Slashdot Mirror
'Cellphone Effect' Could Skew Polling Predictions
Ponca City writes "A good deal of polling data suggest that Republicans may win the House of Representatives in today's mid-term elections. However, Nate Silver writes in the NY Times that there are several factors that could skew the election, allowing Democrats to outperform their polls and beat consensus expectations. Most prominent is the 'cellphone effect.' In 2003, just 3.2% of households were cell-only, while in the 2010 election one-quarter of American adults have ditched their landlines and rely exclusively on their mobile phones, and a lot of pollsters don't call mobile phones. Cellphone-only voters tend to be younger, more urban, and less white — all Democratic demographics — and a study by Pew Research suggests that the failure to include them might bias the polls by about 4 points against Democrats, even after demographic weighting is applied. Another factor that could skew results is the Robopoll effect, where there are significant differences between the results shown by automated surveys and those which use live human interviewers — the 'robopolls' being 3 or 4 points more favorable to Republicans over all. It may be that only adults who are extremely engaged by politics (who are more likely to be Republican, especially this year) bother to respond to robocalls. Still, when all is said and done, 'more likely than not, Republicans will indeed win the House, and will do so by a significant margin,' writes Silver. 'But just as Republicans could beat the consensus, Democrats could too, and nobody should be particularly shocked if they do.'"
In many cases, I agree. In 2000 I voted green even though I didn't agree with half their agenda, I've been disenfranchised by moving around for several years since then. But I just voted strait democrat in this election because the republicans in my area decided to go with comic book villain style candidates.
Rick Scott (R, FL gov) = Lex Luthor
It doesn't matter who you elect - voting simply creates the illusion of consent.
Not exactly true.
There are key differences in Democrat and Republicans.
That said, I disagree with both of them, but I vote against the party which I see the greatest threat to my personal liberty and well being.
Which I view as of now as the Republicans as they seem to be willing to trade my personal rights and freedoms off to either security issues, morality through legislation, and or various other issues that affect me personally.
Its not that the Democrats do similar things, but they do less of them.
I originally, voted against the democrats in 2000 simply because of the DMCA, anti-violent video game laws, and anti-smoking legislation only to find out that the republicans created the Patriot act and various laws that were started to make it feel like we were heading towards a Police state.
So given the choice of living in a Nanny State vs a Police state, I'd rather put up with a Nanny state... (catch my drift)
Of course if you really want change, you should start raising awareness of STV and Proportional Representation
You see... As one of the first major nationalized democracies which instituted the First past the post system which was seen as the best way to handle the situation as no one had tried this before in such a way. Although people like Jefferson did point out the mathematical problems with the system, no one bothered to change it.
Now when European monarchies were overthrown and replaced by democracies over the 19th and 20th centuries a great deal of the instituted proportional democracies (most notably the Wiemar republic) simply because it is more mathematically fair and prevents the dominance of 2 major political parties we face in our first past the post system.
Arguably the UK has the same issue as they've also had a first past the post system in voting system that has lasted longer than the US system and are actually talking about trying out STV or a watered down version of prop rep.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
I really don't understand Americans. You guys are the craddle of modern democracy, you invented the damned thing, fucked it over, killed each other, and then emerged with something a big country could be governed by.... for a while. Yes, you guys are right in that perhaps the model doesnt fit in into todays balance of power: money is power today, not votes. And there is no turning back that particular clock (BTW, you guys also invented that one).
However, you still need to choose between people that will have "some" (even if not much) say over what Gov. does with your taxes and what Gov. does to attempt to regulate social activity. And you yourself brings me the following options:
"Dems - taken over by statists and leftists.
Reps - taken over by the lunatic Evangelical Christian nuts and the folks who can be easily bought with low taxes - balanced budgets be damned!"
