Quote from: jgantsLet's face it, the average voter is as dumb as a pile of rocks.

How delightfully fascist of you.

Actually, given that only about 40% of eligible voters cast a ballot in the last US-wide election in 2006, it's more accurate to say that "the average US voter doesn't."

Quote from: gleichman;232000So basically, your Pile of Rocks has no more influence on the result than... a pile of rocks.

I entirely agree with your analysis - the election is decided by whoever can con the majority into voting for them.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;232006How delightfully fascist of you.

Actually, given that only about 40% of eligible voters cast a ballot in the last US-wide election in 2006, it's more accurate to say that "the average US voter doesn't."

I'm really more of a technocrat than a fascist.  But now you're on the "can not procreate" list.  

At this point, I think the best method is to have a "Presidential Idol" TV show (or perhaps, "So You Think You Can Lead?") and decide the presidency by a telephone/text message vote.  Now that's democracy!

Quote from: jgants;232114I entirely agree with your analysis - the election is decided by whoever can con the majority into voting for them.

I don't believe "con" is an apporiate wording here. Simple "cons" would be pointed out by the opposing side, with horrid results on the person making it.

The charge of flip-flopper for example operates under this concept, where in someone attempts to change his past position in order to win votes in the current election- a con if there ever was one. One quickly and effectively pointed out by the opposing side when it happens.

There are many examples.

Like or it or not, the core system does function- and functions better than any other known alternative in the modern world. At least if one wants a nation with growth and international impact.

Quote from: jgants;232114At this point, I think the best method is to have a "Presidential Idol" TV show (or perhaps, "So You Think You Can Lead?") and decide the presidency by a telephone/text message vote.  Now that's democracy!

Sadly, I think you'd get a better voter turn out (in most countries)!

From AP-Ipsos poll:

Obama 47, McCain 41

–McCain is leading by 10 points among whites and is even with Obama among men.

–Obama leads by 13 points among women, by 30 points among voters up to age 34, and by 55 points among blacks, Hispanics and other minorities.

–Democrats were favored over Republicans 53 percent to 35 percent in which party voters would like to see control Congress next year.

–18 percent think the country is moving in the right direction, and only 31 percent approve of the job President Bush is doing.

Conducted: July 31-Aug. 4, error margin +/- 3.1 points.

Quote from: JongWK;232196From AP-Ipsos poll:

It's important to look at who the poll is polling.  That one says:

   The poll was conducted from July 31-Aug. 4 and involved telephone interviews with 1,002 adults, for whom the margin of sampling error was plus or minus 3.1 percentage points. Included were interviews with 833 registered voters, for whom the error margin was plus or minus 3.4 points.

...so this is a registered voter poll.  Registered voter polls tend to be less accurate than likely voter polls, though the accuracy of likely voter polls depends on the model used for determining likely voters, which may be difficult to get right in this election.  The Gallup poll (also a registered voter poll) shows Obama trending up, and they have him 4 points ahead of McCain today.

Quote from: JongWK;232196Obama 47, McCain 41

Just because he's leading, doesn't mean he'll win. Things can turn around, and polls are often not very good indicators of how elections will go in a country with voluntary voting. So even with an entirely free and fair election, who knows which way it'll go.

Plus, there's good old disenfranchisement and fraud. They still have the Republican Secretaries of State who do their best to knock blacks off the electoral rolls, the officials who challenge the identity and right to vote of blacks and hispanics (predominantly Democratic voters) going into the poll booth so that they get given "provisional" votes which are generally not counted, and of course the electronic voting machines which the GAO says are very easy to scam, and which in the past have been found to have many errors - but all their errors which were not instantly obvious (like one machine recording negative 25 million votes) were in favour of Dubya in 2004.

The CEO of Diebold, a voting machine maker, told Dubya in 2004 that he would "give Ohio" to him. I am confident that if McCain greases the right palms that they can give him the entire country.

The US really needs to go back to basics on this, with elections overseen by an independent authority (like our Australian Electoral Commission), rather than the current mish-mash of locally-elected officials (brilliant, elect a devoted member of a political party to supervise the honesty of your elections!), private corporations, and so on. They need paper ballots, party officials kept out of the ballot box (though of course they can visit tally rooms), and so on.

I've no doubt Morrow will provide his usual line-by-line refutation, arguing, "Well, the Republicans may be crooked, but the Democrats are just as crooked!" and I'd agree entirely. But the fact is that whether it's one party, both or neither being crooked, the system offers many opportunities for being crooked, which makes people feel disenfranchised. A democracy in which people feel they have no influence over government, and that voting is pointless, is not really a democracy. An election, like a court case, must not only be impartial, it must be seen to be impartial, too. A system can't survive if people don't believe in it - just look at the USSR.

