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.'"
It may be that only adults who are extremely engaged by politics (who are more likely to be Republican, especially this year) bother to respond to robocalls.
Poll Phone Operator: Excuse me, sir or ma'am, do you have a free minute to answer a few simple questions anonymously about who you plan to vote for?
...
Phone Respondent One: Well, let's see, what would Jesus do?
*Poll Phone Operator hangs up the phone and puts a check mark next to the Republican candidate*
Poll Phone Operator: Excuse me, sir or ma'am, do you have a free minute to answer a few simple questions anonymously about who you plan to vote for?
Phone Respondent Two: Sorry, what did you say? It's cloudy and my solar powered phone is cutting in and out.
*Poll Phone Operator hangs up the phone and puts a check mark next to the Democratic candidate*
Poll Phone Operator: Excuse me, sir or ma'am, do you have a free minute to answer a few simple questions anonymously about who you plan to vote for?
Phone Respondent Three: Yes I do, just let me put NASCAR on mute, I can talk and watch at the same time.
*Poll Phone Operator hangs up the phone and puts a check mark next to the Republican candidate*
Poll Phone Operator: Excuse me, sir or ma'am, do you have a free minute to answer a few simple questions anonymously about who you plan to vote for?
Phone Respondent Four: I'm so sorry but I just put on a 180 gram vinyl Arcade Fire album and I fear that if I remove the needle prematurely I would
*Poll Phone Operator hangs up the phone and puts a check mark next to the Democratic candidate*
Poll Phone Operator: Excuse me, sir or ma'am, do you have a free minute to answer a few simple questions anonymously about who you plan to vote for?
Phone Respondent Five: Fuck you and fuck the establishment you rode in on.
*Poll Phone Operator hangs up the phone and puts a check mark next to the Independent candidate*
My work here is dung.
You should vote, if only to vote for a write-in or third party candidate. This election is as much about the "Two Parties" screwing things for "Joe Sixpack" in favor of their corporate overlords. The problem is that we don't have much of a choice from the two major parties.
So, vote, but send a message. If third parties get more than 20% combined, there can be no call for "mandate" from either of the two parties.
Voting for the lessor of two evils is a logical fallacy. There are more than two evils running for most posts.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Some background is in order here; this is not a typical piece for Silver. He did a companion to it a couple days ago, giving the reasons the GOP could overperform. These are just "what if" stories, designed to flesh out the message he's been driving for some time now, which is that this election has unusually high uncertainty. He isn't engaging in hackery and claiming everything will be fine for Democrats...
Given a choice between free speech and free beer, most people will take the beer.
American public: "Wow, those Republicans sure fucked everything up. Better vote Democrat this time."
T+4 years: "Wow, those Democrats sure fucked everything up. Better vote Republican!"
T+8 years: "Wow, those Republicans sure fucked everything up. Better vote Democrat this time."
Umm, people? We have other choices, you know. The extremes of *any* party are going to be nut-jobs, but we can probably do a lot better to let the D's and R's set a few rounds out.
But we won't, will we. Because voting is supposed to be about thinking with other people's brains and voting with the flock.
You don't get to sit out the result, so you might as well toss a vote to whoever you find less abhorrent.
"Now, there's one thing you might have noticed I don't complain about: politicians. Everybody complains about politicians. Everybody says they suck. Well, where do people think these politicians come from? They don't fall out of the sky. They don't pass through a membrane from another reality. They come from American parents and American families, American homes, American schools, American churches, American businesses and American universities, and they are elected by American citizens. This is the best we can do folks. This is what we have to offer. It's what our system produces: Garbage in, garbage out. If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're going to get selfish, ignorant leaders. Term limits ain't going to do any good; you're just going to end up with a brand new bunch of selfish, ignorant Americans. So, maybe, maybe, maybe, it's not the politicians who suck. Maybe something else sucks around here... like, the public. Yeah, the public sucks. There's a nice campaign slogan for somebody: 'The Public Sucks. Fuck Hope
I don't vote. Two reasons. First of all it's meaningless; this country was bought and sold a long time ago. The shit they shovel around every 4 years *pfff* doesn't mean a fucking thing. Secondly, I believe if you vote, you have no right to complain. People like to twist that around – they say, 'If you don't vote, you have no right to complain', but where's the logic in that? If you vote and you elect dishonest, incompetent people into office who screw everything up, you are responsible for what they have done. You caused the problem; you voted them in; you have no right to complain. I, on the other hand, who did not vote, who in fact did not even leave the house on election day, am in no way responsible for what these people have done and have every right to complain about the mess you created that I had nothing to do with.”
