Polls

Dave!

Hey folks,

First a quick question: is a [percentage] 'point' different to just a percentage? If so, what's the difference? Cheers

SO, how accurate have the pollsters been in predicting the winners of US elections?

At the moment a Zogby poll has Obama with a 6 point lead. This article also provides some interesting breakdowns for gender, race, socioeconomic status, etc.

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE49D0WE20081014?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=69

Trojan

Dave! wrote: »

First a quick question: is a [percentage] 'point' different to just a percentage? If so, what's the difference? Cheers

A point is 1 percent. So to say there was a "10 point" swing means 10%.

Remember that country-wide polls are almost irrelevant because of the Electoral College system. What's important is the polling in the swing states.

banquo

<- what Trojan said.

National polls are almost irrelevant because of the electoral college system.

Say there are 3 states, each with 10 votes and 1 electoral college vote.

6 out of 10 people in the first two states vote for me. 10 out of ten in the third state vote for you.

I got 2 electoral votes, but only 12 individual votes.

You get only 1 electoral vote, but 18 individual votes.

66% voted for you, but I win the election. Now get down on your knees and thank god we have PR.

Ludo

Excellent simple explanation of what a crap electoral system it is.

toiletduck

What's the alternative?

Otacon

toiletduck wrote: »

What's the alternative?

Who ever gets the most votes wins is one alternative.

toiletduck

Otacon wrote: »

Who ever gets the most votes wins is one alternative.

Yeah but wouldn't that entail candidates "abandoning" rural areas/states. I know it's an old one (and well trotted out!), but imagine Ireland in an election for an EU president. Who would give a damn about us in a one man one vote scenario?

It's just I always hear complaints about the EC system, sure it has it's flaws, but I'm just wondering are there any better ways in peoples opinions.

Ludo

toiletduck wrote: »

Yeah but wouldn't that entail candidates "abandoning" rural areas/states. I know it's an old one (and well trotted out!), but imagine Ireland in an election for an EU president. Who would give a damn about us in a one man one vote scenario?

It's just I always hear complaints about the EC system, sure it has it's flaws, but I'm just wondering are there any better ways in peoples opinions.

Well the current system ignores some large states such as New York and California. If you are a republican there, you essentially have no say in who becomes president and your vote is worthless. Opposite applies to Texas.

One man one vote simply means EVERYONEs vote counts the same. Yes large population centres will get more attention but if that is where the majority of people are then that is only right. In a 2 party system a simple first past the post makes sense.

Manic Moran

Ludo wrote: »

Well the current system ignores some large states such as New York and California. If you are a republican there, you essentially have no say in who becomes president and your vote is worthless. Opposite applies to Texas.

One man one vote simply means EVERYONEs vote counts the same. Yes large population centres will get more attention but if that is where the majority of people are then that is only right. In a 2 party system a simple first past the post makes sense.

EC's focus on Swing States means that if you're from San Francisco, CA or someone from Lubbock, TX, whoever wins will at least be tolerable to you. The reason they're Swing States is that they are fairly evenly balanced in the political spectrum and it encourages the selection of moderate candidates. Obama's selection is pretty much an anomoly made possible by the fact that the Democrats believed that no matter who they picked, they'd beat the Republican candidate. but even at that you've seen him swing a bit right to try to gain independent votes. I also firmly believe that the rural vote is very important to not let fall into disregard in a country which has such a spread in it. You can get away with giving it less emphasis in a country with a European population density, after all, even in the back woods of Offaly you're not that far from a fair-sized town, but politicians focused directly to gain the votes of folks in New York and LA could be disastrous for entire States like Wyoming and Montana. The only saving grace would be the Senate.

And if I thought my vote was worthless, I wouldn't make sure I was going to vote on the 4th. I fully believe that CA's votes will go to the 'other guy', yet I still wrote the Governator to veto the proposal to bypass EC in an Inter-State voting pact. Which, I'm happy to say, he did. This country is a federation of independent States, nobody should determine where CA's EC votes go but Californians, if you ask me.

NTM

BlitzKrieg

toiletduck wrote: »

What's the alternative?

proportional representation maybe?

Black Swan

The 2000 presidential elections illustrates the problem for the American form of democracy. Al Gore won the popular vote by about 1/2 million, but Bush won Florida by about 500 votes. So the 500 voters in Florida counted more than a half million in the nation, mostly from urban areas. It's a bit more complex than this, but it does raise the point.

GuanYin

Four years ago Colorado proposed amendment 36 to split electoral votes.

It was defeated/rejected and the system remains.

Black Swan

GuanYin wrote: »

Four years ago Colorado proposed amendment 36 to split electoral votes.

Does Maine and Nebraska already split electoral votes?

Manic Moran

Two States do, Nebraska's one of them. The other is somewhere in the North East, not sure offhand if it's Maine.

Two other States which have been talking about split EC votes have been California, safely Blue, and North Carolina, safely Red. Amusingly, in California the proposal was made by Republicans and met stiff resistance from Democrats complaining that it would reduce the weight of California as a State, whilst across the country in NC the movement was being pushed by Democrats whilst the Republicans were fighting it as an evil concept.

NTM

GuanYin

Yes, Maine and Nebraska are proportional.

Colorado is an interesting case because Colorado Springs is incredibly conservative republican while Boulder is the most liberal place on the planet.

Of course there are other states like this, but Colorado is currently a swing state (albeit with only 9 votes) and in recent history has been red for presidential but blue for local elections.

Black Swan

"Maine is one of two states that splits its electoral votes and, just as four years ago, there are scenarios where the presidential election could hinge on a single electoral vote."

