Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Also depends on who is doing the polling, and whether they are genuinely impartial.

For example, I could ask a group of 500 people who they intend to vote for, and depending on who comprises said group, get wildly varying results.

These polls always remind me of the small print on Beauty Product Adverts. You know....90% of Wimmins Preferred Our Stuff (based on a poll of 57 wimmins).

The numbers used are just utterly random, and give the impression of the poll continuing until a suitably impressive percentage is achieved, then ending it abruptly.

Generally, the population of a sample is determined before hand (50, 100, etc.), and randomly selected from the contact information the polling group has. The odd numbers come about when they can't contact someone on the list; they can't spontaneously replace that person, so they're left as a null result. The results aren't determined until after the whole process is completed, so they can't just cut off when they get a "likely" result.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Also depends on who is doing the polling, and whether they are genuinely impartial.

For example, I could ask a group of 500 people who they intend to vote for, and depending on who comprises said group, get wildly varying results.

These polls always remind me of the small print on Beauty Product Adverts. You know....90% of Wimmins Preferred Our Stuff (based on a poll of 57 wimmins).

The numbers used are just utterly random, and give the impression of the poll continuing until a suitably impressive percentage is achieved, then ending it abruptly.

Well, certainly the manner in which the poll is conducted is important. Demographics, party breakdown and sample size are the first three things I generally look for at polls (If they even provide that information anymore!). You can get accurate results (By accurate, I mean as accurate as margin of error allows) with proper polling.

The question I have regarding polls, which I've Googled mixed reviews is; How big of a deal is landline/cell phone usage trends to those polls? Does this figure into the youth vote (as younger people tend to have cell phones in place of landlines)?

As for online polls, I don't pay any attention to them. I've personally witnessed 4Chan drive a online Fox Poll post-debate from heavy Palin to heavy Biden.

AgeOfEgos wrote:This doesn't make me nervous however, as if I understand the polls correctly...they miss the newly registered voters this year (Which has been rather intimidating for Republicans).

That's my understanding too.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Also depends on who is doing the polling, and whether they are genuinely impartial.

For example, I could ask a group of 500 people who they intend to vote for, and depending on who comprises said group, get wildly varying results.

These polls always remind me of the small print on Beauty Product Adverts. You know....90% of Wimmins Preferred Our Stuff (based on a poll of 57 wimmins).

The numbers used are just utterly random, and give the impression of the poll continuing until a suitably impressive percentage is achieved, then ending it abruptly.

The major polling organizations are pretty professional outfits. I think some of you guys need to do a little research. They operate quite a bit differently than your average Internet poll. Again, not saying they're infallible...just that they do their work as scientifically as they can.

AgeOfEgos wrote:
Yeah, somewhat what I thought and thanks for the info. My view on the election is this; There are no undecided voters at this point (Or a very small percentage of the listed 'undecided' are truly that). How could anyone possibly be undecided at this time?

There is also some significant research being done about how the poll itself skews results. Basically, because many people lump pollsters and the media into the propaganda category, there is a tendency to respond to any solicitation with simple rejection. Because sample size is one of the main determiners of accuracy, and it costs money to increase sample size, many polls have taken to treating a refusal to respond as 'undecided' so they can avoid escalating costs. It is uncertain how many, or for that matter which, organizations do this. But a good way to spot it is the confluence of a large, relative to other polls, 'undecided' column and disproportionate support for the nominally leading candidate. The latest Pew poll is a good example.

AgeOfEgos wrote:
This doesn't make me nervous however, as if I understand the polls correctly...they miss the newly registered voters this year (Which has been rather intimidating for Republicans). The newly registered should be more than enough to cancel any of the Bradley effect hiding in undecideds. Thoughts?

Some of them do, some of them don't. I general, they tend to under represent the youth/new voter. This is partially due to difficulty in sampling, but also due to the fact that they are historically unlikely to vote. The best group, in my opinion, at countering this has been Gallup.

gorgon wrote:
The major polling organizations are pretty professional outfits. I think some of you guys need to do a little research. They operate quite a bit differently than your average Internet poll. Again, not saying they're infallible...just that they do their work as scientifically as they can.

It is pretty impressive. The mathematical research which goes into their algorithmic sample weighting is well beyond my abilities.

There's tons of good info on how to conduct polls well.

Even so the best pollsters sometimes get a bad result.

Polls in which the sample is self-selecting (e.g. web sites) are usually worthless.

Most of the major polls are fairly reliable. If the difference between candidates was near the sampling error, I would say that McCain could still pull out a victory. Based on everything that I've seen, I think it'll be Obama in a significant victory. I wouldn't say Reagan vs. Mondale type landslide, but I could see Obama pulling about 330 electoral votes.

