Predicting Election Results With Google

destinyland writes "Google announced they've searched for clues about the upcoming US election using their internal tools (as well as its 'Insights for Search' tool, which compares search volume patterns for different regions and timeframes.) 'Looking at the most popular searches on Google News in October, the issues that stand out are the economy,' their official blog reported, adding, 'we continue to see many searches for terms like unemployment and foreclosures, as well as immigration and health care.' But one technology reporter also notes almost perfect correspondence between some candidate's predicted vote totals from FiveThirtyEight and their current search volume on Google, with only a small margin of error for other candidates. 'Oddly enough, the race with a clear link between web interest and expected voting is the unusual three-way contest [in Florida], where the breakdown between candidates should if anything be less clear-cut and predictable.' And Google adds that also they're seeing national interest in one California proposition — which would legalize marijuana."

Comments

Prop 19

[Quantus347]

Interesting how the possible state law for legalization of marijuana is getting as much or more attention from American people than the elections of the legislators who actually make our laws.

Re:Prop 19

[magarity]

What is "prop 19" - it is nowhere on my state's ballot. I suppose this is a micro version of all the non-USA people complaining Slashdot is too USA centric talks. You are too whatever-state-you're-in centric.

Re:Prop 19

[JWSmythe]

    It's explained in the summary...

one California proposition -- which would legalize marijuana.

    If California maintains their legalization of marijuana, it likely will extend to other states in subsequent years.

    It's not that I care from a personal standpoint. I don't smoke marijuana. I have no intention of smoking marijuana. From life experience, I see no reason that it shouldn't be legal. I also don't drink tequila. I have no intention to drink tequila. It's legal though. Would I suggest outlawing tequila because I won't drink it? No.

    I did find it interesting that some alcohols are illegal in California, that are available in a variety of other states. But unlike some other states, strong alcohols are sold in regular stores right along with beer and wine.

Re:Prop 19

[RazorSharp]

What is "prop 19" - it is nowhere on my state's ballot. I suppose this is a micro version of all the non-USA people complaining Slashdot is too USA centric talks. You are too whatever-state-you're-in centric.

Not really. Prop 19 refers specifically to California's prop 19, which would legalize marijuana, but like the article points out, it's received quite a bit of national attention. I know plenty of people who don't know any of the propositions on my own state's ballot but they've heard of prop 19. If you haven't heard of prop 19 it probably has less to do with not being from California than it has to do with you not smoking pot.

btw, it annoys me to no end when some foreigner complains on Slashdot about how some comment is USA-centric. Sure, the internet is international, but when I go to a British website I don't complain about how it's UK-centric. I love that so many foreigners post on Slashdot; I've learned quite a bit from them, especially when the story is about their home country; but don't get annoyed when comments on a political story use the pronoun 'we' to refer to 'the American people.'

Re:Prop 19

[pitchpipe]

It's because we have politicians running the country, not leaders. They dare not speak the truth because they are not leaders. This country does not elect people who speak the truth, only people who say what we want to hear.

What politicians won't say: want to win the drug war? Lose it!

Compared to the European Union and the U.S., Portugal's drug use numbers are impressive. Following decriminalization, Portugal had the lowest rate of lifetime marijuana use in people over 15 in the E.U.: 10%. The most comparable figure in America is in people over 12: 39.8%. Proportionally, more Americans have used cocaine than Portuguese have used marijuana.

Re:Prop 19

[OzPeter]

What is "prop 19" - it is nowhere on my state's ballot. I suppose this is a micro version of all the non-USA people complaining Slashdot is too USA centric talks. You are too whatever-state-you're-in centric.

I know this is getting off topic but after having lived in the US for several years I feel that **in general** Americans think of themselves on order of as being members of their local community (and that political affiliation sits around this level), followed by being a resident of their state, followed by being citizens of their country, and finally members of the world community. So that local "issues" take precedence over more encompassing issues, even if those more encompassing issues are more important. This sometimes gives me the impression that the people born here don't think of themselves as being citizens of their country first and foremost, but rather only consider it when it affects other, more closely held beliefs,

Note that this is a generalization and opinion of a foreigner in the US and is meant to be taken with a grain of salt.

Re:Prop 19

[Anonymous Coward]

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=prop+19

Lazy bastard.

Re:Prop 19

[Hatta]

Unfortunatly, Prop 19 may end up making Cannabis less legal in California than it is now. Today possession of less than an ounce of Cannabis is not a jailable offense in California. Prop 19 would recriminalize it in some circumstances under the auspices of "regulation". It would restrict legal Cannabis productions to a small number of registered growers, setting the stage for corporate domination of the Cannabis market. It also allows cities to prohibit the sale of legal Cannabis, which will actually reduce the availability of Cannabis.

This law, like so many, has had so many gotchas thrown in it to appease the negative nincompoops that it's worse than nothing.

Re:Prop 19

[hedwards]

That's mostly a matter of scale. We're the 3rd most populous nation behind India and China. We're also the 3rd or 4th in terms of area depending upon how exactly you measure it.

But it also has to do with the fact that we have states rather than provinces like pretty much all the other nations. They were originally completely autonomous being under a single confederation from becoming independent to about the time that George Washington took office, and a considerable number of issues are still handled at the state level. In fact most of the things that I do are likely to be handled in state law rather than federal law.

Prop 19 is a dumb one because pot is primarily criminal under federal law, and so this isn't going to make much difference. We in Seattle passed a similar ordinance some years back declaring pot to be the lowest priority for the police department. Funny thing is that it already was the lowest priority for them and it didn't change any of the other bits either.

Re:Prop 19

[butalearner]

Interesting how the possible state law for legalization of marijuana is getting as much or more attention from American people than the elections of the legislators who actually make our laws.

Not to mention it probably won't happen even if it passes. In Arizona we've passed a proposition to legalize medical marijuana three times, and it's on the ballot again this year.

Re:Prop 19

[OzPeter]

btw, it annoys me to no end when some foreigner complains on Slashdot about how some comment is USA-centric. Sure, the internet is international, but when I go to a British website I don't complain about how it's UK-centric. I love that so many foreigners post on Slashdot; I've learned quite a bit from them, especially when the story is about their home country; but don't get annoyed when comments on a political story use the pronoun 'we' to refer to 'the American people.'

As a foreigner who posts here and has had stories accepted here I feel somewhat eligible to respond to this comment. I will do so with an example of what I have experienced.

I saw an article in a newspaper in my home country (of which English is the native language), made a submission with a direct quote from the linked text. The submission was accepted and published on /. but the kicker was that spelling in the direct quote was converted to US English.

It is this sort of lack of respect that brings forth the things you are complaining about.

You may say that ./ is a US centric website. Yes I agree it was a US based creation but I suspect that a significant amount of readership is non-US based and a huge number of stories are non US related, so I feel that complaining about foreigners saying what they do is a bit off base.

Re:Prop 19

[Wyatt Earp]

Prop 19 is getting very little coverage. I'm in Alaska which already has liberal laws on personal marijuana possession, theres no coverage on the local TV news, local papers, hell its a side issue even for the national news.

Re:Prop 19

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting, I've heard lots of people describe Germans that way in contrast to Americans having a strong national identity. I certainly don't think of myself of North Carolinian or Georgian despite spending years in both. Identification with and focus on local issues though might be more true to some degree in that we actually have the potential to change things at that level where nationally we can't have much affect and internationally, even less.

Re:Prop 19

[OzPeter]

But it also has to do with the fact that we have states rather than provinces like pretty much all the other nations

And I think that is the key thing - Americans don't believe in their country. To me the squabbles over interstate commerce and the collection of sales tax vs self reporting of use tax are one indication of that.

Re:Prop 19

[Anonymous Coward]

This is all an outright lie. It's not a jaillable offense, but it's still an offense that will cost you a ticket and the marijuana/paraphanalia you have confiscated. After, it will be legal unless an honest to god federal agent catches you.
Any adult can grow 25 square feet legally, so explain how that would mean it'll be restricted to a small number of growers.
Corporations are national entities. If they start trying to produce and sell pot then the federal government will have their ass.
Cities can regulate _recreational_, not medical, sales. Availability can only increase. They also can't stop people from having 25 sq foot gardens.

You, like so many opposed to this law, are completely full of shit. In all likelihood you're making a decent living off of medical marijuana and you just don't want to lose that even for the good of everyone else.

Re:Prop 19

[OzPeter]

Interesting, I've heard lots of people describe Germans that way in contrast to Americans having a strong national identity.

That may be a bias between looking from the inside vs looking from the outside

I certainly don't think of myself of North Carolinian or Georgian despite spending years in both. Identification with and focus on local issues though might be more true to some degree in that we actually have the potential to change things at that level where nationally we can't have much affect and internationally, even less.

That may be true. Opting out of greater things is easier to do. I'll have to ponder that.

Re:Prop 19

[RazorSharp]

For the most part you're right. There are a lot of historical reasons for this attitude. To quote the tenth amendment of the U.S. constitution, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." This is why laws, cultures, and infrastructure vary so much from state to state. While the Commerce Clause ("[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;") has be used to limit the tenth amendment through Supreme Court decisions, local concerns have always trumped national ones.

Another reason for this is the members of the House of Representatives are elected from districts within the states. These representatives' first priority is to their district because those are their only constituents. That's why Nancy Pelosi doesn't care if she's hated throughout the midwest. She only has to worry about the vote in San Francisco (and similarly Midwestern representatives don't concern themselves with coastal politics).

The final reason for this local affinity is geography. A lot of Americans have never even left their home state. It's a big country. Texas is the size of France, Europe's largest country, and it's the second largest state. It's hard for someone in Hawaii to be concerned with what goes on in New York. These geographical differences have been the federal government's greatest challenge. That's what incited the country's only civil war. Urban and rural citizens have vastly different expectations of government. Their fight is to control the state first and the federal government second. Unfortunately, for many, the world community is only a concern if it's a military issue.

Re:Prop 19

[Anonymous Coward]

I mostly agree with your analysis -- except perhaps for the community party. I think more residents feel affiliated primarily with their state. It isn't unless that state is conflicted about tolerance, e.g. many of the central states, when people feel tied to community or loyalty to country.

Foreigners overlook this 'allegiance' almost always, referring to Americans as if they are united, for one cause, supporting the other, et cetera, and it always pisses me off. It can't be any more wrong. Some of us truthfully regard Canadians in the same esteem as our other non-local American counterparts.