-George Carlin
Hmm. Taking your complaint seriously:
I'm not sure you conclusion is supportable. If you are voting for whomever "lies the least" then you're actually supporting honesty (assuming you actually can telling more lies). If other people vote the same way then you could counteract the effect of people voting for whomever tells them what they want to hear. Looking at it from a macro point of view, voting for the least dishonest person increases the value of honesty in campaigns. Failing to vote at all on that basis does the opposite of what you want, it actually encourages more dishonest behavior because it increases the relative value of the votes of the gullible (by making the votes of skeptical irrelevant).
Fanatically anti-fanatical
in your words, is the perfect cattle of an authoritarian country, the perfect double plus good citizen
the simple truth of the matter is, if you wait for your perfect candidate, you will never vote. and even then you will find something wrong with them. every election, ever held, and will ever be held, will simply be a choice between the lesser of two evils. no one is pure, no one doesn't have lies spread about them
the real criminal is you: you who hold your candidates to impossible standards, and then complain no one meets those standards
what you are really doing is rationalizing your desire to absolve yourself of responsibility for the society you live in. you are detaching yourself from any crimes that happens in your society, absolving yourself of guilt: "i didn't choose our leaders"
and in a country composed of people who think like you, sits the happiest tyrant
go to work slave. don't ever complain again. even when they increase your workhours and decrease your salary. not your fault, right?
you, all by yourself, no one else to blame, have given up the right to complain, by choosing not to do the ONE TINY THING that guarantees that you live in a free country: VOTE
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
There are good politicians. Not all of them are hopelessly corrupt. You are just too lazy to do the research. Finding a good one to support is too much work, and your self serving and frankly lazy cynicism makes you seem wise to the ignorant, so why bother?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
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
Libertarians are run by big money. There is nothing big money likes better than total deregulation and a government whose only function is to protect the property of the haves from the have nots. You are a willing tool of folks like the billionaire Koch brothers, who fund libertarian and tea party candidates who promise to destroy the only thing keeping them in check: government regulation. Thankfully, by voting libertarian you are just throwing your vote away, the majority of Americans can see through the scam and would never vote diametrically opposite their true interests.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
There's an easy solution to that, then. Run yourself. Sure, you may not win, but you're voting for someone you feel isn't corrupt. Support yourself.
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'm afraid quoting George Carlin isn't relevant to me. This attitude of "I didn't vote, so I'm not responsible for who gets elected" is complete BS. You are just as responsible for the people who voted for them because you are a part of the silent majority qho sits around on the hole all the time and is annoyed by who actually gets elected. Get up off your hole and vote who you think is the best candidate, if you don't like your options get involved and perhaps even run yourself. But this attitude of "I'm above all that" is pie the sky at best and dangerous at worst
There is no -1 disagree
The problem with write-ins is that in some states, Georgia for example, a write-in candidate gets your ballot thrown out since the Diebold machine can't handle those. I confirmed this with the Secretary of State's office.
Your ballot gets "thrown out" of the machine, and gets hand count. That's the good news.
What's the downside of that?
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
-1 Idiocy
Whether statistical models are good predictors of future outcomes should be a topic near and dear to every slashdotter. Bringing this up in the context of a midterm election is not "wishful thinking"-- it's an interesting problem.
The difference between your anecdotal story and the one in the article is that the effect the author is talking about is a statistical one, and he cites evidence to support his position. Regardless if the outcome of the current election cycle, if real, this is an effect that polling organizations will have to account for.
Voting for third-party candidates (unless you can rally enough votes to actually win, which is structurally unlikely without changing the electoral system first) is unlikely to change that.
