That is a very good point...hadn't occurred to me. I've gotta think they've taken this into account, but I could be wrong. We're still using paper ballots in this country, after all.
I totally understand the reasons against, but maybe you should get a land line. One of the most often-cited strengths of the US POTS (Plain Old Telephone System) is its un-matched, hell, un-approached, reliability. 99.999% of the time, it's up and running. Pretty much everywhere else in the world is way behind on this...most phone service overseas is just spotty, let alone the line quality.
If ever the proverbial 'sh*t goes down' your cell phone is hardly reliable in case of a real national emergency. Whatever. Hope for the best, plan for the worst, right?
Considering where we both live (VA) and how up for grabs it is this cycle I'd say there is a good chance my vote, and yours, could be significant.
If you did live in that one particular county in Florida, and that situation came up again, your vote would still only be relevant if you found a way to cast it about 3,000 times. That may be close by a national and historic standard, but it still leaves you out in the cold.
If ever the proverbial 'sh*t goes down' your cell phone is hardly reliable in case of a real national emergency. Whatever. Hope for the best, plan for the worst, right?
But then I'd have to deal with telemarketers and pollsters.
If you did live in that one particular county in Florida, and that situation came up again, your vote would still only be relevant if you found a way to cast it about 3,000 times. That may be close by a national and historic standard, but it still leaves you out in the cold.
I am 26 years old. I don't know anyone under the age of 40 that has a landline phone. I would say that the numbers might be a little off.
Except they take that into account. If they talk to 1000 people and 900 say McCain and 100 say Obama, they don't just say "McCain has 90% of the vote." Instead, they take the percent of demographics that they interviewed and multiply it by the total demographics. For example: they interview the same 1000 people and 900 say McCain and 100 say Obama. But of the people under 30 they interviewed, Obama had 75% of the vote. For people over 50, McCain had 75% of the vote. So they take the number of people in each of those demographics in the US, and take the percentage of that demographic to see how the appropriate percentages.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Level 1 Judge
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
But then I'd have to deal with telemarketers and pollsters.
So I shouldn't vote at all?
I can't issue normative statements. I can only say that statistically speaking, you're far more likely to win the lottery two days in a row than to decide the next president of the United States. I would recommend that you not vote unless you're voting for someone you believe in.
I can't issue normative statements. I can only say that statistically speaking, you're far more likely to win the lottery two days in a row than to decide the next president of the United States. I would recommend that you not vote unless you're voting for someone you believe in.
Low chance does not mean never. While my vote for the lesser of two evils is most likely not going to decide anything that's not to say it might not. A modified "Pascal's Wager" if you will.
This is something that's interested me. Since Obama commands a healthy amount of younger voters, and a large portion of those voters do not have a landline phone, are polls this electoral season getting a full enough picture? Or is the amount of cell phone voters not statistically significant?
I am 26 years old. I don't know anyone under the age of 40 that has a landline phone. I would say that the numbers might be a little off.
You're talking about a legitimate statistics company as if they didn't take anything into account. On top of phone interviews not only included limited cell phone numbers (I've been called for surveys on mine), Sutherlands is correct. If you go to their website you can see their phone testing methods.
Low chance does not mean never. While my vote for the lesser of two evils is most likely not going to decide anything that's not to say it might not. A modified "Pascal's Wager" if you will.
Okay. Statistically speaking, you're far more likely to find a cure to cancer than to decide the president of the United States, putting an equal amount of energy into each. Low chance does not mean never, so why aren't you trying to cure cancer?
Okay. Statistically speaking, you're far more likely to find a cure to cancer than to decide the president of the United States, putting an equal amount of energy into each. Low chance does not mean never, so why aren't you trying to cure cancer?
Wait, there's a chance he can cure cancer with the same amount of energy it would take to pull a lever?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Okay. Statistically speaking, you're far more likely to find a cure to cancer than to decide the president of the United States, putting an equal amount of energy into each. Low chance does not mean never, so why aren't you trying to cure cancer?
Who says I'm not?
Regardless, civic duty doesn't require me to cure cancer.
Well the lesser of two evils is a bit of a joke. Most people seem to think that both candidates in every election known to man had two poor candidates.
If that's the case then people like Washington and Lincoln both were horrible candidates. I think people only like candidates after they run their term. Obviously sometimes that makes a candidate less likable but whatever.
Once the legacy begins and we have had time to truly judge a candidate that's when you actually hear people say, "Wow that sure was a great/horrible president."
And driving to the polling station, yes. Penicillin was created through an inverse of effort, I see no reason why this should be impossible.
You're missing the point. You're guaranteed to get your vote in if you vote, whereas you can devote as much energy to curing cancer and you almost definitely won't find a cure.
Which is only relevant if your goal is to cast your vote, in which case you ought to vote for the candidate you like the most. The logic of selecting a candidate you dislike because you dislike another more assumes that somehow your vote will actually matter.
You're talking about a legitimate statistics company as if they didn't take anything into account. On top of phone interviews not only included limited cell phone numbers (I've been called for surveys on mine), Sutherlands is correct. If you go to their website you can see their phone testing methods.