I mean, come on, to me, thats a FUCKING NO BRAINER. American leftists, even the extreme (like say, Michael Moore), are dinky dickless dipshits compared to true communists with a government financed party like they have in spain or france. Those guys over there really get out and burn shit, they dont go crying to mama in a two hour long documentary and get filthy rich at it: they believe in communism like your teabaggers believe in 'mericuh.
No matter how bad you perceive the american left to be, when compared with a republican party perfectly portrayable as a fucking bag of nutjobs that will govern with faith and faith alone (Sarah Palin and her newer teabag-clone), its OBVIOUS your country is in DEEP peril.
GET THE FUCK OUT AND VOTE AGAINST REPUG. NOW.
NO SIG
You should at least turn in your ballot. There might be *something* to vote for among all the positions/issues. You don't have to vote for each one. Skip any that don't have a candidate you like. Even if it means you don't vote for anything, at least you are recorded as voting. Then when the results come out the total of votes between all the candidates will be less than the number of people voting, and it becomes more apparent that they weren't liked too well. It won't change who wins, but not voting won't either.
Yes actually...
The Green Party in Germany comes to mind.
The Pirate party is really close to getting seats in the Swedish Parliament.
Also... Israel had a 3rd party called Kadima which not only was founded in 2005, but was able to get a majority coalition in the Israeli parliament shortly thereafter.
Proportional representation clearly is the best way to get 3rd party candidates and political turnover over any other system that has been tried.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
You could in theory vote democrat until the republicans become so marginalized they are forced to become "republican-lite".
Personally, I'd vote Republican in a snap if they weren't so pushy about legislating morality.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
Actually, if there's no method for you to express those feelings, your system is broken. Even worse, not complaining and "sitting" it just supports the fact that you don't care. Therefore, you're supporting the ones you don't like.
My country allows you to mark "blank" on the ballot, in theory, if "blank" wins (thing that never happens due to your same thinking), the election repeats and none of the candidates that were in that election can go to that round.
While the high-profile election seats may be that way, local elections actually generally have people that will effect your daily life.
More importantly high-profile candidates almost always come from these positions first. If you shut them down before they become "somebody" you've prevented that future bad candidate from being a possibility.
The reason we have such a huge problem with representatives is because politicians are practically ignored at the time when they are most easily influenced.
For example, Obama started out as a state senator (some funny business there, of course, but that's Chicago politics), became a US Senator for the state of Illinois 8 years later, and is now the president. He could have very easily been shut down at the state level by a competent opponent and a few thousand votes.
Don't tell me your vote doesn't matter. It doesn't have great influence when you think it should, but it certainly has a huge impact when you aren't really paying attention.
Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
This is why some form of range voting is ideal.
I favor negative voting as it also preserves one person 1 vote. Basically you can vote for someone as normal, or against someone and that negates one of their for votes. A candidates final count is the difference of their for and against votes.
Other forms of range voting offer more subtle gradation at a slightly increased level of complication.
The major parties hate third parties and have every incentive to make third parties look bad. From draining votes from their candidates to possibly undermining their control of the legislative process, they are a threat to Democratic or Republican control & influence.
The media likes to portray them as part of the lunatic fringe because controversy pumps up ratings and sales. The media also has a vested interest in the two party system, in terms of influence, contacts and its defacto role as arbitrator/kingmaker.
Take Christine O'Donnell for example. I don't personally think she's a great candidate, but the criticism of her is severe considering that the head of the House banking committee, Barney Frank, had a young lover running a male prostitution ring out of Frank's apartment and claimed he didn't know. OK, Christine's a doof, but that's worse than Frank? Or worse than any of the other sex/bribery scandals R or Ds have been in?
What I think is missed in both the smug, "Daily Show"-type dismissal of the Tea Party & third party movement this cycle and the attacks from both parties is that *despite* the negative publicity and outright hostility shown to these candidates (and their own foot-in-mouth syndrome), people are so annoyed at the traditional parties they are willing to vote for them anyway.
The media is too busy either joining the denouncements or smugly dismissing them to see this.