Slashdot Mirror
Poll-Based System Predicts U.S. Election Results For President, Senate
An anonymous reader writes "Election Analytics is a website developed by Dr. Sheldon Jacobson at the University of Illinois designed to predict the outcomes of the U.S. presidential and senatorial elections, based on reported polling data. From the site: 'The mathematical model employs Bayesian estimators that use available state poll results (at present, this is being taken from Rasmussen, Survey USA, and Quinnipiac, among others) to determine the probability that each presidential candidate will win each of the states (or the probability that each political party will win the Senate race in each state). These state-by-state probabilities are then used in a dynamic programming algorithm to determine a probability distribution for the number of Electoral College votes that each candidate will win in the 2012 presidential election. In the case of the Senate races, the individual state probabilities are used to determine the number of seats that each party will control.'" You can tweak the site by selecting a skew toward the Republican or Democratic tickets, and whether it's mild or strong. Right now, this tool shows the odds favor another four years for Obama, even with a strong swing for the Republicans.
Instead, consider "wasting" your vote in a different way: By voting for someone who isn't running on a major party ticket.
Maybe if enough people realize that their vote in their state isn't actually important when it comes to choosing the next president, they can cast a vote that says "the next next president shouldn't be a Republicrat". Only 6 states in the country aren't 90% in favor of one party or the other, and with the exception of florida, none of them really have much in the way of population. If you live in a 90% state, and were going to vote for the "lesser of two evils", why note vote for "neither of two evils". It'll make no more difference, but a much stronger statement.
It's worth noting that this analysis includes data from Rasmussen, a pollster whose track record at predicting election outcomes is marred by a persistent, consistent bias. Not that they're faking the results (as some overtly partisan pollsters do), but their methodology appears to over-represent demographics that are more likely to vote Republican. According to one analysis, they overestimated votes for Republicans by 3.9%. Andrew Tanenbam's web site has a concise explanation of what's wrong with Rasmussen's numbers, and why he maintains a separate map that omits them from his own Electoral College projections. So if a system that includes Rasmussen data projects that a Democrat is going to win the presidency... that's a pretty strong indicator of which way the wind is blowing.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
I predict that our next president will be an asshole.
And the one after that, too.
And the one after that.
You may not be able to vote if you live in a Republican state and your photo ID is older than 9 months or if your voter registration shows a middle initial but your ID card doesn't or your photo ID happened to expire yesterday, or you have the same name or a similarly spelled name or your photo ID is issued by one of the state universities or is a Veteran's Administration ID or if you're darker than a paper bag.
They take democracy seriously in those states and they want to protect it at all costs, even if it means several million legitimate citizens are unintentionally deprived of the right to vote.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Ron Paul is a better Republican candidate. They're saving him for 2016, when he'll defeat Biden in a landslide.
Plot summary
In the future, the United States has converted to an "electronic democracy" where the computer Multivac selects a single person to answer a number of questions. Multivac will then use the answers and other data to determine what the results of an election would be, avoiding the need for an actual election to be held.
The story centers around Norman Muller, the man chosen as "Voter of the Year" in 2008. Although the law requires him to accept the dubious honour, he is not sure that he wants the responsibility of representing the entire electorate, worrying that the result will be unfavorable and he will be blamed.
However, after 'voting', he is very proud that the citizens of the United States had, through him, "exercised once again their free, untrammeled franchise" - a statement that is somewhat ironic as the citizens didn't actually get to vote.
The idea of a computer predicting whom the electorate would vote for instead of actually holding an election was probably inspired by the UNIVAC I's correct prediction of the result of the 1952 election.
Polls are usually wrong by enough to matter in a close election. This is a close election and the margin of error is too great for the polls to predict anything except that we get to choose between a douche bag and a turd sandwich. That being said, I'm going with the turd sandwich who hasn't had a chance to mess things up yet.
Not true. He's the nominee because they ran out of Republicans. Remember Michelle Bachman? Herman Cain? Newt Gingrich? Rick Santorum? John Huntsman?! I'm sure I'm forgetting half a dozen more.
Remember Michelle Bachman? Herman Cain? Newt Gingrich? Rick Santorum? John Huntsman?! I'm sure I'm forgetting half a dozen more.
I'm a atheist liberal utahn, some would even say socialist, and I'm here to tell you that John Huntsman does NOT belong with that group of whackos. I even think he'd make a really good president.
Look where all this talking got us, baby.
I don't see how you can claim Obama is a clear winner. Look between the conventions - Obama gave a re-run, with no plan at all on how he plans to help anyone do anything. Just a lot of vague numbers like he has always given.
Romney meanwhile, actually laid out a five point plan:
Do you understand the irony of your own post?