Re:Prop 19

[RazorSharp]

Well, I'd have to agree there's no reason to change the spelling from UK English to U.S. It's not like U.S. book publishers do that sort of editing to UK/Aussie/ect. books. And /. readers should be intelligent enough to realize that the post didn't spell "colour" wrong, it's just non-American English. Shame on the editor in that case.

What I was complaining about is how when commenting on a political story I may say something like "we need to vote for candidate X" and then some snarky foreigner says, "I'm not American you insensitive clod! Who's this 'we' you speak of?"

Re:Prop 19

[DarthJohn]

I will personally beat to death the first Stoner that injures one of my family members because they were driving while stoned.

If they were simply drunk, talking on their phone, or otherwise distracted you would let them off with a mild beating?

Re:Prop 19

[Hatta]

After, it will be legal unless an honest to god federal agent catches you.

Or if you enjoy a joint in your own home when there are children in the house.

Any adult can grow 25 square feet legally

It's not 25 square feet per person, it's 25 square feet per property. This could be a big problem for multi-home properties.

Re:Prop 19

[spynode]

And not a guy who did it while being drunk? Of course driving while being high should be illegal but it is not a logical reason to prohibit it altogether.

Re:Prop 19

[AnonymousClown]

I will personally beat to death the first Stoner that injures one of my family members because they were driving while stoned.

I wanted to do that to the dingbat who t-boned my wife with her big SUV while yakking on her goddamn cell phone.

Re:Prop 19

[OzPeter]

I mostly agree with your analysis -- except perhaps for the community party.

Back 10 or 12 years ago I saw an issue raised in Pittsburgh where some local politician was complaining that the city was losing tax dollars because the players of the Pittsburgh Steelers were not choosing to live within the bounds of the city. I have lived in a couple of locations where there was a distinction between city and county and in each place I have seen issues like this raised - and that is part of basis for my community comment.

Another reason for it is that politics are carried out at such a local level (ie vote for the local dog catcher - probably a bad example!) so people have to carry divisive political affiliations at that level, and that even though political groups may be nationally based people still carry strong political feelings on a personal basis and feel to be members of a political community (sor of like being members of an online community). I have had a couple of "friends" with conservative leanings stop talking to me because I am not of their political persuasion - even though I can't even vote here!

Re:Prop 19

[couchslug]

If they do it while drunk, will you respond by stern frowning and finger-wagging?

Re:Prop 19

[sempir]

One presumes you would do the same for a Drunk!

Re:Prop 19

[OzPeter]

That's what incited the country's only civil war. Urban and rural citizens have vastly different expectations of government. Their fight is to control the state first and the federal government second.

Sometimes I think that the US needs another civil war. Its so polarised at the moment its almost amazing that it does hang together as a country.

BTW as per HI. If I was Hawaiian I'd be more than indifferent to the mainland, I'd be pissed off. HI didn't choose to become a state. It was annexed due to business interests playing the US government - or perhaps the other way around.

Re:Prop 19

[modmans2ndcoming]

If it passes, my next vacation will be to Cali!

Re:Prop 19

[vertinox]

Prop 19 is a dumb one because pot is primarily criminal under federal law, and so this isn't going to make much difference.

I'm going to loose my moderation here but I want to point out something interesting.

There is specific wording in the US constitution that prohibits the US Federal government from interfering with the collection of state taxes.

In so much so that the US gov cannot collect income taxes from income received from interest on state municipal bonds (great way to avoid taxes btw).

Now the only way the US can specifically outlaw pot and prevent California from taxing it is via a constitutional amendment (its what they did for the alcohol prohibition after all) and its really doubtful such a thing would pass in this political environment.

I do believe the DEA will challenge it if it passes, but I think whoever put Prop 19 together was smart in that they specifically made the law to tax it and provide income to the state which historically cannot be legally interfered by the US Federal government.

Had their been no tax clause, the Feds could have shut it down,

Re:Prop 19

[modmans2ndcoming]

When the DEA starts worrying about the pot head with an ounce bag walking down the street, then the federal laws will matter. Until then, the Californian people will not have to worry about getting arrested by the local PD which is usually the origin of most federal charges brought against a pot enthusiast with his/her own plant in the basement.

Re:Prop 19

[Anonymous Coward]

So write your own summary and post it...

Someone writes a summary and they write it how they would normally write and you bitch about it? Seriously? I think my mind just exploded from the seriously stupid thing you just asked for.

Re:Prop 19

[modmans2ndcoming]

Hence the reasons regulation is more effective than making it illegal.

Re:Prop 19

[modmans2ndcoming]

If it was on the ballot 3 times, then it wasn't passed any time prior unless your constitution allows the legislature to over turn it. In Cali... 51% of voters can pass a proposition and not a single politician can do a damn thing about it.

Re:Prop 19

[Tumbleweed]

I will personally beat to death the first Stoner that injures one of my family members because they were driving while stoned.

Yeah, good thing that would never happen unless someone legalizes marijuana!

It's statements like this that make me really shake my head. It's like assuming there aren't any gays in the military because of DADT. Worries about unit cohesion? They're already there! The people already know who is and isn't gay in most cases. There IS no unit cohesion problem.

Marijuana and gays are harmless, already here, and are actually useful in many ways. There are actually things that ARE harmful and already legal that people should be worried about.

Re:Prop 19

[OzPeter]

You seem to be missing the point. I wrote my own summary and included a direct quote from the linked article. The "editor" chose to re-write the DIRECT QUOTE and changed it make it US centric but in doing so made it no longer a DIRECT QUOTE

Re:Prop 19

[Anonymous Coward]

How often does that happen today? Legalized cannabis won't significantly increase the amount of people driving stoned, trust me.

Re:Prop 19

[uncqual]

This argument wouldn't last long in court. The fact that something can be taxed doesn't make it legal IFF it is taxed.

Suppose Montana passed a law making it legal to assassinate IRS auditors but imposed a one cent tax on each such assassination. Would you still think your argument makes sense applied to that case?

Re:Prop 19

[Anonymous Coward]

Sometimes I think that the US needs another civil war. Its so polarised at the moment its almost amazing that it does hang together as a country.

How did the previous American Civil War depolarize the US? 145 years after it ended there are still Confederate flags and talk of secession.

Re:Prop 19

[vxice]

The whole point of states rights and individual states, besides getting people to agree to the new country at all by allowing strong local control of government except where unavoidable is that you have many small test labs to work in. Can California make legal marijuana work? If yes how and should it be copied to other states. Do people support it enough that they would move from their current state to live in a state that supports the law. Prop 19 will signal an acceptance of change in a law that should have been recognized as illegitimate long ago. Your state may be next and will certainly be considering it sooner if California accepts this law.

Re:Prop 19

[OzPeter]

Sometimes I think that the US needs another civil war. Its so polarised at the moment its almost amazing that it does hang together as a country.

How did the previous American Civil War depolarize the US? 145 years after it ended there are still Confederate flags and talk of secession.

Well it did vent a lot of feelings! But I was more thinking a civil war used to split the country up into 2 separate countries.

Re:Prop 19

[Anonymous Coward]

Having a murderous ideology like you is no different from being mentally stoned.

Change your views!

Re:Prop 19

[Anonymous Coward]

The legislators don't make the laws anymore, the lobbyists do.

Re:Prop 19

[Anonymous Coward]

Needs to be split into more than 2 countries :P

Re:Prop 19

[dpilot]

It's easier to wax moralistic about cannabis and gays.
Plus people are already making money on those things that are harmful and already legal.

Re:Prop 19

[pitchpipe]

I will personally beat to death the first Stoner that injures one of my family members because they were driving while stoned.

You seem to be implying that no one drives while stoned right now because marijuana is illegal, and that if it is legalized people will suddenly start driving while stoned (which is illegal right now and would remain so). If you've taken a class in logic I'd ask for a refund. See this. Unless you were trying for this, in which case I missed it.

Re:Prop 19

[digitalPhant0m]

I find it also interesting that the article just above this on slashdot is titled "How Much Math Do We Really Need?".

I clicked to view the comments on this article out of curiosity to see how many people would be talking about the marijuana prop.

It's a scary time indeed.

Re:Prop 19

[fishbowl]

>Would I suggest outlawing tequila because I won't drink it? No.

Is it legal to make tequila where you live? Or if it's legal to make distilled blue agave spirits where you live, is it legal to call the product "tequila?"

There are places where you can do hard time in the penitentiary for making tequila -- possibly far worse a punishment than you'd get for growing marijuana. Just how "legal" is that tequila?

Re:Prop 19

[Fred Ferrigno]

Changing the spelling and complaining about changing the spelling are equally petty. Both you and the editor would be better off if you didn't bother.

Re:Prop 19

[JWSmythe]

    No but it may show a marked increase in munchies purchases, and in-home theft of said munchies. :)

Re:Prop 19

[node_chomsky]

...Stoner that injures one of my family members because they were driving while stoned.

Obviously, the only reason this hasn't happened yet is because laws have kept stoned drivers off the roads for years. Once it's legal than that means driving while intoxicated will become legal, right? Laws stop crime, right?

I am not some Randian Tea-bagger, but it is safe to say that legality of one's actions rarely factors into the decision making process of a criminal. I doubt legalization of marijuana would suddenly change the laws regarding proper and lawful operation of a moving vehicle in any way. However letting someone grow marijuana in their back yard for consumption in their own home is probably better for public safety than a bunch of paranoid, gun-toting and stoned drug-dealers driving around between their clients houses to make deliveries. Also, marijuana is a serious boom on the delivery industry, which is telling on many levels. In other words, assuming that legalized marijuana would have any effect other than diminishing the level of intoxicated people on the road is at best fallacious, and at worse flies in the face of common sense.

And for all the libertarians out there, even if you agree with me on this point, I still think you are a fool, child, or both. But we just happen to agree on this issue. The Tea-Bag 'movement' needs to crawl back into Ron Paul's lower orifices where they fermented from.The attitude of the typical Randian Objectivist can make Chairman Mao look like a teddy bear. Plus, there are already many great Randian-Objectivist nations already on the map, like the C.A.R., Nigeria, Seychelles, Somalia, and many more, just take your pick! All of these places don't bother with public projects and things that get in the way of making a profit like the police and public schools. If your house catches fire, hey guess what? The government will be so uninterested in your personal affairs, you won't have to even make the decision as to whether to ask the government for help putting it out, because you simply won't have that option. Doesn't that sound just like the eternal paradise filled with candy canes and s'mores that libertarians promise us through indiscriminate slashing of government nuisances-to-freedom like the FDA. Won't a world where half your children die of preventable diseases be so much better, nothing gets in the way of a strong bottom line like children. Sounds like a Randian* paradise to me!