This is rather well demonstrated to be false from the fact that, in the rather rare individual elections in which third party candidates have won more than 20% of the vote, the winning major party candidates have still claimed mandates.
For the most part, the whole point of negative campaigning is to get people who might otherwise vote for the other major party candidate to, in rough order of preference, vote for the candidate on whose behalf the negative ad is prevent, not vote at all, or vote for a third-party candidate. There's a reason why major parties often are found channeling support to "independent" or third-party candidates whose natural appeal overlaps that of their major-party opponent.
Voting for a third-party candidate doesn't "send a message" to the major parties, except the message that their negative campaigning against eachother is working exactly as designed.
No, its not. It may or may not be good tactics, but its certainly not a logical fallacy.
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.
While the high-profile election seats may be that way, local elections actually generally have people that will effect your daily life. Should the city revise your street to be more cyclist friendly, at the expense of parking? Will they approve of installing billboards in front of the local lake? You have a pretty solid voice in deciding who makes those decisions. And people at the local level tend to be genuine and earnest.
Similarly, if your state does ballot propositions, they can be incredibly powerful. California might end the war on pot. Massachusetts might kill affordable housing. These are important things which are up for a yes-or-no vote.
I once thought like you do. In 2000, I thought "These guys are both sellout corporate tools who are only interested in money." "They both must be equally bad," I thought. OMFG did Bush prove me wrong.
The lesser of two evils might still be evil, but damn can the greater of two evils get us into some huge intractable problems.
The ______ Agenda
Voting for the lesser of two evils is not necessarily a bad strategy.
Let's say you have an election between candidates A, B, and C. You really want A to win, you think B is somewhat evil but much better than C, and you really really don't want C. Polls show A at 2% of the vote, B at 49% of the vote, and C at 49% of the vote. Now, who do you vote for? No question that C is out. But the choice between A and B is tougher - if you vote for A, you increase the chance C will win. If you vote for B, A can never get the support they need. As an individual voter, you're in a bind - voting for A will help in the long run, but voting for B will be an improvement right now.
It also matters a lot how bad the various evils are. If, in the above situation, you'd rate A at +100, B at -10, and C at -10000, B is probably the better choice. If you'd rate A at +100, B at -100, and C at -150, then A is probably better.
I am officially gone from
As a result of the 2000 election, hundreds of thousands of people died.
And to you, it's the same as a TV show.
Why, exactly, should it surprise you when we're left with only lousy politicians?
So you only want to vote for the person you think is going to win?
I voted this morning. Most of the people I voted for were never mentioned on the news, in the papers, and most people don't even know about them. I did my research, found the person I liked and I voted for them even though they are likely to win. Waste of time? I think not. Every time I vote that's one more little bit of the percentage of being recognized.
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
Amazingly enough, NOT casting your vote is consenting to ANYONE representing you. You basically put on a blindfold, pull down your pants and bend yourself over a fire hydrant on a busy street corner with a sign reading "Use me however you like." You are not mounting some brave resistance to the system by not voting. You are saying you don't even care whose bitch you are.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
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.
Bullshit. Without government regulation, there is nothing stopping corporations and other powerful players from using extra-market forces to skew the market in their favor.
Government is not evil. We can, at least in theory, exercise control over it, and use it as a tool to protect ourselves from oppression by the powerful. We can not exercise control over the powerful, or over corporations, in any other way. Unless we control and regulate the powerful, they will control and regulate us. That is what power is, and what it does.
Getting rid of government will not decrease the power imbalance between the haves and the have-nots, it will only increase it. Getting rid of the rules that prevent the powerful from taking advantage of the weak will not protect the weak.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Vote for Kang!
When you vote, you legitimize the process.
I've never understood this argument.
The people in power never cared that only 40% of the people vote and in fact it shows that if no one bothered to come to polls to vote against them, then it most likely occurs to them that they should keep doing the things they way they want to.
