Voting Statistics

[paultakeda]

Enter as described.

[GTiGirl]

2000 Gore, 2004 Kerry...

I wish we didn't have this 2 party crap, I would really love to see David Cobb in office, but I really want GW out this year, Kerry it is.

[creanium]

What if I wasn't old enough to vote in the previous election?

[paultakeda]

Debate commentary at T-minus 4 seconds: I'd be more nervous than a hooker in church.

Ah, CNN.

[paultakeda]

What if I wasn't old enough to vote in the previous election?

Not in the polling group. ;)

The goal is to find people who have switched their vote (party-wise). Therefore, currently only one of the five who have voted is significant.

[madajb]

What if I wasn't old enough to vote in the previous election?
The fix is in Crean, I'm not allowed to play either.
-ajb

[Troike]

What if I wasn't old enough to vote in the previous election?

*beats you with the liberal stick*
age discrimination!!!

[paultakeda]

Considering the as yet low sample number, it does show that no one's gonna vote for Nader again. ;)

Obviously, this is good news for the Dems.

[chris]

Debate commentary at T-minus 4 seconds: I'd be more nervous than a hooker in church.

Ah, CNN.

LOL....don't really care much for all this political stuff, but had to reply to your comment..haha..good sh*t! :D

[paultakeda]

Yeah. I can't believe a CNN correspondent actually said that on live national TV.

[Monster8V]

Yeah. I can't believe a CNN correspondent actually said that on live national TV.


If this election year has done one thing, its made once credible news organizations, not so much.

[Alan_One]

If this election year has done one thing, its made once credible news organizations, not so much.

Trigger happy yellow journalism is killing the last shred of faith I had in the "free media".

But I don't go as far as to think that they're being that way along party lines. I think they just try and grab the most "news worthy" (read Ratings) topic they can get their hands on and then proceed to rape it with the "News Stick".

I listen to radio news more than I watch TV news.

[paultakeda]

News has never really been unbiased. That's why it's best to read from a variety of sources, especially from polarized opposites. The kernel of truth is usually in there somewhere. You just have to think a little to get at it.

[madajb]

Yeah, but it used to be the "real" news organizations used to be biased but fair.
News used to be a profession.
Now news is entertainment, and the semblance of fairness is all but gone.
-ajb

[paultakeda]

The reason for that is simple: the public gets what they want.
If the public decided that they would prefer biased but fair over biased and over-the-top, you'd vote with your remote.

[Alan_One]

I hear you.

That's another reason I like to watch foreign news programs (BBC, Televisa, etc) hoping that their biases cancel out nielsen's.

News programs are not required nor are they obligated to tell us the whole truth.

[madajb]

The reason for that is simple: the public gets what they want.
If the public decided that they would prefer biased but fair over biased and over-the-top, you'd vote with your remote.
The public gets what they are given because the people making the decisions think the majority of people are idiots.
-ajb
(If it bleeds it leads..)

[paultakeda]

The public gets what they are given because the people making the decisions think the majority of people are idiots.
-ajb
(If it bleeds it leads..)

And sadly, the people making the decisions are by and large CORRECT.

I make absolutely no excuses for my elitism. People who make decisions should be those who are given an intelligence test. The test is not based on logic, reasoning, math, or verbal skills; the test is a simple presentation of vitriol spewed from both sides of an argument, and whosoever is able to discern the truth of the matter behind the garbage and can therefore present the reasons behind either and is willing to vote on the subject as for or against, is given a citizen's right to vote.

I didn't say it would be easy.

[madajb]

I dunno.
I remain convinced that a fair (and balanced. heh) news organization could thrive. I think the "undecided's" among us would benefit immensely.
Unfortunately, it would need to be a sponsored effort by media conglomerate, since pure news is rarely profitable.

-ajb

[paultakeda]

I think PBS works.

[Alan_One]

And sadly, the people making the decisions are by and large CORRECT.

I make absolutely no excuses for my elitism. People who make decisions should be those who are given an intelligence test. The test is not based on logic, reasoning, math, or verbal skills; the test is a simple presentation of vitriol spewed from both sides of an argument, and whosoever is able to discern the truth of the matter behind the garbage and can therefore present the reasons behind either and is willing to vote on the subject as for or against, is given a citizen's right to vote.

I didn't say it would be easy.

Sure, but what happens when it's a difference of opinion? I can simply believe that abortion is wrong (which I do) and then proceed to try and impose my belief on another (which I don't). The point is that freedom of choice requires no pre-qualification

Even if I am an elitist at heart.

(is there such a thing as an bougie elitist?)

[paultakeda]

Sure, but what happens when it's a difference of opinion? I can simply believe that abortion is wrong (which I do) and then proceed to try and impose my belief on another (which I don't). The point is that freedom of choice requires no pre-qualification

Even if I am an elitist at heart.