There is at least some kind of cellphone effect on polls. Also see here. The main thing the "cellphone problem" does it create a wider margin of error and uncertainty.
The logic of selecting a candidate you dislike because you dislike another more assumes that somehow your vote will actually matter.
Again, it could matter. You're trying to argue that you should only vote for a candidate you wholly support but then say that your votes impact regardless of who you vote for will most likely be none. Which way do you want it? Vote for the person you really want because you'd like them to win, or not vote because your vote's not going to matter?
Quote from TheInfamousBearAssassin »
I should think it compels you at least as much as it compels you to decide the fate of the nation between a kick to the shins and one to the balls.
There is at least some kind of cellphone effect on polls. Also see here. The main thing the "cellphone problem" does it create a wider margin of error and uncertainty.
Which would be why I said "taken into account", not "does effect the poll in any way". I realize that.
I think it is a legitimate issue for the Obama campaign to overcome. The polls show him leading, but if in the next couple of months he looses some of his fanbase because of people being tired of hearing about him.... it spells trouble.
Besides, the best thing that could happen for Obama would be for McCain to lead in the polls for a couple of weeks before the election. If that happened, his voter base would show up to vote, whereas now voter apathy will be an issue for him.
You're talking about a legitimate statistics company as if they didn't take anything into account. On top of phone interviews not only included limited cell phone numbers (I've been called for surveys on mine), Sutherlands is correct. If you go to their website you can see their phone testing methods.
I can't issue normative statements. I can only say that statistically speaking, you're far more likely to win the lottery two days in a row than to decide the next president of the United States. I would recommend that you not vote unless you're voting for someone you believe in.
Which is only relevant if your goal is to cast your vote, in which case you ought to vote for the candidate you like the most. The logic of selecting a candidate you dislike because you dislike another more assumes that somehow your vote will actually matter.
I am curious how the statistics work out where your vote won't matter. Is that due to you being a single person among so many people in a specific state? The problem with this is if enough people follow suit and choose not to vote...eventually that could catch up and the number would mean something. I can't speak for everyone but I live by the rule of, You can't complain about anything if you don't vote. I would rather see someone vote for Billy Joel before they didn't vote at all.
Your voting has nothing to do with whether or not everyone else follows suit. Your saying your voting or not might impact others, but not the actual act.
Again, it could matter. You're trying to argue that you should only vote for a candidate you wholly support but then say that your votes impact regardless of who you vote for will most likely be none. Which way do you want it? Vote for the person you really want because you'd like them to win, or not vote because your vote's not going to matter?
You're striking me as disingenuous at this point. The reasoning is pretty clear. If you're voting for ideological reasons, you ought to stay ideologically true to yourself. If you're voting for pragmatic reasons, you're bad at math.
You seem to be talking yourself into a Prisoner's Dilemma situation, TIBA. Your reasoning is disastrous universalized.
Is it? Would it be better or worse for the country if everyone stopped voting for bad compromise candidates, and voted for the candidate they liked best instead?
Well, let's take the now-classic example of the 2000 election. Nader split the liberal vote, and I'd imagine that if everyone voted for the candidate they liked best, the split would be even more pronounced. End result: both those who prefer Gore and those who prefer Nader get Bush instead.
It might work out if we used a ranking system to vote like some countries. But America's "one person, one vote" makes compromise politics and the two-party system practically inevitable. Those who can build the biggest coalition win.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Is it? Would it be better or worse for the country if everyone stopped voting for bad compromise candidates, and voted for the candidate they liked best instead?
Given that so many people seem to like Ralph Nader, I'd say worse.
Which would be why I said "taken into account", not "does effect the poll in any way". I realize that.
As the linked article shows, the wider margin of error is created when the pollsters DO take the cellphone problem into account. Which is what I was trying to show.
I totally understand the reasons against, but maybe you should get a land line. One of the most often-cited strengths of the US POTS (Plain Old Telephone System) is its un-matched, hell, un-approached, reliability. 99.999% of the time, it's up and running. Pretty much everywhere else in the world is way behind on this...most phone service overseas is just spotty, let alone the line quality.
If ever the proverbial 'sh*t goes down' your cell phone is hardly reliable in case of a real national emergency. Whatever. Hope for the best, plan for the worst, right?
Fully-powered 600-Card "Dream Cube" https://cubecobra.com/cube/list/dreamcube
450-Card "Artificer's Cube" https://cubecobra.com/cube/list/artificer
Cubing in Indianapolis...send me a PM!!
If you did live in that one particular county in Florida, and that situation came up again, your vote would still only be relevant if you found a way to cast it about 3,000 times. That may be close by a national and historic standard, but it still leaves you out in the cold.
But then I'd have to deal with telemarketers and pollsters.
So I shouldn't vote at all?
[card=Jace Beleren]Jace[/card] = Jace
Magic CompRules
Scry Rollover Popups for Google Chrome
The first rule of Cursecatcher is, You do not talk about Cursecatcher.