*If you are among the majority of tea-baggers who have never picked up a book that didn't have a picture of Glenn Beck dressed like a Nazi on the cover. Randian Objectivism is the base philosophy of your 'movement' that rejects all governmental (and in many ways, personal) altruism that was concocted by the very bitter (her wealthy family had its wealth redistributed by Bolsheviks when she was a child) Ayn Rand. I am not directly referring to Ron Paul's son Rand Paul, even though he is certainly a major practitioner of it.

Re:Prop 19

[Will.Woodhull]

So the editor should have kicked the EN-US spell checker to the kerb, and loaded the EN-UK or EN-AU spell checker instead? I don't think so. I think he should work with the tools of syntax that slashdot has chosen, and focus on the semantics of the job.

I believe that it was Churchill who said that Britain and America are two countries separated by a common language. Same goes for Australia, Canada, etc. A bit of tolerance for the way everyone else mangles the language in the wrong way seems appropriate.

Re:Prop 19

[clong83]

Multi-home properties being a big problem? Are you serious? Are you thinking about an apartment complex or something going over-budget on its 25 square feet cause 3 guys all independently grow in their spare bedroom? Or folks with garage apartments/backyard houses that get leased out? Do you really think that these are going to pose a serious enough issue to vote the proposition down? I suspect that if there are minor problems with the law in cases like this, it will get ironed out in the courts or an amendment to the law at a later time. I'm certainly not considering it as relevant to whether the law shoudl pass or not.

As for the joint in the home- It's still legal to smoke cigarettes and drink in your own home with kids around. I think I'd honestly prefer it if those kind of parents just lit a joint.

Re:Prop 19

[Vintermann]

Some drinks are illegal. I think it's weird to talk of beer and wine etc. as "different alcohols".

Re:Prop 19

[Anonymous Coward]

And I think that is the key thing - Americans don't believe in their country. To me the squabbles over interstate commerce and the collection of sales tax vs self reporting of use tax are one indication of that.

The country we believe in. The government, not so much. Well, except for a few Southerners still wanting to re-fight the civil war, and some New England and California University leftists who believe in the government but not the country.

Re:Prop 19

[electrosoccertux]

btw, it annoys me to no end when some foreigner complains on Slashdot about how some comment is USA-centric. Sure, the internet is international, but when I go to a British website I don't complain about how it's UK-centric. I love that so many foreigners post on Slashdot; I've learned quite a bit from them, especially when the story is about their home country; but don't get annoyed when comments on a political story use the pronoun 'we' to refer to 'the American people.'

As a foreigner who posts here and has had stories accepted here I feel somewhat eligible to respond to this comment. I will do so with an example of what I have experienced.

I saw an article in a newspaper in my home country (of which English is the native language), made a submission with a direct quote from the linked text. The submission was accepted and published on /. but the kicker was that spelling in the direct quote was converted to US English.

It is this sort of lack of respect that brings forth the things you are complaining about.

You may say that ./ is a US centric website. Yes I agree it was a US based creation but I suspect that a significant amount of readership is non-US based and a huge number of stories are non US related, so I feel that complaining about foreigners saying what they do is a bit off base.

Boy, life sure must be rough not having the respect you desire.

Just be glad we're not a real dictator that enslaves the entire populace of countries we capture after importing them to the home country.

Re:Prop 19

[gmhowell]

Sometimes I think that the US needs another civil war. Its so polarised at the moment its almost amazing that it does hang together as a country.

How did the previous American Civil War depolarize the US? 145 years after it ended there are still Confederate flags and talk of secession.

Well it did vent a lot of feelings! But I was more thinking a civil war used to split the country up into 2 separate countries.

There's a map for that.

Re:Prop 19

[Lucidus]

But of course U.S. publishers do routinely revise books for the American market. For example, "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" in the U.S. was originally "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone" in the UK (which makes a lot more sense, if you know any history at all - apparently something the publishers don't expect from American readers).

Re:Prop 19

[flyingkillerrobots]

Not universally; there are versions of Harry Potter in both British and American English.

Re:Prop 19

[vertinox]

Suppose Montana passed a law making it legal to assassinate IRS auditors but imposed a one cent tax on each such assassination.

in theory any state could make murder legal (though assault on Federal employees is technically a federal crime) but there is the issue of federal funds.

DId you know most the laws that the Federal government passes actually is enforces by laws in the states (such as speed limits and drinking age laws) simply because the federal government makes the enforcement of the law a requirement for the state to receive federal money.

In theory any state can choose not to accept the law and not receive the money tied to do.

I think Montana does this with their speed limit law.

Keep in mind drug laws are passed and enforced by the state governments and not directly by the Federal government. If the states refuse to enforce the laws, then the Federal government won't really have the means to do anything about it.

Even if they were able to make it a federal crime, if the states refused to pay the bill to house the prisoners or have their officers not spend the effort to make the arrests, it is unlikely the Federal agents will be able to fill in the gap.

Re:Prop 19

[Civil_Disobedient]

I do believe the DEA will challenge it if it passes

No, they won't. They're not that stupid.

The Feds do not have anywhere near the numbers of agents necessary to do this. Just to put things in perspective: even if you took all the currently available federal agents from the FBI (~13500), the ATF (~2500) and the DEA (~5500), that's about the same number of sworn officers in the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department alone.

There is simply no way they could do it. And on top of that, they would get no cooperation from local police if they tried this. Why should they? It's a complete waste of taxpayers dollars that could be better-spent fighting real crimes.

Re:Prop 19

[zippthorne]

Congressman Pelosi doesn't have to care about the midwest, but Speaker Pelosi most certainly does have to consider it. Inasmuch as the other congressmen who would vote her as speaker must weigh that decision against their constituents' wishes.

She's removed enough that she doesn't need to give it too much thought, but it looks like some fraction of her supporters won't be back next term to vote for her. So we'll see on tuesday how that's workin' out.

Re:Prop 19

[uncqual]

Possession, sale etc of marijuana is a Federal crime.

Driving 56 MPH back when the "national speed limit" was 55MPH was not a Federal crime - as you point out, the Feds just used their role as a middleman in highway funding scheme to coerce most states to enact state level 55 MPH speed limit laws.

The Feds mostly don't bother to enforce many Federal marijuana laws involving small amounts of the evil weed because the state/local governments took care of that via state laws and enforcement. When California legalizes some possession of marijuana in the upcoming election (hopefully), the Feds may become more active in enforcing Federal laws in this arena.

Note that the Federal laws regarding marijuana possession are much more severe than current California laws. I believe, for example, that possession of any amount of marijuana is punishable under Federal law by up to a one year prison sentence and a $1,000 fine on a first conviction and a minimum of a couple weeks in prison for subsequent convictions. In theory, I believe selling 0.5 ounces to a friend could lead to a $250,000 fine and five years in prison under Federal law for the first offense.

Fortunately, the Feds probably usually have better things to do than track down folks with a couple plants in their back yard.

Re:Prop 19

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not like U.S. book publishers do that sort of editing to UK/Aussie/ect. books.

LOL. Do you really believe this?

Re:Prop 19

[beckerist]

Deaths by drunk driving in the US per year (rough average:) ~12,000 -- (1)
Deaths by Marijuana in the World...EVER: 0 -- (2)

Sources:
Reference 1
Reference 2

Re:Prop 19

[baegucb]

Not quite right. http://www.laalmanac.com/crime/cr67.htm says 8,553 sworn officers.

Re:Prop 19

[JWSmythe]

    I totally agree with you.

    I have my own segregation of alcohols, but it doesn't exactly follow what some states user as their guidelines for sales licensing.

Re:Prop 19

[magarity]

It's explained in the summary...

one California proposition -- which would legalize marijuana.

Oh, well I live in Colorado where already we let the reefer addicts legally buy their pot by getting a "prescription" first. Two doctors in Boulder give out something like 90% of the prescriptions. It basically goes something like this:
 
RA: Huh huh, Doc, I need a prescription for my weed.
Doctor: You're supposed to say you have a pain.
RA: What pain?
Doctor: you need to say you have a pain before I can give you a prescription
RA: Huh huh, yeah, I do
Doctor: Close enough, here you go

Re:Prop 19

[CrimsonAvenger]

And I think that is the key thing - Americans don't believe in their country. To me the squabbles over interstate commerce and the collection of sales tax vs self reporting of use tax are one indication of that.

We believe in the country.

We also believe in the Constitution. Which has imposes fairly strict limits on what the Federal government can do (note that those limits are routinely ignored since FDR was President).

The USA was set up so the primary laws are at the State level - the Feds just handle the things at the interfaces between the States and the rest of the world - the military, tariffs, navigable waterways, money, that sort of thing. The stuff people are mostly concerned with - murders, robberies, fire protection, etc. are dealt with at the State level.

Re:Prop 19

[Anonymous Coward]

I might get high and run down your family just to see if you're man enough to do it, big boy.

Re:Prop 19

[Grishnakh]

You may say that ./ is a US centric website. Yes I agree it was a US based creation but I suspect that a significant amount of readership is non-US based and a huge number of stories are non US related, so I feel that complaining about foreigners saying what they do is a bit off base.

I don't think it's off-base at all. I think he's exactly correct.

BBC.com is a UK-based website, but I suspect it has a significant amount of readership that is non-UK based, and a huge number of stories that are non-UK related (they usually put them in the section called "World News"). Don't you think Brits would be rather annoyed if the American readers of bbc.com started complaining about it being "too UK-centric"?

If Slashdot were hosted in Sealand, and was not mostly American, then people would have a point. But it's not; it's owned by an American company, is located in America, and most of the readers are Americans. So stop whining ("whining", not "whinging").

It's so easy sometimes to think my countrymen (Americans) are a bunch of retards because of things they do. But then I see non-Americans on Slashdot complaining about silly things like this and I realize that Americans probably aren't any dumber than anyone else.

Re:Prop 19

[Grishnakh]

That's mostly a matter of scale. We're the 3rd most populous nation behind India and China. We're also the 3rd or 4th in terms of area depending upon how exactly you measure it.