Source: http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/articles/2008/10/03/mccain_to_put_greater_emphasis_on_maine/

Manic Moran

The 2000 presidential elections illustrates the problem for the American form of democracy. Al Gore won the popular vote by about 1/2 million, but Bush won Florida by about 500 votes. So the 500 voters in Florida counted more than a half million in the nation, mostly from urban areas.

That's just it, though, the US is not a democracy. It is a federated representative republic. As long as one keeps applying standards which apply to something which it is not, it will often fail to achieve those standards.

NTM

GuanYin

Manic Moran wrote: »

That's just it, though, the US is not a democracy.

I was verbally abused for making the same point in a discussion last week.

Pocono Joe

Several things to consider about these election polls:

One thing you have to be wary about these election polls is the makeup of the population taking the polls. Although they usually state the number of people polled, they usually don’t report that they have a much higher percentage of Democrats participating, than Republicans or Independents, which means a favorable skew towards Obama. Many of the polls I’ve see usually puts the poll population at 40% Democrat, 33% Republican, and 27% Independent. It’s just my personal opinion, but I feel it’s a major factor which contributes to the last two Presidential elections where the polls were favoring a Democrat candidate win before the election.

Another thing to remember is that many of us Republican’s are hesitant to participate in election polls, especially this year. Many of us feel Obama is running a less than honorable campaign. He is a result of “Chicago politics.” A rather unsavory phrase here in the states, one that is synonymous with dirty politics. Look at his first state senate race in 1996. He effectively used election rules to eliminate his competition. He employed Chicago rules to invalidate the voting petition signatures of three of his challengers. Although legal, it was less than honorable, and allowed him to run unopposed. Hmmmm…. No mention of “voter disenfranchisement” or “allowing the people to vote for the best candidate.” (The CNN report on this has mysteriously disappeared).
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/05/29/obama-played-hardball-in-chicago-so/

In addition, look at what the Obama Campaign did to the poor woman in Lufkin, Texas recently. She was rude when the Obama Campaign called her, and the campaign volunteer lied about the phone call. The Obama campaign management then had the Secret Service harass the poor woman. This is the type of campaign we Republicans are expecting from Obama and in part why we are very wary of participating in election phone calls.
http://www.lufkindailynews.com/search/content/news/stories/2008/10/07/secret_service.html

Now before you all start with the “it’s just one persons word against another” read the following. You will see her husband was right along side of her in the car and verifies what she said. I hope this woman files a criminal and civil suit against the Obama campaign. Unfortunately the mainstream media will fail to report much of this because it would hurt their candidate of choice. If it was the McCain campaign doing something like this, it would be splashed across every newspaper and media channel in America. As I have stated many times, journalistic objectivity has died in this election.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/secretservice.asp

I have been called no less than 3 times a week for the last month to participate in polls. The poll taker’s almost never identify who they represent. I always state “I don’t participate in election phone polls… sorry,” then hang up, just like many Republicans I know who get these election poll calls.

Just something to think about.

amacachi

Pocono Joe wrote: »

Several things to consider about these election polls:

One thing you have to be wary about these election polls is the makeup of the population taking the polls. Although they usually state the number of people polled, they usually don’t report that they have a much higher percentage of Democrats participating, than Republicans or Independents, which means a favorable skew towards Obama. Many of the polls I’ve see usually puts the poll population at 40% Democrat, 33% Republican, and 27% Independent. It’s just my personal opinion, but I feel it’s a major factor which contributes to the last two Presidential elections where the polls were favoring a Democrat candidate win before the election.

Another thing to remember is that many of us Republican’s are hesitant to participate in election polls, especially this year. Many of us feel Obama is running a less than honorable campaign. He is a result of “Chicago politics.” A rather unsavory phrase here in the states, one that is synonymous with dirty politics. Look at his first state senate race in 1996. He effectively used election rules to eliminate his competition. He employed Chicago rules to invalidate the voting petition signatures of three of his challengers. Although legal, it was less than honorable, and allowed him to run unopposed. Hmmmm…. No mention of “voter disenfranchisement” or “allowing the people to vote for the best candidate.” (The CNN report on this has mysteriously disappeared).
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/05/29/obama-played-hardball-in-chicago-so/

In addition, look at what the Obama Campaign did to the poor woman in Lufkin, Texas recently. She was rude when the Obama Campaign called her, and the campaign volunteer lied about the phone call. The Obama campaign management then had the Secret Service harass the poor woman. This is the type of campaign we Republicans are expecting from Obama and in part why we are very wary of participating in election phone calls.
http://www.lufkindailynews.com/search/content/news/stories/2008/10/07/secret_service.html

Now before you all start with the “it’s just one persons word against another” read the following. You will see her husband was right along side of her in the car and verifies what she said. I hope this woman files a criminal and civil suit against the Obama campaign. Unfortunately the mainstream media will fail to report much of this because it would hurt their candidate of choice. If it was the McCain campaign doing something like this, it would be splashed across every newspaper and media channel in America. As I have stated many times, journalistic objectivity has died in this election.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/secretservice.asp

I have been called no less than 3 times a week for the last month to participate in polls. The poll taker’s almost never identify who they represent. I always state “I don’t participate in election phone polls… sorry,” then hang up, just like many Republicans I know who get these election poll calls.

Just something to think about.

Fingers crossed there are many, many people like you getting called:P

Manic Moran

Pocono, there is little reason to believe that Obama supporters aren't suffering the same travails of being called. Even Liberals can get fed up of being called at about dinner time and decide to not participate in the survey.

NTM