(is there such a thing as an bougie elitist?)

So long as the difference of opinion is an educated one. That's why you present both sides with vicious lies, see if the person can see through the lies and identify the interests, then weigh that against their own personal reasons, then decide for or against along with an explanation of the their decision process.

But yes, the point of freedom of choice is should not require such an elitist pre-qual exam. Sadly, those who would not give everyone such a freedom has found the loophole of providing an emotionally charged libelous message that makes a person "choose" as they see fit, not as that person truly thinks.

[madajb]

So long as the difference of opinion is an educated one. That's why you present both sides with vicious lies, see if the person can see through the lies and identify the interests, then weigh that against their own personal reasons, then decide for or against along with an explanation of the their decision process.

Unfortunately, not all decisions are rational.
I think abortion(to pick Alan_One's topic above) is wrong.
I have no rational basis for that, no biblical backup , no hard facts.
Hell, I can even see the points of the pro-choice folk (babies should be wanted, women should have control of their bodies, who takes care of unwanted children etc etc).
However, despite all that, in my gut, I think it's wrong.
Explaining my decision process isn't very likely.

-ajb

[paultakeda]

Like I said... it wouldn't be easy -- or even justifiable. It's just, at this point, wishful thinking that everyone who casts a ballot knows why they did it beyond party loyalty, false assumptions spoon-fed by political hackery (to quote Jon Stewart when he went on Crossfire and ripped both hosts a new one), and false labels such as conservative and liberal.

[paultakeda]

Politics 101: Swing Voters (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/vote2004/politics101/politics101_swingvoters.html)

[paultakeda]

Based on the poll results as they stand, it should give you an idea of how the popular vote's going to swing.

[GTiGirl]

Based on the poll results as they stand, it should give you an idea of how the popular vote's going to swing.


Are you saying this based on the poll you did? Or in general? Or by that link you posted that I didn't read?

[paultakeda]

Based on the poll on this site. Naturally, it's unscientific, but it tends towards what others have said concerning the basic question: "How many Gore voters will vote for Bush and how many Bush voters will vote for Kerry in 2004?"

Educated guesses show a swing from Bush '02 to Kerry '04, with a large Nader '02 going to Kerry '04.

I wanted to see how this site would poll. Unscientific, but interesting.

The link concerns swing voting in general.

[GTiGirl]

Super unscientific. In fact, most polls done by media sources are unscientific. Well, maybe they are scientific in their general method, but over/undersampling, calling schemes and verbiage are definitely biased. Polls suck.

This little poll you did is cute and interesting. However the population of socaleuro voters is not representative of the country as a whole. I wish it were because I like the results :) Let's hope the rest of the swing voters out there follow our lead.

[paultakeda]

Actually, the population at SoCalEuro should have seen a rather large Bush/Bush vote, considering the user demographics.

Geographically and financially, this forum would sport more Republicans than Democrats. Of course, the majority are centrists, where party platforms matter the least, but still, I expected more Bush/Bush votes than currently present.

The general trend shows swing voters who voted in the last election for Bush will switch to Kerry this time around. This is true in many other polls that stick to undecideds and swing-voter demographics.

Unscientific it may be, but I gotta tell ya, it's probably a good indicator.

The close race is largely because party voters who did not vote in 2000 due to apathy are turning out in droves this year. How many GOPs versus how many Dems will show up at the polls? That's a big one. The other big one is fairly obvious... most, but not all, swing-voters will go Kerry. But will it be a substantial enough number to overcome the influx GOP voters that may outnumber Dem voters?

[madajb]

Super unscientific. In fact, most polls done by media sources are unscientific. Well, maybe they are scientific in their general method, but over/undersampling, calling schemes and verbiage are definitely biased. Polls suck.



Most polls done by reputable polling institutions are statistically accurate.
It's usually the interpretations that are flawed.

I have been reading some interesting stories abot poll accuracy and rising cell phone use though.

-ajb

[madajb]

Unscientific it may be, but I gotta tell ya, it's probably a good indicator.



It's interesting, given that most of the folks that seem to respond in the political threads lean rightwards.
Yet, this poll shows a silent majority of Kerry folk.
I'd have added a 'Can't vote/Won't vote" option though, to weed out the younger and truly apathetic folk.
-ajb

[paultakeda]

That's only if I cared about non-voters. :D

As for the too young to vote folk... as mentioned way early in the thread, not part of the study. ;)

[madajb]

That's only if I cared about non-voters. :D


Damn Born Again citizens...
=)
-ajb

[paultakeda]

Damn Born Again citizens...
=)
-ajb

Hey, buddy, ever since I traded in my green card for a passport I've voted. I'm not alone either; the percentage of non-native citizens who vote is far higher than citizens born with the right to vote.