Actually, we're probably #1 or #2 in terms of usable area. Sure, Canada and Russia are gigantic, but much of their land is frozen wasteland (tundra), and can't be lived on, and only sometimes can it even be used for other purposes like resource extraction. By contrast, there isn't much land in the USA that isn't usable; even our deserts have big cities in them (Phoenix and Las Vegas), thanks to irrigation canals and the invention of air conditioning. While there are some relatively unpopulated areas, there really aren't many places (except northern Alaska) that are really uninhabited, there's small towns and such everywhere.

Because of this, our population is quite spread out. Other large countries aren't like that. In China, most of the population lives along the east coast. In Canada, almost everyone lives within 100 miles of the US border. In Russia, most people live on the European side.

Re:Prop 19

[Anonymous Coward]

That's what she said!

Re:Prop 19

[Grishnakh]

The self reporting of use tax has nothing to do with the Federal government, that's completely a state issue. The Federal government (IRS) only cares how much money you earn, not where you spend it. It's the states that levy sales taxes, and want you to pay use taxes on purchases outside your state.

Anyway, this has nothing to do with "not believing in your country", it's the simple fact that people don't like to pay taxes. Somehow, I don't think people in other countries are any different. Do you honestly want me to believe that people in other countries love paying taxes, and even contribute extra when they can? In America, we have the advantage that with different state governments, and a Federal government, not working in concert, it becomes trivial to evade some taxes because of the confusion (i.e., purchasing goods on the internet from out-of-state websites). In other countries, it's not that way, there's only one government that collects taxes, and it's not simple to get out of it.

Also, Americans have a long history of not liking to pay taxes, going back to the Revolutionary days. Considering the size of our government has grown so much since then, many people feel the government is taking too many taxes, and worse, spending it on unnecessary garbage, such as foreign wars of aggression, foreign aid to corrupt governments, enforcement of stupid Prohibition laws, bailing out giant corporations so they can give that money to their executives as big bonuses, and much more, instead of spending it on useful services. There's nothing wrong with evading taxes when it's going to be used for corruption and evil.

Re:Prop 19

[Grishnakh]

No, the US needs to split up into a bunch of separate countries. It's too big, and just like big corporations become inefficient and corrupt, so it is with governments. Big countries require big governments out of practicality, so the way to trim down the government is to trim down the country, by splitting it up. Hopefully, California's move to legalize pot is the beginning of this process.

Re:Prop 19

[Confusador]

It's not like U.S. book publishers do that sort of editing to UK/Aussie/ect. books.

You mean, like Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone? I'm not saying it's right, mind, I'm saying it's worse than you thought. That may explain (but not excuse) some of the attitude you've been seeing from some of those outside our borders.

Re:Prop 19

[ozmanjusri]

Saliva tests.

They've been in use in Australia for most of this decade.

Re:Prop 19

[ozmanjusri]

It's not like U.S. book publishers do that sort of editing to UK/Aussie/ect. books.

Are you kidding?

When they turned Mad Max into Road Warrior, they dubbed in American accents because Australians were too hard to understand!

Re:Prop 19

[kasimbaba]

Marijuana and gays are harmless, already here, and are actually useful in many ways.

In what ways are gays useful?

Re:Prop 19

[mrchaotica]

No, the US needs to split up into a bunch of separate countries.

The US is split up into a bunch of separate countries (called "States"). The problem is that our equivalent to the EU has been getting uppity since about FDR. To fix it, we just need to reinforce federalism and the separation of powers by weakening the Commerce and Elastic Clauses back to what they were intended to be and (possibly) repealing the 17th Amendment.

(Note: keep the replies arguing the semantics of "federations" vs. "confederations" to yourselves, please!)

Re:Prop 19

[node_chomsky]

"The American and British are two people separated by a common language"

-George Bernard Shaw

Re:Prop 19

[roman_mir]

There are actually things that ARE harmful and already legal that people should be worried about.

- precisely.

These include in no particular order:

*gov't passing bills like the 'Patriot Act'
*gov't reaching up one's anus (probably literally) before an airplane takes off.
*gov't being allowed to change rules in free market and thus it destroying the economy by:
  -creating the Fed, which prints money/bonds and sets interest rates, creating inflation, which only benefits the gov't, because of it's enormous debt and is aimed at killing off price deflation, which is what consumer need.
  -creating regulations, which destroy competition and promote monopolies
  -subsidizing any business at all ever and thus killing competitive nature of the market
  -setting wage laws
  -fixing prices
  -taxing income (so taxing work rather than leisure), so income and payroll taxes. Obviously taking away people's ability to fend for themselves, to save and invest and taking money away in pyramid schemes like SS, not investing but spending all that money on gov't friends and wars
  -spending money on anything at all but minimum military and the justice system
  -turning private health insurance into NHS and causing health care costs to skyrocket (thank's Nixon)
  -causing obesity by fixing food prices all while subsidizing things like corn/soy/wheat/rice and causing food to be stable in price but worsening in terms of quality and containing too much pure fructose
  -starting drug wars and jailing millions, while creating gangs and indirectly causing deaths and suffering

etc.

Re:Prop 19

[Dayze!Confused]

I would guess that the editor probably used spell check and noticed that everything was spelled wrong and corrected the "misspelled words". It was probably just another one of /.'s attempt at pretending to edit articles and failing.

Re:Prop 19

[Tumbleweed]

> Marijuana and gays are harmless, already here, and are actually useful in many ways.
In what ways are gays useful?

In the same ways any other human being is useful. Lots of very skilled talent has been kicked out of the military simply because they're gay. Plus, you know, if you want teh gay sex, gays tend to have much more experience. And when you need someone with a wide stance, you should totally ask a gay politician, though it's okay for Republican politicians to be gay, as long as they deny it.

Re:Prop 19

[Grishnakh]

Nope, our equivalent to the EU ended in the Civil War, when the Federal Government took powers that the Constitution didn't afford to it. After that point, it was all downhill.

But yes, it got a lot worse with FDR and the introduction of the Federal income tax and the IRS. Taxes should never be collected at the Federal level.

Anyway, I don't believe it will work, not with so many states. Our states are simply too small. So either some of them need to merge together into small countries (e.g., the Northwest states in one country, the southwest states in another, the southeast states in another country, CA and TX their own countries, etc.), or they need to redraw the boundaries to eliminate unnecessarily tiny states like Rhode Island and Connecticut. After that point, the new countries can form a loose confederation like the EU, where they cooperate on defense and share a common currency and free trade, and that's it. They should also join with Canada in that regard.

Re:Prop 19

[DrLang21]

As a staunch Libertarian, I don't understand why Libertarians like the Tea Party movement. The candidates they put forth are the same type that would, if given free reign, happily ban cannabis, ban abortion, and any number of other things that involve the government having it's fist inside your rectum. They're just a bunch of the same old Republicans with a very specific agenda.

All that aside, what Libertarian would want to be known for going out and "tea bagging" with a group of people.

Re:Prop 19

[DrLang21]

Also, while Ayn Rand was obviously biter and quite often, ironically so, unreasonable, there is a common misconception that Objectivism would have your house burning to the ground. Ayn Rand wrote specifically about the case of helping people in emergencies and how it is reasonable and morally right to do so. I'm not really a follower of Objectivism, but keep in mind that most self-proclaimed Objectivists have no idea what they are talking about.

Re:Prop 19

[Anonymous Coward]

Did someone let grass grow over the "Please don't feed the trolls" sign?

Re:Prop 19

[node_chomsky]

Well put.

Re:Prop 19

[node_chomsky]

I believe that it was Churchill who said that Britain and America are two countries separated by a common language.

Churchill may have said it, but he was quoting George Bernard Shaw, who was known for making similar types of quips and was significantly older than Churchill, allthough their lifespans somewhat overlapped.

Not to invalidate your point, I just thought I would clarify.

Re:Prop 19

[mrchaotica]

Nope, our equivalent to the EU ended in the Civil War, when the Federal Government took powers that the Constitution didn't afford to it. After that point, it was all downhill.

Yeah, I omitted that argument because I didn't want replies going off on tangents about slavery.

Our states are simply too small.

I would be surprised if our states are smaller than EU countries, on average (by area or population).

Re:Prop 19

[Grishnakh]

I would be surprised if our states are smaller than EU countries, on average (by area or population).

I think, on average, they definitely are. While there are a few tiny European countries (Liechtenstein, Andorra, etc.), many of them are much larger by population than any of our states (Germany, France, UK). Their land area is more comparable, but they're more densely populated so that comparison isn't really relevant. Germany's population, for instance, is 82 million. California, easily the most populous state, isn't even half that large. France is 62 mil, UK is 61 mil, Italy is 60 mil, even Poland is 38 million.

I could see many of our states (esp. the smaller ones like the Northeast ones) combining into their own countries, with the states remaining separate political entities within, just like Germany is divided into its own states like Bavaria, Schleswig-Holstein, Saxony, etc., though the states don't have that much power, and some of our larger states (CA and TX) remaining independent (unless CA splits in half, which would actually make some sense).

Yeah, I omitted that argument because I didn't want replies going off on tangents about slavery.

Yep, that's the whole problem with any discussion about the Civil War. Slavery was only one of many issues there, and was used as a justification for a war of aggression which should have never happened. Slavery is wrong, but slaughtering millions of people in an unnecessary war is more wrong. The South's economy at the time was already in big trouble; the North should have just let them go, and worked things out peacefully after their economy collapsed.

Google and Prop 19

[xanadu113]

Yes Google, but is Prop 19 going to pass??

Re:Google and Prop 19

[WrongSizeGlass]

Yes Google, but is Prop 19 going to pass??

Google is a Search Engine not a Magic 8-Ball (yet) ... though it would be interesting to see what their predictions are if they could be posted before the elections but not accessible until after the results are in (I'd hate for Google to inadvertently affect the outcome of any election).

Re:Google and Prop 19

[noidentity]

If it is going to pass, then everyone could just stay home and avoid the hassle of voting. This could be a really useful tool.

Re:Google and Prop 19

[Dachannien]

Google is a Search Engine not a Magic 8-Ball (yet)

In other words: Reply hazy. Search again later.