And while both parties have a metric buttload of lawyers on hand, I still don't think the election results will get challenged. If there was some obvious problem (some votes were not counted, or lost, or certain voting places closed early, eyewitnesses see ballot boxes thrown in the river, etc.), I'm sure it would be challenged. But I think everyone remembers 2000, and I think if there doesn't appear to be any blatant and/or intentional wrongdoing, I don't think it'd get challenged in court.

I don't understand how there can be so many problems from a machine. It isn't like you are playing slots at a casino. Every time I press the n key on my computer, it says n.

nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

So what the bejesus is so wrong with these voting machines?

I wasn't saying polls aren't useful, but they also don't represent reality. There are so many variables and unknowns. Look at Obama and New Hampshire in the primary. It was a solid win going in according to the polls and he lost.

Railguns wrote:I don't understand how there can be so many problems from a machine. It isn't like you are playing slots at a casino. Every time I press the n key on my computer, it says n.

nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

So what the bejesus is so wrong with these voting machines?

Because with the enormous numbers involved even with the typically low voter turn out in the past there is always error. There could be problems even if there was nothing wrong with the machine, but some sort of software glitch compromised the integrity of the machine. Even if afterward the machine produced consistent results, there would always be that doubt.

The point for me is that any individual vote becomes meaningless due to the size of the numbers involved, therefore it is fruitless and frustrating to vote at all. I know I won't be going out next Tuesday in order to waste valuable minutes of my life participating in something that is pointless.

Grignard wrote:The point for me is that any individual vote becomes meaningless due to the size of the numbers involved, therefore it is fruitless and frustrating to vote at all. I know I won't be going out next Tuesday in order to waste valuable minutes of my life participating in something that is pointless.

You do know that there is more then just a presidential election going on right? Many of which your vote has a major impact. Might want to look into that.

Railguns wrote:I don't understand how there can be so many problems from a machine. It isn't like you are playing slots at a casino. Every time I press the n key on my computer, it says n.

nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

So what the bejesus is so wrong with these voting machines?

Try pressing the N key on a Japanese computer.

Ahtman wrote:

Grignard wrote:The point for me is that any individual vote becomes meaningless due to the size of the numbers involved, therefore it is fruitless and frustrating to vote at all. I know I won't be going out next Tuesday in order to waste valuable minutes of my life participating in something that is pointless.

You do know that there is more then just a presidential election going on right? Many of which your vote has a major impact. Might want to look into that.

I don't keep up with politics, so I actually do not know what all is going on right now. I do know my state and local government having their elections, both for national representatives and local government, both of which I think probably matter, as far as voting is concerned, more than the presidential election, which in my view is simply a subsidized opinion poll. I still can't find myself that motivated to vote. I mean, to vote for one party or another effectively shoehorns your opinions into a "conservative" or "liberal" brand, of which you may not share all of its viewpoints.

Even a small local election is going to have thousands of voters. I generally feel that if you really care, which I don't, then lobbying is more effective than adding another point to the tally.

Bush won Florida and became POTUS due to 537 votes. I think your vote matters.

@Reds8n - I like the 9-1 odds on a 290-309 spread.

What bookies was that from, and are there better odds to be had?

9-1 seem pretty long for what sounds like a pretty likely electoral college result but it would be worth putting a tenner on it...

ladbrookes

Given the OP's scenario, I'd expect a subset of these ideas to gain some traction in the short-term. I don't expect much to change before the 2012 election though.

1. easier and near universal voter registration. Selective Service doesn't seem to have much of a problem getting eligible men to register nor do they seem to have much trouble finding those that aren't registered. Of course, federal educational funding for students requires this and I wouldn't extend that to voter registration (IOW one can't get federally-guaranteed loans without voter registration). This would also make the claims of voter registration fraud and presumably, actual voter fraud concerns less of an issue.
2. getting rid of touch screen voting machines in the US. Optical scanning and paper balloting should suffice.
3. move election day. The first Tuesday after the second MOnday in November was chosen long ago to allow farmers to vote. That is an archaic rule that doesn't apply today. Move it to a different day. I'm also for making it a federal holiday so nobody has a work excuse to avoid voting.
4. Have the National Election Pool, Voter News Service or whatever name the press consortium will have hold off on announcing any results until 10PM on the west coast. If you can find it, read the 1992 book "votescam" for background. Given item 2 above, early announcements probably wouldn't be viable anyway.
5. increase funding for voting stations and resources. In the US most voting services are done at the local level. Budgetary concerns often lead to a shortage of voting resources. They're also predicated on less than 50% of eligible voters actually voting.
6. provide an opt-out option for being contacted by political groups or political polls. Similar to the US national do not call list, but without the political exception currently in place.

Those are all good ideas.