This reminds me of some quotes from Peter Ustinov:

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;232390Just because he's leading, doesn't mean he'll win. Things can turn around, and polls are often not very good indicators of how elections will go in a country with voluntary voting. So even with an entirely free and fair election, who knows which way it'll go.

"In America, through pressure of conformity, there is freedom of choice, but nothing to choose from."

QuotePlus, there's good old disenfranchisement and fraud.

"Corruption is nature's way of restoring our faith in democracy."

QuoteA system can't survive if people don't believe in it - just look at the USSR.

I am an optimist, unrepentant and militant. After all, in order not to be a fool an optimist must know how sad a place the world can be. It is only the pessimist who finds this out anew every day.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;232390The US really needs to go back to basics on this, with elections overseen by an independent authority (like our Australian Electoral Commission), rather than the current mish-mash of locally-elected officials (brilliant, elect a devoted member of a political party to supervise the honesty of your elections!), private corporations, and so on. They need paper ballots, party officials kept out of the ballot box (though of course they can visit tally rooms), and so on.

While much of that sounds fine, without the compulsory voting and identity checks that seem to be present in the Australian system, it still remains too easy to add votes by voting for people who don't show up to vote.  If I try to steal your vote in Australia, you'll notice when you show up and someone tells you that you've already voted.  If you don't show up to vote in the US and I know that, I can use your vote and you may never know it.  And even the Australian system doesn't seem to prevent dead, illegal, or fictitious people from voting once they get into the system.

I'm all for eliminating voting fraud but not for doing so selectively.

(I suppose I should point out that Australia has provisional ballots, by the way.)

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;232390But the fact is that whether it's one party, both or neither being crooked, the system offers many opportunities for being crooked, which makes people feel disenfranchised. A democracy in which people feel they have no influence over government, and that voting is pointless, is not really a democracy. An election, like a court case, must not only be impartial, it must be seen to be impartial, too. A system can't survive if people don't believe in it - just look at the USSR.

While I agree that the system offers many opportunities for being crooked and that they should all be closed, I'm not convinced that voting fraud is the source of voters feeling disenfranchised.  Many US elections are won by such lopsided margins that fraud isn't really the problem.  The problem is the creation of legislative and congressional districts.

After each census, the state legislatures are obliged to recreate their legislative and congressional districts to ensure proportional representation (i.e., each district needs to have roughly the same number of people in it).  But since the state legislatures are partisan, what they do is create districts so that they are full of Republicans or Democrats by a wide margin so that any legislator or representative running in that district for the dominant party is assured victory.  Sometimes, they create districts in strange convoluted shapes in order to create safe districts in a process commonly called gerrymandering.  And the net result is that incumbents rarely get voted out and challengers from the other party rarely win.  In the 2004 House of Representatives election, "More than 85 percent of House incumbents won by landslide majorities of more than 60 percent.  Only seven incumbents, of 399 running, lost their seats.  That’s a 98.2% re-election rate.  Outside of Texas, where a mid-cycle Republican redistricting effort led to the defeat of four targeted incumbent Democrats, only three incumbents lost their seats -- a greater than 99 percent incumbent re-election rate for House members in 49 states."

I think that has a far more corrosive effect on how voters feel about their vote counting than voting fraud.  Iowa already has a law in place for non-partisan redistricting and California has an initiative on the ballot this fall for non-partisan redistricting.  If you want to fix the American system, I'd start there.

By the way, here is a great article about how overt the election rigging was in the 1976 primaries in Philadelphia.  Don't think that sort of thing doesn't still happen in Philadelphia.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;232390Just because he's leading, doesn't mean he'll win.

Where exactly did I say that in my post?

This is simply another recent poll, just like Werekoala's but with a candidate ahead rather than tied (I also remember a recent poll putting McCain several points ahead too). America is what, 90 days away from the elections? That's an eternity in politics.

Pertinent article in the Sydney Morning Herald:

No cliffhanger, more like an Obama landslide

But, if they don't portray it as a genuine horse race in spite of the very likely outcome, how will the media outlets sell any advertising time between now and November 5th?

Um...neener?

!i!

I thought it was because we're all racists who want the white guy to win? Or more importantly, the black guy to lose? I mean after all, that was the last line of the article.

No it wasn't.  Allow me to quote:

Quote"The issue still remains for Senator Obama whether he can overcome what some fear is a deep-seated racist reserve about him in middle America."

That issue has been on the table throughout the Democratic primaries.  Are you suggesting otherwise going into the general election?

!i!

Quote from: Werekoala;234283I thought it was because we're all racists who want the white guy to win? Or more importantly, the black guy to lose? I mean after all, that was the last line of the article.

Well I wanted the black woman to win - but she didn't run for the office.
So BOTH Dick Morris and I were wrong about that happening.


- Ed C.


So does that mean that I'm hoplessly weird if I'm supoosedly a 'conservative' that wanted a black woman to be President???