Re:Google and Prop 19

[chucklebutte]

Prop 19 is bad for Californian Medical Marijuana users, it will reduce their allotted amount that they are allowed to posses, it will increase the current price of marijuana, if it is massed produced then the many strains and potency will be flushed down the toilet! Not to mention that CA already has decriminalized an ounce or less making prop 19 useless and for all those idiot morons out there spouting the taxes it will bring in, um if you are allowed to grow your own, what fucking taxes will you be paying? NONE! Oh then there is that beautiful part that allows each county in CA to choose to enforce the law, so if they choose to say no on 19 then it will be illegal for anyone over 21 or medical users in that town, great job!

If prop19 passes it will effectively turn marijuana into cocaine, meaning prices will sky rocket and possession over an ounce will be federal time. Get educated before your throw our futures away!

Re:Google and Prop 19

[modmans2ndcoming]

"search again on Nov 3rd".

Re:Google and Prop 19

[gmhowell]

Economics, you fail it.

Google's prediction

[Anonymous Coward]

Dewey wins despite his desire for penis enlargement.

Yet another instance of the Observer Effect?

[jenningsthecat]

Funny how physics principles apply to the socio-political domain. First it was popularity and election polls, now it's Google Predictions. In both cases the 'predictions' tend to become self-fulfilling. With this press release, the mere fact that Google is making these predictions will become a factor now and in future elections, just as it has become a factor in the success or failure of businesses that do or do not successfully manipulate their Google rankings. Politicians, political parties, lobbyists, and astro-turfers will all be scrambling to have Google 'predict' their success.

Make no mistake, Google is a kingmaker in our world. I find that a really scary state of affairs, especially given Eric Schmidt's pompous pronouncements on subjects such as privacy.

Re:Yet another instance of the Observer Effect?

[hedwards]

Could be worse. I found the exit polling during the 2000 Presidential race to be unacceptable meddling. They were making estimates and declaring things before the last polls had closed out west. I'm not really sure who it really favored, but it was obnoxious.

Re:Yet another instance of the Observer Effect?

[vxice]

If I were to guess it would be because supporters that have a better outlook get better return on their investment for supporting a winning cause. While supporters of a cause that appears sunk are unlikely to waste their effort. In the end people are still choosing to vote or not and who they vote for on their own accord. The problem actually is that we rely on such easily manipulated people to choose our leaders and laws. "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." If you have a better option I would like to hear it though.

Re:Yet another instance of the Observer Effect?

[TheKidWho]

Google might be good now, but there is no promise they will always remain so when the leadership changes.

Maybe 200 years from now people will curse us for allowing Google into existence. They might wonder how Google could have ever been a benevolent organization rather than the tool of dictators. In fact, they might never know that's how it was at the turn of the 21st century.

Re:Yet another instance of the Observer Effect?

[Anonymous Coward]

Alas this is the common failing of looking for correlations like the stock market following hem line trends in female clothing. These mysterious correlations are always predictive unless they aren't.

Re:Yet another instance of the Observer Effect?

[zippthorne]

The trick, if you're a political party, is to get a bunch of pollsters and others engaged in reporting on predictions and polling and whatnot, to report your desired outcome.

Then you can vote-fraud the night away, and no one will be the wiser. Heck, leave some areas alone, and when they don't track the polls closely enough, complain that there was vote fraud there.

You probably couldn't get away with turning a landslide defeat into a landslide victory, but you could tweak enough close races (and there are plenty of those, anyway) to maintain the power percentages that create the story you want to tell.

Re:I predict we'll get bastards in office again

[Anonymous Coward]

It is utter flamebait of you to suggest that that democracy isnt perfect.

since Google's not the government this is benign

[FuckingNickName]

Google announced they've searched for clues about the upcoming US election using their internal tools

Thank goodness Google has promised not to abuse the information it gathers! I mean, think of the influence and wealth you'd gain by providing the right information to the right powerful people.

Prop 19 could really use ...

[damn_registrars]

Some honesty. If either side was actually honest about their side of the issue, they could gain more traction. But when the pro side of the issue can't be honest about what they want, they shouldn't be surprised when people don't find their argument convincing.

Re:Prop 19 could really use ...

[RazorSharp]

Some honesty. If either side was actually honest about their side of the issue, they could gain more traction. But when the pro side of the issue can't be honest about what they want, they shouldn't be surprised when people don't find their argument convincing.

I don't get your argument. This isn't a "medical marijuana" law, it just legalizes marijuana outright. The current system in California is dishonest. You go to some quack doctor and complain about headaches or nervousness or any bullshit symptom that "goes away when I smoke pot" and the quack hands out a prescription.

Prop 19 just legalizes marijuana and the arguments in favor of it are that it would unburden the justice system of the time and money spent arresting, convicting, and imprisoning marijuana sellers/users. It's the same reason alcohol prohibition was ended. Because keeping it illegal doesn't curtail usage as much as it increases crime.

I agree that, in the past, the supporters of "medical marijuana" were for the most part being dishonest. Most just wanted to smoke recreationally. However, marijuana is the best medicine to counteract chemo-therapy side-effects so they weren't actually being dishonest about its medicinal properties, they were just being dishonest about their reasons for supporting it.

Re:Prop 19 could really use ...

[Hatta]

I'll be honest about what I want. Cannabis should have roughly the same legal status as coffee. As a daily user of each, I can tell you which is more harmful and it sure as hell isn't Cannabis.

Re:Prop 19 could really use ...

[Miseph]

Many people want to smoke pot, prop 19 proponents think they should be allowed to, and they think that creating a (regulated and taxed) legitimate industry to serve that desire would be of greater benefit to society than the prohibition which is current policy.

So far as I know, that's the main thrust of the pro side's arguments... everything I've heard on it basically boils down to one or more of those points.

The opposition's main point seems to be, essentially, pot is bad, smoking pot is bad, and we should continue to prohibit the cultivation, distribution and use of pot because doing so is in the best interests of society.

Again, their arguments seem to pretty consistently fall into these points.

Is there a class of argument that I've not witnessed which is fundamentally dishonest?

As some one who has smoked pot, quite a bit of it in fact, but no longer does and has no intention of ever doing it again (it tends to trigger panic attacks, paranoia, and crippling neurosis... none of which I find enjoyable in the slightest), I feel that the pro side has a much stronger case... if only because it is my general opinion that an activity should only be banned when it poses substantial and immediate danger of real harm to society. I support banning impaired drivers regardless of what impairs them (and yes, pot does impair one's ability to drive in ways similar to but somewhat different from alcohol... much like being high is similar to, but somewhat different from being drunk) based on the danger that they pose to others, but I also view that ban as substantially and obviously separate from an outright ban on consumption etc.

Re:Prop 19 could really use ...

[Hatta]

Is there a class of argument that I've not witnessed which is fundamentally dishonest?

No, but one of the classes you have witnessed is fundamentally dishonest.

Re:Prop 19 could really use ...

[Wyatt Earp]

Drinking a cup of coffee and then driving isn't going to impair you. Driving after using Cannabis is a bigger deal, I've used and driven and it was at least as impairing as drinking alcohol.

Also, you can't tell me that coffee impairs you worse than Cannabis while working.

Re:Prop 19 could really use ...

[ChromeAeonium]

Both sides dishonest? On one had we've got people saying that cannabis is a just plant (and last time I checked, science is pretty clear that C. sativa is indeed a plant), and that it is immoral to imprison people because they like to grow and consume the wrong plant in the comfort of their own home, and on the other hand we have the people who brought you Reefer Madness, who go on and on about freedom then try to squash people's inherent right to said freedom because they disagree with it. Only one side is dishonest, and it ain't the potheads.

Re:Prop 19 could really use ...

[ChromeAeonium]

You seem to know a thing or two about it, so question: who do you think it responsible for keeping cannabis illegal? I've heard people accuse the pharma companies, paper companies, fiber companies, and maybe some others, because cannabis is a cheap way of doing things better than some of their business models, but I've always assumed the ones who try to keep anti-cannabis laws on the books are the DEA/criminal 'justice' industry/prison-industrial complex ...people who deal in ruined lives and human misery, sucking up billions of tax dollars in the process. Free money and forced customers, must be a pretty sweet gig. And I guess there'd be a lot of douchebag pig-dogs in law enforcement out of a job if they stopped criminalizing cannabis, and heavens, can't have that (though in all seriousness, dangerous unemployed sociopaths running the streets would be kinda bad...maybe they should be the ones rotting in a federal prison because 'I was only following orders' is not a valid excuse). Know of any evidence to support any of those?

Re:Prop 19 could really use ...

[damn_registrars]

Both sides dishonest?

Yes, both sides are dishonest. The people who support prop 19 (and other legalization initiatives) should say "most users of pot can use it responsibly, and should be able to buy it legally". Instead, they opt for a much more extreme statement of "legalizing pot will solve every problem the world has ever faced, ever, immediately". And being as the supporters of prop 19 need a majority in order to achieve their desired change, they need to present a convincing argument.

Of course, there is plenty of dishonesty from the other side as well. The nonsense about "gateway drugs" and what not is just the tip of the iceberg. However the people who oppose prop 19 don't need to deliver a profound argument for the continued criminalization of pot; they just need to show that the argument for prop 19 has significant holes in it. As long as more people vote against prop 19 than vote for it, the law remains as it is currently written.

Of course, the difference between how it is written, and how it is actually enforced, is another matter.

Only one side is dishonest, and it ain't the potheads.

Wrong. There are dishonest people on both sides. While some of the people in support of prop 19 are honest enough to just come forward and say they want to use pot, others have resorted to lying about the (perceived) benefits of legalization.

Re:Prop 19 could really use ...

[Hatta]

Driving after using Cannabis is a bigger deal, I've used and driven and it was at least as impairing as drinking alcohol.

The DOT has done studies that show even at the higher range of recreational doses Cannabis is not as impairing as legal doses of alcohol. In fact, cannabis users over estimate their impairment and over compensate for it, which is what I expect you experienced.

Also, you can't tell me that coffee impairs you worse than Cannabis while working.

Depends entirely on the person and the type of work. I don't smoke before work, but I know people who do and they're all good at their jobs. Even high pressure jobs dealing with lots of information and deadlines. Give some of these same people 2 cups of coffee and they may well have a panic attack before lunch.

Re:Prop 19 could really use ...

[MattskEE]

Well then this simply implies one should take similar precautions with Cannabis and driving that one does with Ethyl Alcohol and driving.

