.

[Student of Trinity]

The way I see it, as an outsider, is this.

 

The good news about American politics is that, despite some glaring inefficiencies, the system is still basically democratic. If even a small majority of Americans wanted things changed, things would change.

 

That's also the bad news about American politics.

[Erebus the Black]

Does having two houses of government (federal congress and senate) actually help balance the system? I could never quite understand this.

[Randomizer]

It was supposed to balance out representation between states with large populations and small ones. Also with longer terms the senators were supposed to be around longer than the representatives even though representatives usually have an easier time getting reelected and are there longer.

[Kelandon]

The system has the effect of creating gridlock and requiring (super-)majorities across both geography and time in order to get stuff done. The president, the House, and the Senate are elected on different cycles, so that at any given moment at least some people who were elected at different times have to vote for something in order for it to pass. Also, the Senate is essentially countermajoritarian by design, and not just because of the filibuster. Each state has equal representation, despite wildly different populations. The fact that you need 60 to do anything these days is just a further extension of the countermajoritarianism that underlies the chamber.

 

The two chambers sometimes do have slightly different responsibilities, too (e.g. Senate confirms judicial nominees).

 

I read an article that pointed out that the purpose of the opposition party in American politics can't simply be to oppose, because the system isn't set up that way. It's not a parliamentary system in which opposition is largely symbolic. It's a partly majoritarian, partly countermajoritarian system predicated on the ability of individuals to create gridlock when they really want to, so the party in the minority has a responsibility to do more than say no to everything the party in the majority wants.

[Prince of Kitties]

Originally Posted By: ξ

... the party in the minority has a responsibility to do more than say no to everything the party in the majority wants.

This. Very much. At the risk of sounding biased, certain politicians need to stop putting their beliefs ahead of actually getting stuff done.

That said, I'd rather have the current situation than have e.g. Party X using its control of all three branches of government to criminalize homosexuality, while Party Y sits around incapable of doing anything about it.

(Yes, I know the courts are supposed to help with that; but let's face it, all presidents love to appoint political allies to the Supreme Court.)

Re states having equal representation... Not sure if I think that's good or bad. To be blunt, while I don't like the idea of rule by a political elite, I am also terrified of what a bigoted majority could do if given the power. Never underestimate the destructive potential of ignorance and bigotry.

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: Miramor

Re states having equal representation... Not sure if I think that's good or bad. To be blunt, while I don't like the idea of rule by a political elite, I am also terrified of what a bigoted majority could do if given the power. Never underestimate the destructive potential of ignorance and bigotry.

that only helps if the bigots aren't in the states that are disproportionately well-represented in the senate

[Alorael at Large]

Yes. The government is set up as checks and balances, and even each piece is supposed to have checks to keep power from gathering too much in one place. The effect is largely a buffer against change: it's hard to suddenly send things into a tailspin, but it's also hard to effect positive change.

 

Where this falls apart is the times when inaction is disastrous. We're not there yet, but we're now flirting with it regularly on budgets and defaults.

 

—Alorael, who thinks the problem of having the courts prevent tyranny of the majority is that the Supreme Court, as the extreme example, has lifetime appointments. Its members are likely to be among the longest-serving individuals with political power, and because mores change with time and generation, and often among the more conservative (not politically, but generally) minded people. The court lags behind the legislature, which has to appeal to people right now.

[Prince of Kitties]

Originally Posted By: Lilith

that only helps if the bigots aren't in the states that are disproportionately well-represented in the senate

True.

Originally Posted By: Immunity to Normal Scorn

—Alorael, who thinks the problem of having the courts prevent tyranny of the majority is that the Supreme Court, as the extreme example, has lifetime appointments. Its members are likely to be among the longest-serving individuals with political power, and because mores change with time and generation, and often among the more conservative (not politically, but generally) minded people. The court lags behind the legislature, which has to appeal to people right now.

That can be a good thing if "appealing to the people right now" translates into "getting rid of the filthy [insert minority here]". Time sometimes brings progress, but not always.

[Callie]

People complain a lot about gridlock, but I also understand adherence to principle, whether I agree with it or not. I'd rather have that than a previously mentioned situation in which one party controls both chambers and the white house.

[Soul of Wit]

Originally Posted By: Unique RFLP

...
Where this falls apart is the times when inaction is disastrous. We're not there yet, but we're now flirting with it regularly on budgets and defaults.

I believe we are there. One party's inaction is making economic recovery take considerably longer than it otherwise would. That this was done for political gain is appalling. That it was done at all shines a spotlight on the failings of the US political system.

I stand by my "dump the 60% rule" sentiments. If the electorate is unhappy with one party in charge of all three branches then they can undo that in two years. Most states have a way to recall elected officials or even undo legislation--without waiting two years. If one party oversteps its bounds then the courts have to step up. We are seeing a lot of this since 2010. I fear gridlock more than one-party rule.