I mean... People who can't be bothered to vote won't likely be bothered to go into the streets to protest either, much less take arms up against a legitimate government.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm
the results of the 2000 elections were decided by a razor slim margin. meaning those who chose not to vote had a real effect: they helped bush win
and if you say "politicians are all the same": tell me with a straight face gore would have invaded iraq
those who don't care, or don't want to be involved, are just as guilty as everyone else for the sorry state of the world, if not more so
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Two points:
1. Moderate incumbents are being dumped by the major parties. Ending up with major party support is no indicator of sanity, either.
2. Has anybody (other than pundits from the major parties) proven that "the vast majority of 3rd part(sic) candidates" are the lunatic fringe? How much time have we spent studying their views, talking to them?
You were assured by whom? Obama always made it clear that he supported the Afghanistan war but not the Iraq war. He's fulfilled his promise to withdraw from Iraq in a rapid by responsible way. He's also fulfilled his promise to invest more in the Afghanistan war and try to turn it around. The left in the U.S. must be deaf because Obama was loud and clear. Obama also tried to close the prison in Guantanamo Bay but he was blocked by Congress. He's President not Dictator, so there are limits to what he can do. He did not promise to set the terrorists free so what alternative did Congress give him? Now if you don't vote you will prove to the Republicans and conservative Democrats that they were right to stop Obama from closing Guantanamo and right to oppose him on health care and everything else he's tried to do. As a non-voter you will have the same effect on the outcome as a conservative Republican voter. You are what the GOP and the Tea Party hope for. Instead of slow progress we will regress.
Very often, people confuse simple with simplistic. The nuance is lost on most. - Clement Mok
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
Can we please go back to car analogies?
But the point is that a lot of people who could be voting for third-party candidates sit out because they feel it's a futile effort.
Which looks to a politician like they have a mandate:
Demublicans: 45%
Republicrats: 53%
Independent (Combined): 2%
or
Demublicans: 36%
Republicrats: 34%
Independent (Combined): 30%
In the first scenario, there's a clear winner. The Republicrat can go about their party-line business and doesn't need to listen to the "other side" at all on any issue. They have a clear supported mandate from the voting public, which means they stand a good job of getting any referendums or popular votes go their way. Impeachment is nearly impossible since they have majority support from their eligible voting public. They can lose significant amounts of their support base while still getting re-elected, and there's no real reason to pander to the other side or compromise at all.
In the second scenario, even the winning candidate is going to know he/she doesn't have the full support of 50% of their eligible voting public, and that means they have to work their asses off to make the majority who did not vote for them happy enough that they don't lose the next election. Impeachment and defeat of popular vote initiatives are higher-risk items.
The only real difference between the two scenarios is that Independents decided to get off their asses and participate, even if the candidate they voted for was less than ideal for them. If you're thinking about sitting out anyway, you don't have a "throwaway vote" to worry about, just go vote your straight conscience or as close as you can find, and hope it at least sends a message that the two-party monopoly is unacceptable.
And, every now and then, you get an independent who is interested in working the center of the aisle.
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
My god, you are delusional. LOOK up when the economy in the US crashed. Bush was in power. In fact Obama was elected because people couldn't believe the mess Bush had made of things. And now they get the republicans who created the mess back because Obama can't fix decades of mis-management in two years.
The US economy was fucked over by reagonomics were the intrests of wall street and short term speculators have ruined the American industrial base leading to more and more Americans contributing nothing to the economy. Basically, the US has since WW2 played the "lets pump up economy X and sell them our movies". It worked for the EU, it worked for Japan, ir worked for Korea. Then they tried it with China and forgot that China is far far larger. Sony went from a crap copy maker to a company that beat US companies down. Korean car makers do better then US companies, but they are as nothing to the growing industrial might of China. Once China stops like Japan and Korea to copy US tech and make its own (In Japan, nobody thinks the iPhone is the best, there are far better phones available already) and in China already you can get very decent LOCALLY designed gadgets that start adding their own tech.
Meanwhile Detroit is a ghost town and it ain't the only one. All so wall street could score a quick win by stripping American business for their last penny and fire every American worker and then claim employment is good because families can only survive holding down a double job per person.
And you blame congres... my god. You sure get the wool pulled over your eyes. Wall Street controls the economy.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.