You start by saying Obama has no plan, then list Romney's plan and write in brackets how Obama's plan sucks in comparison.
THEN, you turn around and point out that folks here may not like Romney's plan but at least he has a plan. However, you don't apply the same standard to yourself.
Bravo.
I don't think a bad plan is necessarily better than no plan. Furthermore, I think it's better that Obama has plans rather than a simplistic list of bullet points that can be reduced to the size of a /. comment. Also, the more specific things a candidate insists they will do the less I believe them: the president rarely has the power to do the things most candidates claim they will do and their agenda should be fluid and open to compromise. So a presidential candidate with an impractical five point plan strikes me as a fool, a liar, or both.
Just for the sake of argument, since you accuse Obama of being vague:
1) What does promoting domestic energy entail? Giving large subsidies to oil companies so they can 'research' domestic energy opportunities? That's what it sounds like to me. Nice and vague.
2) Standing up to China . . . oh dear, he must be a fool. How does he intend on doing this? Very vague.
3a) What job training programs? Are they actually even worth a damn? Even if, is this something the government should be subsidizing?
3b) Stand up to teacher unions? Because those damn teachers are leaching all our tax money by making as much as factory workers. I guess they stand in the way of 'student choice' by politically opposing government subsidizing private and charter schools. Why, for a conservative, does Romney want to subsidize so many things? Also, how exactly does one blame teachers for the country's educational woes when statistics clearly show that the biggest deterrent one can have from receiving a quality education is simply being poor? In the same classroom, with the same teacher, the wealthier children will consistently outperform the poor children. But let's not look at 'vague numbers' - let's make vague accusations that imply that teachers in general are incompetent and greedy (make sure you ignore that unlike the majority of Americans, they're college educated and most could make more doing something else).
4) The deficit is hardly the scary monster everyone pretends it is. It's like college loans. You can't make them go away, they're a big scary negative number, but even if your wages get garnished they'll never really drive you to being destitute. So, even though on paper you really have less money (a large negative number) than the bum you pass everyday walking into the office (probably a smaller negative number - or maybe a positive one consisting of the sum of his change cup), you never envy the bum and you never consider him better off than you. In this case, Greece is the bum. Our debt is an inconvenience, their debt ruined them. That's because the number on paper is pretty irrelevant - it doesn't account for one's resources, it's not the be all, end all of one's worth. But it's easy to be vague and scary and behave like the graduate who's freaking out b/c they're a hundred grand in debt.
5) This is a vague way of saying: dog-eat-dog. Washington's regulatory climate does little to stifle small businesses. It's local regulation that stifles small businesses. Hell, the economy in general stifles small business. National regulation prevents banks from doing things like fraud. It prevents dirty industries from polluting the way Chinese factories do. Want more small businesses? Provide universal healthcare so people can afford to take the risk of starting a small business: As it stands, once a person gets a decent job with good benefits, he becomes scared to quit for the sake of a risk. Healthcare's like taxes: The middle class pays for most of it and it takes a huge chunk of their income. The rich pay more than anyone else, but a smaller percentage of their income than the middle class (basically, it's an inconvenience, the house isn't being put up for mortgage). The poor pay nothing. So, economically, it makes more sense to be a bartender that doesn't report most of his tips and receives welfare than to be a teacher. Make too much money, and all of a sudden you have to pay for health insurance (and co-pays) and now you technically
"From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
So lets look at jobs. How many jobs were created from 1/1/90 to 1/1/00? 22 million. How many jobs were created from 1/1/00 to 1/1/10? less than 0. How many jobs were created from 1/1/10 to the present day? 4.5 million. Even though the republicans gave away trillions of dollars to the rich and started two wars they could not conclude they had 0 jobs growth. Obama and Clinton started and concluded wars during their time with no loss of American life. Bush started two wars with over 5,000 American deaths and over a trillion dollars and failed to conclude either one. Bush had more time in Afghanistan to conclude that war than the amount of time Obama will have if reelected and his plan is carried out. Now lets talk about debt. Bush was responsible for over 6 trillion dollars in debt. When he left office the country was in the worst recession since the depression. So how much of Obama debt can the directly attributed to Bush. First he has to pay the interest for the 6 trillion dollars of Bush's debt. Second he has to pay for the unemployment insurance caused by Bush. Third he has to conclude both of Bush's wars. Fourth he has to do this with reduced income caused by Bush's great recession. Now lets go back 50 years to 1962. How many Americans have lost their life in foreign wars under republicans and how many under democrats? The republicans are so far in front of the democrats and yet you want another republican to be president.(hint over 16,000 dead in 1969 under Nixon).