The problem with caffeine is that it builds a chemical dependency so that you need to drink coffee every morning just to return to your baseline level of alertness - if you drink less coffee than usual in the morning you will be more tired than usual. See this article which discusses some research asserting that a regular coffee drinker's morning coffee only counteracts their caffeine withdrawal symptoms, and that they would be just as alert in the morning without drinking coffee. So coffee really does impair you, but because drinking the coffee every morning does seem to make you more alert, it seems like it's helping you instead of hurting you. And it's a psychoactive stimulant drug, so it puts stress on your body when you consumer caffeine. Consider how many more people drink coffee than smoke marijuana, and I wouldn't be surprised if coffee in total does more damage to people's health and the economy than marijuana.

I've switched to drinking coffee only once per week, on the morning I need to get up early after also staying up late. And anecdotally I can say that I'm more energetic on the other mornings of the week now, and the one day I drink coffee it does pep me up because I'm now not dependent on the caffeine.

Re:Prop 19 could really use ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Seat of the pants I have to agree with your driving study. Im more likely to drive under the speed limit rather then over it.

Re:Prop 19 could really use ...

[Anonymous Coward]

The hidden argument against legalizing pot is that there is currently a lot of profit in black market marijuana, and that whole industry will go away if the stuff is legalized.

To my mind, that is an excellent reason for legalizing it. I know that will be a hardship for the mellow growers of Humboldt County, CA, and all the infrastructure that has developed around their activities. Too bad. The thing is, there are plenty of other ways to make a living.

Re:Prop 19 could really use ...

[gmhowell]

Some honesty. If either side was actually honest about their side of the issue, they could gain more traction. But when the pro side of the issue can't be honest about what they want, they shouldn't be surprised when people don't find their argument convincing.

Yourself included, or are you still pretending that actual dope use leads to Reefer Madness type behaviour and homemade beer and wine are major causes of blindness?

Re:Prop 19 could really use ...

[Lucidus]

I have read that the largest contributors to the campaign against Prop 19 are the makers and distributors of alcoholic beverages, but certainly the prison industry also has a horse in this race.

Re:Prop 19 could really use ...

[Civil_Disobedient]

I feel that the pro side has a much stronger case

You are forgetting another argument for the pro side: while marijuana is illegal you have a defacto illicit market for its distribution. Once it's legal and regulated, legitimate entrepreneurs come in and market forces push the price down, which drives the criminals away.

Re:Prop 19 could really use ...

[damn_registrars]

There is spin, distortion, and outright lies from both sides. Which is why I said

If either side was actually honest about their side of the issue, they could gain more traction

Instead the issue is coming through like any other political crap; lots of emotion from both sides, lots of extreme (and at least in part lacking in fact) opinions, and very little honesty. Perhaps it is an effect of the current political climate that favors this kind of crap, or perhaps it was always attached to this issue anyways. Either way, neither side is truly honest.

Re:Prop 19 could really use ...

[Miseph]

Which one?

I very much dislike the game of politics by innuendo, if you a have point, make it or shut the fuck up.

Re:Prop 19 could really use ...

[Miseph]

I didn't forget that at all, I simply wrap that into a broader point from the other side: "creating a (regulated and taxed) legitimate industry to serve that desire would be of greater benefit to society than the prohibition which is current policy".

I've taken up a policy of keeping things positive and not accusing others of conspiracy to ________. I've seen a 90% dropoff in people calling me a loony or some such, and a 900% uptick in people dropping their bullshit right quick. Tact has its uses.

Re:Prop 19 could really use ...

[gmhowell]

It has always been this way. Ask Aaron Burr.

Re:Prop 19 could really use ...

[Confusador]

In the words of CmdrTaco "There is no -1:Disagree." You're going to have a hard enough time convincing people that they are wrong. Trying to tell them that they are lying as well is going to get you nowhere.

Re:Prop 19 could really use ...

[roman_mir]

I don't have a problem with people drinking coffee while working, but I do have a problem with having pot/alcohol/opiates/hallucinogens/other types of narcotics while at work or behind the wheel. So if you are a 'daily user' that means you are doing all of that while working/driving.

I am for legalization of all drugs but legalization does not mean that your employer has to tolerate you being high at work and definitely being high is just as much of a crime as being drunk while driving.

So while I think all drugs must be legal, it cannot be legal to be under influence where it matters, so just like a drunk person behind the wheel, a drugged person behind the wheel needs to be stopped and prosecuted as harshly as possible (IMNSHO)

Re:Prop 19 could really use ...

[damn_registrars]

Are you saying then that lying in current politics is justified by lying in past politics? I don't care much for that kind of reasoning... That sounds too similar to "I am killing you because your ancestors killed my ancestors (whose ancestors killed your ancestors' ancestors (whose ancestors killed my ancestors' ancestors' ancestors (ad naseum ... )))".

At some point someone needs to rise above that crap and actually limit their message to a truthful one.

Re:Prop 19 could really use ...

[Anonymous Coward]

"an activity should only be banned when it poses substantial and immediate danger of real harm to society."

4x as carcinogenic as cigarettes. Permanent health effects similar to alcohol in terms of mental impairment for heavy use. The idea that we screwed up and allowed alcohol and therefore should allow pot is an argument that we made one mistake and therefore it'd be just as bad to make two.

Re:Prop 19 could really use ...

[gmhowell]

No, I'm not justifying it based on past actions. I'm pointing out that modern actions are not unique.

The reason so few have attempted to "rise above that crap and actually limit their message to a truthful one" is because it is typically unsuccessful. You are wrong that honesty would gain more traction. That is wishful thinking.

Predicting?

[cheekyjohnson]

It's not all that difficult. I mean, you currently have a 50% chance of guessing the correct answer. Republican or democrat. Choose the one you think is the most popular! No other parties exist, and if they did, they are evil communists who will ruin this already ruined nation!

Re:first

[should_be_linear]

Google new you will do this shit.

How do they tell the difference

[Junior J. Junior III]

Between stuff I'm looking at because I agree with it, and stuff I'm looking at because I want to know what the opposition is up to?

Re:How do they tell the difference

[PaulMeigh]

Because nowadays most Americans only watch/read sources that they already agree with.

Re:How do they tell the difference

[Anonymous Coward]

> Between stuff I'm looking at because I agree with it, and stuff I'm looking at because I want to know what the opposition is up to?

They don't, they just figure that:

A) Most people are only looking at stuff they agree with.
B) There's a roughly equal proportion (and a small one) that looks at the opposition.

Re:How do they tell the difference

[Anonymous Coward]

They're not calling it a perfect predictor. They're just saying that it's matching up well in some races, that the searches say some interesting things about how some races are going, and perhaps suggesting this as an area of future research.

There is no way this could be used as a replacement for polls (not in the simplistic form, at least). For example, even though Christine O'Donnell is trailing badly in her Senate race, I guarantee she's getting way more searches than... umm... what's his name again?

So, at the very least, the simple versions of the approach suffer from Candidate Train Wreck Syndrome. If it becomes popular, it also risks being gamed by the candidates or other interested parties.

Still, if you consider that there are over 500 House races that need to be polled, not to mention the literally tens of thousands of down-ballot races, this technique could have a huge impact. But at the moment, we don't fully understand what the data can and cannot tell us.

Re:How do they tell the difference

[VocationalZero]

But what about the ones that panic or enrage us? Or use sex to sell? Or [insert stereotypical generalization]?

Hardly surprising Prop 19 is interesting

[rbrander]

Which party is ascendant does not appear to affect the larger sweep of history by all that much. Loads of Democrats voted for the War. Banking deregulation did start under Reagan and Bush I, but continued merrily under Clinton. Obama was supposed to be this big transformation, but all the civil rights slide and the wars continued untouched; banking and health reforms were way more timid than expected.

As for the Stalinist Obama Takeover....they're arguing about whether income over $363,000 should be taxed at 35% or 39.6% ...spare me.

But Prop 19, that's the first crack in a very, very big wall that has stood there for over 75 years, making a crime out of a handful of leaves. Several tens of millions of people know that the underlying assumptions of that law are utterly false, Literally millions of people who work jobs, raise families, pay mortgages fear arrest because of it, and have all their adult lives.

It's a big deal. And enough has happened in recent years (complete decrim in Portugal, popularity for medical use) to make this, well, umm, change we can believe in. For those of us who thought it was surely going to happen in the 80's, before a sudden rightward swing brought stupid arguments (and lying ads based on brainwaves of coma patients) right back to fhe fore when we thought them defeated at last, it's starting to look Really Possible at long, long last.

Ditch the politicians

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a solution to this, you know. We can be completely free of politicians: http://metagovernment.org/

Re:Ditch the politicians

[OzPeter]

There is a solution to this, you know. We can be completely free of politicians: http://metagovernment.org/

I read through that and then laughed my head off. Collectives do not scale past the number of people you can personally know. Been there, done that and yes I do have a T-shirt.

Re:Ditch the politicians

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? You've tried collaborative governance using sophisticated Web 2.0 technologies? Even though they are all in alpha or early beta? Do tell.

No need for elections now

[goombah99]

Now more cheating or campaigns needed. we'll just google to determine who wins. Much less expensive. Plus people in other parts of the world can help determine our outcome, unlike now where it's just hackers in Norway.

Insights for Search

[adamdoyle]

The problem with using only "insights for search" is that the people who are more likely to vote are less likely to use the internet (especially for researching politics). Now granted, the article says they used other sources as well, so I imagine they may have accounted for that. It's similar to the problem with the old-school random-digit-dialing approach that most polls use (they use other things as well, though). The kind of person who answers their phone without recognizing the number on caller ID is only a certain demographic. You have to figure out who that comprises of and take it into consideration in your measurements. (republicans are typically older, older people typically own a landline and answer the phone to anyone, therefore phone-based polls skew in favor of republicans)

Re:Insights for Search

[adamdoyle]

further, I would imagine that internet-based approaches (like this one with Google) will typically skew toward democrats (at least the raw data - Google likely accounts for this). Democrats are younger and use the internet more (why do you think they are the party of Net Neutrality? it's because Net Neutrality lobbyists know that democrats are younger and are more likely to care about internet stuff).

Re:since Google's not the government this is benig

[Miseph]

You do know that there is already a large, well-established, well-funded industry around predicting (influencing? fixing?) elections? Worrying that Google's analysis of search trends to predict election results is going to taint the electoral process is rather like worrying that passengers on the Titanic might have gotten mild food poisoning.