[Alorael at Large]

You're assuming malice, but I think most Republicans genuinely believe that inflation is a threat, the deficit and uncertainty are holding back the economy, and the bailout was a bad thing. I think they're wrong, but politicians are not selected for economic knowledge and skill, and they can be righteous and wrong.

 

—Alorael, who will point out that gridlock wasn't a problem for more than two centuries. What the government needs most isn't removed hurdles, it's better people willing to behave like leaders and statesmen, not election-cycle politicians and partisans.

[keira]

Relevant?

 

On a more serious note, I feel that 90% of the problems in Congress right now would be solved if they were required to know what they were talking about.

[Soul of Wit]

Originally Posted By: Basic Laser

You're assuming malice, but I think most Republicans genuinely believe that inflation is a threat, the deficit and uncertainty are holding back the economy, and the bailout was a bad thing. I think they're wrong, but politicians are not selected for economic knowledge and skill, and they can be righteous and wrong.

—Alorael, who will point out that gridlock wasn't a problem for more than two centuries. What the government needs most isn't removed hurdles, it's better people willing to behave like leaders and statesmen, not election-cycle politicians and partisans.

The uncertainty theory is particularly amusing to me. It shows a stunning lack of understanding of both job creation and general economics. Hiring is spurred by increasing the demand for an employer's goods and/or services. One with such demand would be a fool to put off hiring because of some vague fear of future tax policy or regulation.

If I stipulate that there is no malice (and that requires ignoring the statement to the contrary by the Senate Minority Leader) then I am left wondering why I have seen no serious jobs bills from the Republican House. I am not one to be fooled by bills that have the word "jobs" in their title that don't actually have anything to do with spurring employment.

As for fear of gridlock, we are about to see the fruits of inaction. Correct me if I am wrong, but Congress has only three choices:

1. Reduce the deficit via compromise
2. Allow the automatic triggers to create massive cuts in various programs that at least one side thinks untouchable
3. Renege on their promise to abide by the automatic triggers

I'm wagering on #3.

[Randomizer]

It's the economy, stupid. Even though Republicans were in favor of job creation, they don't want an improving economy under Obama because it increases his reelection chance.

[Prince of Kitties]

While I'd hesitate to call it malice, the attitude towards the poor that I've observed seems to go well beyond ordinary ignorance. I am pretty sure it qualifies as a kind of social Darwinism; and it certainly involves willful ignorance at the very least.

[Dantius]

Originally Posted By: Randomizer

It's the economy, stupid. Even though Republicans were in favor of job creation, they don't want an improving economy under Obama because it increases his reelection chance.

^

Basically, they're desperately hoping that they can pull off the two step of "refuse to help fix the economy, blame Obama and the Dems for the un-fixed economy" before the voters catch on and ask why they're trying to play electioneering games instead of actually helping people out.

[Dikiyoba]

"refuse to help fix the economy, blame Obama and the Dems for the un-fixed economy"

So... spite, which is basically the same thing as malice.

 

Dikiyoba.

[Jerakeen]

 

Oh, ow, oh my sides.

[Aran]

As if I needed more reasons to adore Joss.

[Callie]

I endorsed Eric Cartman for president. I've been having a hard time raising funds for his Super PAC, although I guess people have a hard time contributing to the whole "evil nine-year-old for president" campaign.

[The Mystic]

 

Oh, ow, oh my sides.

FYT.

 

Y'konw, that actually has a pretty nice ring to it. And now, if you'll excuse me, I think I just weirded myself out.

*backs away slowly, then runs and hides*

[Mosquito---Slayer]

I just read that if we had a 269-269 tie for electoral votes, Romney would probably win the president race because Republicans control more states while Biden will win for the Vice-president since senate is controlled by Democrats, not being too familiar with the US election system I wanted to ask whether such a result is allowed constitutionally, or will it result in a second poll?

[Jerakeen]

Apparently that outcome is constitutionally possible, if wildly unlikely. There is no provision for a re-vote.

[Mosquito---Slayer]

Now I am hoping for that to happen, don't think that I am a bad person who wants a stalemate in every single US policy, but it will be just really really amusing.

[Lilith]

Now I am hoping for that to happen, don't think that I am a bad person who wants a stalemate in every single US policy, but it will be just really really amusing.

 

you know that the vice-president doesn't have any actual power unless the president dies right

[Mosquito---Slayer]

you know that the vice-president doesn't have any actual power unless the president dies right

No, I didn't actually knew that, I thought VP will also have some degree of influence like 25% or so, well that makes it a lot less cool, but It could still be funny.