Except they take that into account. If they talk to 1000 people and 900 say McCain and 100 say Obama, they don't just say "McCain has 90% of the vote." Instead, they take the percent of demographics that they interviewed and multiply it by the total demographics. For example: they interview the same 1000 people and 900 say McCain and 100 say Obama. But of the people under 30 they interviewed, Obama had 75% of the vote. For people over 50, McCain had 75% of the vote. So they take the number of people in each of those demographics in the US, and take the percentage of that demographic to see how the appropriate percentages.
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
America == Velociraptor
Play IRC mafia. (/join #mafia)
I can't issue normative statements. I can only say that statistically speaking, you're far more likely to win the lottery two days in a row than to decide the next president of the United States. I would recommend that you not vote unless you're voting for someone you believe in.
Low chance does not mean never. While my vote for the lesser of two evils is most likely not going to decide anything that's not to say it might not. A modified "Pascal's Wager" if you will.
[card=Jace Beleren]Jace[/card] = Jace
Magic CompRules
Scry Rollover Popups for Google Chrome
The first rule of Cursecatcher is, You do not talk about Cursecatcher.
You're talking about a legitimate statistics company as if they didn't take anything into account. On top of phone interviews not only included limited cell phone numbers (I've been called for surveys on mine), Sutherlands is correct. If you go to their website you can see their phone testing methods.
Okay. Statistically speaking, you're far more likely to find a cure to cancer than to decide the president of the United States, putting an equal amount of energy into each. Low chance does not mean never, so why aren't you trying to cure cancer?
Wait, there's a chance he can cure cancer with the same amount of energy it would take to pull a lever?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Who says I'm not?
Regardless, civic duty doesn't require me to cure cancer.
I thought calling cell phones for such things wasn't allowed. Is there a way to "opt in"? Strictly curious.
[card=Jace Beleren]Jace[/card] = Jace
Magic CompRules
Scry Rollover Popups for Google Chrome
The first rule of Cursecatcher is, You do not talk about Cursecatcher.
And driving to the polling station, yes. Penicillin was created through an inverse of effort, I see no reason why this should be impossible.
I should think it compels you at least as much as it compels you to decide the fate of the nation between a kick to the shins and one to the balls.
If that's the case then people like Washington and Lincoln both were horrible candidates. I think people only like candidates after they run their term. Obviously sometimes that makes a candidate less likable but whatever.
Once the legacy begins and we have had time to truly judge a candidate that's when you actually hear people say, "Wow that sure was a great/horrible president."
Feel free to bid on my cards here!
You're missing the point. You're guaranteed to get your vote in if you vote, whereas you can devote as much energy to curing cancer and you almost definitely won't find a cure.
There is at least some kind of cellphone effect on polls. Also see here. The main thing the "cellphone problem" does it create a wider margin of error and uncertainty.
- Enslaught
Again, it could matter. You're trying to argue that you should only vote for a candidate you wholly support but then say that your votes impact regardless of who you vote for will most likely be none. Which way do you want it? Vote for the person you really want because you'd like them to win, or not vote because your vote's not going to matter?
Civic duty: the responsibilities of a citizen - http://www.thefreedictionary.com/civic%20duty, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/civic%20duty
Curing cancer does not align myself with any particular country (i.e. a citizen of that country). Voting does.
[card=Jace Beleren]Jace[/card] = Jace
Magic CompRules
Scry Rollover Popups for Google Chrome
The first rule of Cursecatcher is, You do not talk about Cursecatcher.
Which would be why I said "taken into account", not "does effect the poll in any way". I realize that.
I think it is a legitimate issue for the Obama campaign to overcome. The polls show him leading, but if in the next couple of months he looses some of his fanbase because of people being tired of hearing about him.... it spells trouble.
Besides, the best thing that could happen for Obama would be for McCain to lead in the polls for a couple of weeks before the election. If that happened, his voter base would show up to vote, whereas now voter apathy will be an issue for him.
I am curious how the statistics work out where your vote won't matter. Is that due to you being a single person among so many people in a specific state? The problem with this is if enough people follow suit and choose not to vote...eventually that could catch up and the number would mean something. I can't speak for everyone but I live by the rule of, You can't complain about anything if you don't vote. I would rather see someone vote for Billy Joel before they didn't vote at all.
[EDH] Ob Nixilis the Fallen
You're striking me as disingenuous at this point. The reasoning is pretty clear. If you're voting for ideological reasons, you ought to stay ideologically true to yourself. If you're voting for pragmatic reasons, you're bad at math.
That still doesn't discredit voting on the off chance your vote might just be important.
[card=Jace Beleren]Jace[/card] = Jace
Magic CompRules
Scry Rollover Popups for Google Chrome
The first rule of Cursecatcher is, You do not talk about Cursecatcher.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Is it? Would it be better or worse for the country if everyone stopped voting for bad compromise candidates, and voted for the candidate they liked best instead?
It might work out if we used a ranking system to vote like some countries. But America's "one person, one vote" makes compromise politics and the two-party system practically inevitable. Those who can build the biggest coalition win.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Given that so many people seem to like Ralph Nader, I'd say worse.
As the linked article shows, the wider margin of error is created when the pollsters DO take the cellphone problem into account. Which is what I was trying to show.
- Enslaught