Re:I predict we'll get bastards in office again

[hedwards]

Do you have a better solution? Democracy isn't perfect, the reason why we ended up with the solution we did was because nobody could think of a better one. It's the best solution anybody has come up with for handling that problem. If anything we ought to go and rescind the 19th amendment and go back to having our legislators appoint our senators. Makes it a lot harder to buy senators than under the current system.

One step better would be to allow the states to decide individually whether to make it appointments or direct elections. For states like TX, CA, NY and even WA it would likely be harder to buy a senator than it would in less populous states.

Re:I predict we'll get bastards in office again

[hedwards]

D'oh, that should've been 17th amendment.

As Long As O'Donnel Loses

[assertation]

I've adjusted to the fact that the Democrats are going to get clobbered ( some of them deserve it ).

I just hope Christine O'Donnell loses the race for Senate in Delaware. I find her to be the most offensive candidate. Watching her lose will be like a preview of watching Sara Palin's demise. They seem very similar. Luckily, her opponent has a solid lead on her in the real polls( not google ).

After that, every TEA party candidate who loses will be a bonus for me.

I think this election cycle will be called the end of the TEA party as a party versus being a fringe faction of the GOP. The TEA candidates are running on GOP tickets, with GOP money and many of them on GOP platforms ( Rand Paul, the turncoat ). Most of the TEA candidates are in tight races, so only a few, not all of them will win. Additionally, the GOP is looking towards 2010 and doesn't want the TEA people buzzing around, for example Karl Rove's recent comments about Sara Palin not being qualified for president.

 

Re:As Long As O'Donnel Loses

[vxice]

So who do you want to win. Or is the political process only about loosing no matter who beats the person you want beat.

Re:As Long As O'Donnel Loses

[Jeremi]

So who do you want to win. Or is the political process only about loosing no matter who beats the person you want beat.

There is a school of thought that says that the main function of elections isn't to elect the best candidate (since different people have different ideas about what is "best"), but rather to ensure that the truly dangerous candidates are kept out of power.

You may find that cynical, but certainly when the elected individual will be given the ability to do great harm (e.g. will have the nuclear launch codes), there's something to be said for weeding out the borderline-insane types.

Re:As Long As O'Donnel Loses

[gmhowell]

When I first mentioned to my parents that an idiot like Palin could never win, they pointed out that I was too young to remember what an idiot everyone thought Reagan was in 1976.

Seems reasonable

[gustgr]

Today Brazilians are electing their new President. It is the second turn of our elections so we get to choose between the two candidates for the presidential chair which were most voted in the first turn that occurred one month ago.

The candidates are Jose Serra (current opposition) and Dilma Rousseff (candidate supported by the current President). According to a simple "volumetric" serach on Google, Serra has 47% and Rousseff has 53%. These predictions are somewhat similar to what polls and public opinion surveys have been showing (reckoning only the valid votes). Tonight we will have the final results and I will be amazed if this Google prediction so to speak turns out to be more accurate than official polls.

Re:Seems reasonable

[gustgr]

The winner is out, and it is Rousseff with 55.65% vs. 44.35% from Serra. Google got closer than any other prediction.

Re:Seems reasonable

[gmhowell]

Are those results with google.com or google.br (is that the right TLD?)? Wonder if there is a difference.

Re:Seems reasonable

[gustgr]

Those results are from google.com. The Brazilian TLD for Google is google.com.br. I just did a quick search on both now and for the .com TLD I got 52.7% vs 47.3% for Rousseff, and for the .com.br TLD 54% vs 46%. Official polls run by several different media agencies were giving Rousseff with 60%+ of valid votes.

On the first turn of our major elections, when we voted for Senators, Governors and Congressmen, something similar happened. For my state a certain Senator candidate had 17% on previous public surveys and it was ranking 3rd. After the results were out he was elected with 36% and he was the 1st.

Here in Brazil such surveys and predictions are quite dangerous, to some extent they are used as manipulative tools. Most people are unfortunately uneducated and ignorant in issues concerning politics and economy and those people are likely to vote on the candidate which seems to be winning, just so they don't "lose" their vote (yes, this is not an uncommon reasoning around here, insane as it may sound). Worst of all perhaps is the fact that we are obliged to vote, it is an imposed duty. Our democracy is still an infant, and I think we are yet to reach adolescence. Some rough years to come.

Prop 19 - The airline stimulus package!

[OzPeter]

Just wait for Prop 19 to get passed and people start failing drug tests for work - "Oh year I forgot to tell you that I flew to CA just before I had this mandatory work drug test"

Re:Prop 19 - The airline stimulus package!

[Anonymous Coward]

That argument doesn't work for trips to Amsterdam, so why would it work for trips to California?

The big point that many Prop 19 opponents seem to miss, is that making marijuana legal does NOT force employers to accept its use!

My favorite quote was from the Chamber of Commerce: "Imagine coming out of surgery, and the nurse caring for you was high, or having to work harder on your job to make up for a coworker who shows up high on pot. ... It could happen in California if Proposition 19 passes."

Yeah right, because hospitals are totally OK with nurses coming to work drunk, right?

Some people JUST DON'T GET IT: Having an impaired ability to function properly is what should be disallowed in the workplace and while driving, regardless of HOW OR WHY you are impaired (be it from alcohol, cannabis, or being distracted by a cellphone while driving)

Re:Prop 19 - The airline stimulus package!

[gmhowell]

The AC is correct, if vitriolic. I work for an employer that has pre-employment drug screenings. I specifically asked if a trip to Amsterdam exempted me. The long and short of it was "tough shit".

But CA is the bellwether state with lots of legislation. With luck, it will be with marijuana.

Re:Prop 19 - The airline stimulus package!

[sumdumass]

One of the biggest problems with pot in general is that you can't really test to see if someone is currently under the influence. The test for a first time user being under the influence would likely show up negative, if someone has been moderately using for a week or so, then it would show up more, but the problem is that heavy users will test an amount similar to moderate users under the influence without being under the influence at the time.

This is why any amounts over a certain baseline is automatic with most employers and law enforcement. If you had a nurse that smoked 2 joints a night after getting off work then tested her, she would be testing at limits above what a moderate to light person would test if they were intoxicated. If this one problem could be corrected and you could test if someone was under the influence similar to that with alcohol, I'm pretty sure that pot would be legal in a lot more places.

Re:Prop 19 - The airline stimulus package!

[Anonymous Coward]

Prop 19's fine writing makes that illegal unless the job has a legitimate reason. For example, someone who is a truck driver, or someone who operates heavy machinery all day.

Re:Prop 19 - The airline stimulus package!

[clong83]

I don't know about the other states in the union, but here in California, if prop 19 passes, it is explicitly stated in the proposition that employers can't fire you for it. Being caught high while on the job is a different story of course, but the simple fact that you might smoke pot at home a couple times a week would not be a fire-able offense. At least to my understanding.

Re:Prop 19 - The airline stimulus package!

[gmhowell]

I work for an organization that is known to exempt itself from petty rules like that. Legally.

Potential rigging

[gmuslera]

The input potentially is not coming from a representative sample of the voters, but from the people that is willing to search for it, if the voters for one of the options are more probable to do that than the ones for the other option (for direct or indirect reasons).

Oblig

[gmuslera]

xkcd. Maybe the question is not how much we need math, is how much everything else needs it.

FTFY

[Zero__Kelvin]

Allow me to fix that for you:

"Many people want to smoke pot, prop 19 proponents recognize that it is their God given inaliable right, protected by the US constitution's clause regarding the right to the pursuit of happiness

Marijuana is not a drug; it is a plant. It has homeopathic benefits, and Science News recently reported that the medical community is discovering a multitude of uses for it in a medical setting. A simple investigation into the underhanded lies the US government told to the populace is an eye opener, and the only people who are against it being legalized are woefully misinformed in numerous ways. The fact that alcohol is legal while marijuana is illegal is patently absurd. Nobody ever smoked some pot and then woke up in a jail cell and discovered that they killed someone the night before and don't remember it, for example. A law against the marijuana plant is a law against God. I could go on, but I think everyone gets the general idea where I stand on this issue ;-)

Re:FTFY

[ChromeAeonium]

Little nitpick: perhaps you mean therapeutic benefits, which marijuana certainly has, not homeopathic. Nothing has homeopathic benefits because homeopathy is bullshit quackery. Homeopathy is the concept that super dilute concentrations of something have the opposite effect, for example, using poison ivy to cure rashes or using cola nut to help you sleep.

Re:FTFY

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm all for legalizing and regulating marijuana use, but THC IS a drug.

The WHO (courtesy of wikipedia) defines it as:

A drug, broadly speaking, is any substance that, when absorbed into the body of a living organism, alters normal bodily function

THC does indeed alter normal bodily function, and therefore is a drug. Cocaine is also natural, and is certainly a drug. Alcohol itself is natural too, as well as DMT, mescaline, and many many other substances. All these occur naturally in nature; we may use certain processes to increase yield or potency, but then again we do the same with marijuana (by breeding and strictly controlling the cultivation process).

Re:FTFY

[Jeremi]

Marijuana is not a drug; it is a plant.

Turns out those two categories aren't mutually exclusive. Marijuana is a drug, and a plant.

Re:FTFY

[Anonymous Coward]

Nonsense !!! You and your technical mumbo jumbo

Re:FTFY

[Zero__Kelvin]

"Turns out those two categories aren't mutually exclusive. Marijuana is a drug, and a plant."

By the more loose definition that you are using food is a drug too. My point is that pharmaceutical companies are referred to as drug companies because they manufacture drugs. Heroin and Cocaine are drugs, because they are manufactured. Naturally occurring substances such as food, valerian root, and marijuana, while technically mood and mind altering substances, are not in the same category, whatever word you use to describe said category.

Re:FTFY

[gmhowell]

No wonder your homeopathic remedies don't work: according to wikipedia, you have to rap the container of the super dilute whatever to make it work.

Re:FTFY

[Jeremi]

My point is that pharmaceutical companies are referred to as drug companies because they manufacture drugs. Heroin and Cocaine are drugs, because they are manufactured.

Sure, but you're making a distinction without a difference. Marijuana is also "manufactured", in that it is chopped up, dried, and packaged for distribution. The only difference between manufacturing marijuana from a marijuana plant and manufacturing cocaine from a coca plant is that the latter takes a few more steps.