[Harehunter]

The VP is also the president of the Senate. He does not get a vote except in the case of a tie. He also has a great deal of influence as to the agenda, i.e. which bills will be brought to the floor to be voted on. If he doesn't like a bill, he can kill it before it hits the floor by simply refusing to put it on the agenda.

[Callie]

Interestingly, Dick Cheney got to cast eight tie-breaking votes, which doesn't seem much, but it's quite a bit for a vice president. Now that the threat of filibuster prevents ties from occurring, it's highly unlikely that Joe Biden will cast any such vote.

[Alorael at Large]

Having done no reading on it, I wonder what happens if the Senate's appointment of VP gets filibustered? Blocking judicial appointments is small-time compared to that.

 

—Alorael, who suspects that Biden would find himself quickly sent to do something onerous and useless somewhere if he were VP under Romney. Bipartisanship is not in the cards right now.

[Student of Trinity]

Can the Veep really block bills from the Senate? That sounds contrary to the usual American obsession with separation of powers. Though it does fit with the other obsession of the US constitution, which is institutionalizing gridlock. Checks and balances sure are great for keeping an 18th century rural republic from succumbing to tyranny, but they're not so good for achieving any coherent social action at all in a 21st century industrialized nation.

[Randomizer]

It's a matter of when a bill is presented for a vote. The person presiding over the House or Senate gets to control the timing. It's usually done to hold up a bill until the votes are there, but it has been done to prevent one from being voted on at all.

[BainIhrno]

I've looked at numerous sources, and these are my predictions:

 

For the Presidential election, I predict that Obama and Romney will carry all the states pre-colored for them (blue and red, respectively) on http://www.270towin.com/ (just to save a little space)

 

Obama will also carry: PA, MI, WI, NH, IA, and NV. I also think Obama will take OH, but I'm not as confident as I am about the others.

Romney will also carry: NC and FL

 

CO and VA are still wildcards in my mind.

 

For the Senate, I predict that:

AZ - Republican hold

CA - Democratic hold

CT - Democratic gain (from independent)

DE - Democratic hold

FL - Democratic hold: even though this state will probably go for Romney, Nelson seems to be leading quite decisively.

HI - Democratic hold

IN - Democratic gain: again, my home state of Indiana is almost certainly going for Romney, but it seems like the GOP candidate is very extreme and is trailing in the polls

ME - Independent gain (from Republican)

MA - Democratic gain

MI - Democratic hold

MN - Democratic hold

MS - Republican hold

MO - Democratic hold: again, a likely Romney state, but incumbent Claire McCaskill seems to be leading against an extreme GOP candidate.

MT - Republican gain

NE - Republican gain

NV - Republican hold: While NV will probably go for Obama, Heller seems to be a strong incumbent against a candidate who's campaign seems to be sinking.

NJ - Democratic hold

NM - Democratic hold

NY - Democratic hold

ND - Republican gain

OH - Democratic hold: even if Romney manages to carry Ohio, a weak GOP candidate and Brown with a more commanding lead in Ohio than Obama suggests that Brown is unlikely to be unseated.

PA - Democratic hold

RI - Democratic hold

TN - Republican hold

TX - Republican hold

UT - Republican hold

VT - Independent hold

WA - Democratic hold

WV - Democratic hold: Despite being a heavily anti-Obama state, Senator Manchin is extremely well liked and leads his GOP challenger by 30+ points, making the race non-competitive.

WI - Democratic hold: Unlike most other states, the Democratic Senate candidate (Tammy Baldwin) will likely underperform Obama in the state, but she still seems the favorite to win the open seat

WY - Republican hold

 

Final projection: 51 Democrats, 2 Independents, 47 Republicans, the exact makeup of the Senate now.

 

Also, Republicans will retain control of the House of Representatives.

[The Mystic]

Eh, I'm not going to waste any time by making predictions now; I'll wait until Saturday, at the earliest.

[The Reverend]

I've looked at numerous sources, and these are my predictions:

 

For the Presidential election, I predict that Obama and Romney will carry all the states pre-colored for them (blue and red, respectively) on http://www.270towin.com/ (just to save a little space)

 

Obama will also carry: PA, MI, WI, NH, IA, and NV. I also think Obama will take OH, but I'm not as confident as I am about the others.

Romney will also carry: NC and FL

 

CO and VA are still wildcards in my mind.

 

I'd agree with this, except I'd place FL in the toss-up category as well. Nate Silver over at fivethirtyeight has it currently at just a 55% chance of a Romney win, which I think is close enough to be a toss up.

[Prince of Kitties]

Hate to say it, but Romney will probably win.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/03/report-5-million-voters-i_n_992530.html

 

Voting for Obama anyway, but I'm getting rather disgusted. This was not funny in the first place and it's not funny now.