Two things I've got to say are, firstly the polls are entirely unofficial and may well be genuinely wrong and should not be used as a excuse for electoral reform unless there is very good evidence of serious fraud.

Secondly, UK experience is that opposition parties are keen on electoral reform until they get into power with a good majority, when suddenly it turns out that the existing system is very good.

Excluding boundary changes, the UK has had two pieces of electoral reform under the Labour government.

The first was a change in the way that postal votes are allocated, registered and checked. This has been a disastrous failure (as was predicted before it was brought in) that has had to massively increased fraud which has been documented in several criminal trials.

The second was the idea of e-voting to increase turnout. This has been canned as there was no evidence it would work, and is expensive and potentially full of security holes. So a good result there, for once.

The Diebold machines are known to be very lacking in proper security.

The UK still relies on the tested and reliable system of a paper ballot form, filled in with a pencil, and counted by teams of volunteers.

As you probably know Kilkrazy, the US is run by a one-party system with a twiddle-dee and twiddle-dum figurehead. Neither side is keen on making third parties a viable alternative. The presidential debates are one of the more visible examples. Congressional district boundaries are another.

Short of a violent uprising, I don't see much changing in the US in terms of voting. The roots are deep, and with elements of the US Third Infantry division possibly being used "to help with civil unrest and crowd control", I doubt Washington has much to fear.

Dal'yth Dude wrote:As you probably know Kilkrazy, the US is run by a one-party system with a twiddle-dee and twiddle-dum figurehead. Neither side is keen on making third parties a viable alternative. The presidential debates are one of the more visible examples. Congressional district boundaries are another.

Well, that really all depends on how the fallout of this election cycle plays out for the GOP. If the ultra-right can secure its hold over the party I could see a real push from the Democrats to open up the electoral process. And, once it makes it into the light as a legitimate issue, I think it will be a very tough thing for any politician, with sense, to oppose.

How much electoral reform can be done within the framework of the constitution as it stands?

Hell, most of the process these days isn't a constitutional structure. The entire party primary process is an invention of the policial parties themselves. Campaign finance laws are designed entirely to affect how the parties leverage their financial power and connections. They decide who we get to vote for. As far as electoral reform can go, they can basically do what they want and tack it on to what the Constitution actually provides for.

Kilkrazy wrote:How much electoral reform can be done within the framework of the constitution as it stands?

It is up to the states to determine how they want to allocate their votes through their electors. About the only thing that can be done is publicize the issue on a state by state basis, hopefully building a convincing case for each state to tie their electors to a district. The the only issue with this, and I doubt it would matter given the level of urbanization in the US, is that it markedly favors denser population centers. Basically, it is easier to get the message out when you have 1000 people in 5 square miles than when you have the same number of people in 1000 square miles. Thus, what would happen is that you would see the two major parties forced into playing to the urban voter. While more sparsely populated regions would be breeding grounds for 3rd party candidates.

If Obama loses this election I will go to Atlanta wearing my Obama T-shirt and loot everything awesome in sight with the other thousands of pissed off people.

AgeOfEgos wrote:Well, certainly the manner in which the poll is conducted is important. Demographics, party breakdown and sample size are the first three things I generally look for at polls (If they even provide that information anymore!). You can get accurate results (By accurate, I mean as accurate as margin of error allows) with proper polling.

The question I have regarding polls, which I've Googled mixed reviews is; How big of a deal is landline/cell phone usage trends to those polls? Does this figure into the youth vote (as younger people tend to have cell phones in place of landlines)?

Fivethirtyeight has an article on cell phones you can look up if you're interested. Basically the results were as you'd expect, when cell phones were included in their polling methodolgy the numbers swung to Obama by an extra couple of points. I believe most of the bigger national polls use cell phones now.

Typeline wrote:If Obama loses this election I will go to Atlanta wearing my Obama T-shirt and loot everything awesome in sight with the other thousands of pissed off people.

Becuase the best response, for democracies sake, is to riot if you don't like an election. Maybe a coup'd etat would be in order. You know, just to prove how much we like democracy.

Typeline wrote:If Obama loses this election I will go to Atlanta wearing my Obama T-shirt and loot everything awesome in sight with the other thousands of pissed off people.

Better make sure your health insurance is up to date. The South ain't LA or Chicago. We know how to deal with riots.

Ahtman wrote:

Typeline wrote:If Obama loses this election I will go to Atlanta wearing my Obama T-shirt and loot everything awesome in sight with the other thousands of pissed off people.

Becuase the best response, for democracies sake, is to riot if you don't like an election. Maybe a coup'd etat would be in order. You know, just to prove how much we like democracy.

Yep, and the best response is always to mock people. :S

Please.

I am embarrassed for you.

I'm embarrassed for all of us

Happy Feast of Samhain Day!!!

My grove's having ours tomorrow. But thanks!