I'm as pro-marijuana-legalization as the next guy, but the "marijuana isn't a drug" argument is an irrelevancy and simply doesn't fly. People don't base their legal-categorization decisions on how a drug is made, they base them on its effects (to society, to the user, to the economy, etc).

Re:FTFY

[Zero__Kelvin]

"Marijuana is also "manufactured", in that it is chopped up, dried, and packaged for distribution. The only difference between manufacturing marijuana from a marijuana plant and manufacturing cocaine from a coca plant is that the latter takes a few more steps."

Evidently you have no idea what is in your Cocaine ;-)

(There is a lot more in there than cut up, dried, and processed Coca, including ether , and that is before the cut is added by the various middlemen.)

"People don't base their legal-categorization decisions on how a drug is made, they base them on its effects (to society, to the user, to the economy, etc)."

So then you agree with me. Marijuana is not in the same category as Cocaine, Alcohol, and Heroin ;-)

Re:FTFY

[Jeremi]

So then you agree with me. Marijuana is not in the same category as Cocaine, Alcohol, and Heroin ;-)

I think they are all in the category of "drugs", and that Heroin and Marijuana are in the category of "currently illegal drugs", and that society is in the process of deciding whether or not to remove Marijuana from the latter category.

Verification and Science

[mysterons]

Results from query logs and great, but until the raw data is made public, no-one can verify or reproduce these results. Until that is done they remain a curiosity at best.

Re:I predict we'll get bastards in office again

[modmans2ndcoming]

Democracy is the best way to remove personal freedoms than any other form of government.

John Adams said that... and he is right.

Re:I predict we'll get bastards in office again

[modmans2ndcoming]

We should amend it so that we go back to the Governor appointing and state legislators approving, but allow the people to recall them in a statewide vote. We should also allow a Governor to ask the state legislature to recall a senator, but it requires the legislature to have a 2/3 vote.

It will prevent senators from being bought, and allow the people to remove a senator they think is not representing them correctly

Was it just me or...

[coldmist]

did other people read the title at first glance as 'Predecting erection results with google"?

Afro-American Racism Against Whites and Asians

[Anonymous Coward]

During the election, about 95% of African-Americans voted for Barack Hussein Obama due solely to the color of his skin. See the exit-polling data by CNN.

Note the voting pattern of Hispanics, Asian-Americans, etc. These non-Black minorities serve as a measurement of African-American racism against Whites (and other non-Black folks). Neither Barack Hussein Obama nor John McCain is Hispanic or Asian. So, Hispanics and Asian-Americans used only non-racial criteria in selecting a candidate and, hence, serve as the reference by which we detect a racist voting pattern. Only about 65% of Hispanics and Asian-Americans supported Obama. In other words, a maximum of 65% support by any ethnic or racial group for either McCain or Obama is not racist and, hence, is acceptable. (A maximum of 65% for McCain is okay. So, European-American support at 55% for McCain is well below this threshold and, hence, is not racist.)

If African-Americans were not racist, then at most 65% of them would have supported Obama. At that level of support, McCain would have won the presidential race.

At this point, African-American supremacists (and apologists) claim that African-Americans voted for Obama because he (1) is a member of the Democratic party and (2) supports its ideals. That claim is an outright lie. Look at the exit-polling data for the Democratic primaries. Consider the case of North Carolina. Again, about 95% of African-Americans voted for him and against Hillary Clinton. Both Clinton and Obama are Democrats, and their official political positions on the campaign trail were nearly identical. Yet, 95% of African-Americans voted for Obama and against Hillary Clinton. Why? African-Americans supported Obama due solely to the color of his skin.

Here is the bottom line. Barack Hussein Obama does not represent mainstream America. He won the election due to the racist voting pattern exhibited by African-Americans.

African-Americans have established that expressing "racial pride" by voting on the basis of skin color is 100% acceptable. Neither the "Wall Street Journal" nor the "New York Times" complained about this racist behavior. Therefore, in future elections, please feel free to express your racial pride by voting on the basis of skin color. Feel free to vote for the non-Black candidates and against the Black candidates if you are not African-American. You need not defend your actions in any way. Voting on the basis of skin color is quite acceptable by today's moral standard.

Re:since Google's not the government this is benig

[ColdWetDog]

Thank goodness Google has promised not to abuse the information it gathers! I mean, think of the influence and wealth you'd gain by providing the right information to the right powerful people.

Google to Politicians: "The voters think you all suck."

What's the problem?

Re:I predict we'll get bastards in office again

[modmans2ndcoming]

flame bait... really?

A statement of fact about what someone said is not flame bait.

Yes, thanks to the internet

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, a better solution was linked from the OP. Here's the more direct link: http://metagovernment.org/wiki/Collaborative_governance

The reason we have never been able to do this before is because 1. we have not had an internet, 2. we have not had collaborative software and 3. we have not believed that it would be possible for people to be trusted with their own governance.

Re:Yes, thanks to the internet

[sumdumass]

Governance by comity is too slow and often create the wrong solutions to the wrong problems. This isn't anything new and the internet or collaboration software wouldn't change anything. I mean seriously, look at the slow release cycle of Debian stable. It takes forever to get something out of them.

Re:Yes, thanks to the internet

[Anonymous Coward]

What laws are you in a hurry to create? Most of the laws made are useless, stupid, or primarily for the benefit of special interests.

As for "creating the wrong solutions for the wrong problems," how does that compare to what we have now? Right now, we have leaders who are trying to solve complete non-issues like banning flag-burning or changing the national anthem. Is that what we really need? Worse, these people are actively hurting us; taking our money and giving it to special interests.

No, collaborative governance is not perfect. But can it possibly be worse than giving all power to a few people who constantly rape us?

Re:Yes, thanks to the internet

[sumdumass]

What laws are you in a hurry to create? Most of the laws made are useless, stupid, or primarily for the benefit of special interests.

Pretty much any law that needs to be passed. Granted, most of them are already passed but what about when some law needs to be modified because the congress in all it's mental foresight limited the scope of an existing law to just the things in existence today which creates a loophole for anything invented tomorrow. And of course, we see this right now with the recreation of existing laws that have the term cyber added to them in order to show they now cover the cyber realm.

As for "creating the wrong solutions for the wrong problems," how does that compare to what we have now? Right now, we have leaders who are trying to solve complete non-issues like banning flag-burning or changing the national anthem. Is that what we really need? Worse, these people are actively hurting us; taking our money and giving it to special interests.

And you have leaders failing at banning flag burning. That's what the biggest difference is right now. And yes, the majority in America is against flag burning so you can bet your ass that it would be banned by now if there was another system. Something else they are against, Gay marriage and if you had most all of America chime in on whether it should be allowed or banned, it would be banned. Here is something else that would likely be completely bad for the country, nationalism. That's right, there are quite a few people out there that think we should tariff imports in order to favor domestic production while at the same time, putting taxes on fuel under the guise of pseudoscience being passed off in the form of a religion with ulterior motivations that will only make imports more attractive.

While it might be true that these people currently in power are actively hurting us, the alternative you are suggesting would pretty much be the blood letting that kills us.

No, collaborative governance is not perfect. But can it possibly be worse than giving all power to a few people who constantly rape us?

If you don't think it could be worse, then you simply haven't thought about it. The difference is that even as much as the few people are raping us, they know at least enough to not completely pillage us. Their actions are tempered with a desire to protect their power which is something that would be completely gone/missing in a collaborative government. Further more, with as ignorant and incorrigible as many people seem to be, it wouldn't take much more then a Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh type (and yes, they are on the left two, those just seem to be the most popular that I can think of right now) to completely screw the system up.

Candidate position based on Google results

[fluffy99]

A political campaign is all about telling the voters what they want to hear, in the hopes enough people believe them and will vote for them. Google searches are a great way to do the market research to determine this.

The catch is that while a political candidate's running platform is based on what he thinks voters want, it is generally a poor indicator of what he'll actually do in office. Often the platform is centered around things the candidate won't even have control over once in office. For example, we have a state legislature candidate making a big deal about abortion. Too often, the issues are not even relevant.

Interest != Results

[Doc Ruby]

Interest in different races and resolutions on ballots doesn't indicate results. How many people searching the Web will even show up to vote? How many are getting wrong info from the pages they found? How many are aligned with opposition looking for negative info on something on the ballot?

Even turnout can't be predicted, let alone results.

Re:I predict we'll get bastards in office again

[guyminuslife]

I have a better solution. Make me supreme dictator. I'll stay out of the way on most things, appoint people who know what they're doing for other things, and only be corrupt enough to make a decent living. Might make a few declarations myself, but I'll mostly stay in the background. Everybody gets to live in a relatively nice country run by really competent, ethical individuals (I'm not talking about myself, I'm appointing these people, not running anything), and I don't even care if they bitch about me. Plus, women would totally be into me if I were King of America.

It's not a three way race in Florida

[Anonymous Coward]

There are plenty of other candidates such as www.snitker2010.com

Civil War

[zenyu]

It wouldn't split in two. The South, North East and California would not co-exist in one country. Where the rest of the western states and the middle of the country would go would be a guessing game, but they would probably be absorbed into one of those three viable states. Texas might go their own way and take parts of other nearby states with it, or it might itself split with parts joining the Western coalition and parts joining the Southern coalition.

If it happened it would be bloody, but it won't happen. The American civil war was seen coming for a long time before a southern states blockaded a federal fort to start the armed conflict. And chattel slavery was a much more divisive issue than the current debates about whether we should borrow 1 trillion dollars from China and give a 0.5% tax cut to those earning less than 1 million a year (D), or if we should borrow 1 trillion dollars from China and give a 2% tax cut to those earning more than 1 million a year (R).

Re:first

[Anonymous Coward]

I think cause it's more fucking annoying to read that someone spelled "knew" wrong.

Say what?

[screwdriver]

Am I the only one who initially misread the title as "Predicting Erection Results With Google"?

Re:Say what?

[EmagGeek]

Are you sure you weren't reading slashdot.cn by mistake?

If Google is predicting election results...

[vortex2.71]

I would think that "amature teenage slut" would have the best chance of winning.

Re:I predict we'll get bastards in office again

[mrchaotica]

The "... and he is right" part turned it into your opinion.

PhycoHistory

[sprint907]

this is Asimov's "PhycoHistory"

Re:I predict we'll get bastards in office again

[modmans2ndcoming]

actually, that was an opinion about a fact.