I would rather see a 90% turnout with 60% voting for someone I didn't like than a 60 % turnout with 60% voting for someone I liked.
Think about it! In the first case 54% of the eligible voters elected the winner. This is democracy. A government by "the people".
In the second case 36% of the eligible voters elected the winner. This is oligarchy, government of the few.
Always vote! You may not like your choice, but if you don't vote for "the lesser of two evils" you may get "the greater of two evils".
Also never ever believe polls. Did they ask you who you would vote for? Chances are better than 90% that they did not even call you.
Never respond to polls. If you don't respond you increase the uncertainty of polls. By increasing the uncertainty you will decrease the uncertainty of people who might not vote because their candidate was "down" in the polls.
Polls have another bad effect on democracy. Candidates may change their messages to align with the polls. If candidates ignored polls, they would work harder to convince you of their solutions. if candidates adjusted their messages to match the polls, they might give you solutions which they have no intention of implementing.
Finally, my favorite mantra that I have yet to see elsewhere:
Always vote!
The only way you throw you vote away
Is to stay away!
Showing posts with label majority. Show all posts
Showing posts with label majority. Show all posts
Friday, April 01, 2016
Wednesday, February 25, 2015
Do you give elections away?
Are you going to be in the 40% who lets the 31% decide who's going to be elected?
If you are among those who stay away in elections, then a majority of a 60% turnout is less than 31%. Too many media outlets use "landslide" when the victor receives 55% of the vote. If the turnout is only 60%, then the victor only received 33% of the eligible vote.
If these figures were reported more often, then maybe the "winners" would have less hubris when they take office.
Always vote because all votes count!
If you are among those who stay away in elections, then a majority of a 60% turnout is less than 31%. Too many media outlets use "landslide" when the victor receives 55% of the vote. If the turnout is only 60%, then the victor only received 33% of the eligible vote.
If these figures were reported more often, then maybe the "winners" would have less hubris when they take office.
Always vote because all votes count!
Thursday, April 17, 2014
The Fable of Sid Citizen; a vote that "wouldn't count" but did matter
Sid Citizen considered the three candidates for mayor of Wherever - Moe, Joe, and Zoe.
Sid didn’t like Moe because he thought Moe’s views were off the wall.
Sid thought Joe was rather ordinary.
Sid thought Zoe had good ideas but he didn’t agree with her plan for better streets.
So Sid stayed home. After all, his vote wouldn’t count.
Moe won! By one vote!
Sid didn’t like Moe because he thought Moe’s views were off the wall.
Sid thought Joe was rather ordinary.
Sid thought Zoe had good ideas but he didn’t agree with her plan for better streets.
So Sid stayed home. After all, his vote wouldn’t count.
Moe won! By one vote!
Thursday, January 09, 2014
The "two-party system" is broken and we let it happen
Here are some quotes from "The PARTY Is OVER: How the Republicans Went CRAZY, Democrats Became USELESS, and the Middle Class Got SHAFTED", Mike Lofgren, a former Republican Congressional staffer.
"Twenty to 25 percent is not a majority [right-wing authoritarian..will not change minds], but it is enough to swing an election, especially when you consider that the authoritarian follower is more easily organized and mobilized than the rest of the population." p. 185
If this doesn't scare the more pragmatic and flexible to vote, then nothing will.
Is there really a difference in the parties?
"In a deep and intractable recession one can never discount the possibility that a Republican could win the presidency against an incumbent Democrat. But if the GOP nominates a candidate too deeply flawed or too right wing to be plausible, it won't really matter. The main thrust of the establishment's policies will be implemented regardless of who wins. That is the genius of our two-party system." p 199
How much pressure do each of us put on Democrat office-holders to put people before corporations?
"And charitable or otherwise nonprofit organizations should no longer be allowed to compensate their executives at almost Wall Street level. Does it make sense that an organization should not pay taxes if it can funnel $5.1 million a year into the pocket of its CEO?" p 208
His footnote is:
"Slideshow: Who Are the Highest-Paid Nonprofit Executives?" Dallas Business Journal, September 16, 2011
Many nonprofits are scientific, charitable, or educational. Some claim to be educational but they are political trying to educate others on their politics. The IRS was right to double check on the non-taxable status of Tea Party organizations. It was not that the Tea Party was singled out per se, but they were the worst offender of all the political abusers. Let's say that drivers for Mucking Trucking were more likely to speed than any other drivers. Shouldn't the State Highway Patrol check on Mucking Trucking drivers more often than other drivers?
"The people of this country must make an effort to clean out their cultural baggage of … fondly-held illusions: illusions that make it easier for ambitious and manipulative politicians to bamboozle them and build bureaucratic empires that only sap the country's true potential." p. 209
He cites the foremost illusion as the myth of American Exceptionalism. It is a disease that has infected all previous great powers or empires. He quotes J. William Fulbright's "The Arrogance of Power":
"The causes of the malady are not entirely clear but its recurrence is one of the uniformities of history: power tends to confuse itself with virtue and a great nation is peculiarly susceptible to the idea that its power is a sign of God's favor, conferring upon it a special responsibility for other nations––to make them richer and happier and wiser, to remake them, that is, in its own shining image."
Or as I've said, who elected the President of the United States as "leader of the free world"?
"Twenty to 25 percent is not a majority [right-wing authoritarian..will not change minds], but it is enough to swing an election, especially when you consider that the authoritarian follower is more easily organized and mobilized than the rest of the population." p. 185
If this doesn't scare the more pragmatic and flexible to vote, then nothing will.
Is there really a difference in the parties?
"In a deep and intractable recession one can never discount the possibility that a Republican could win the presidency against an incumbent Democrat. But if the GOP nominates a candidate too deeply flawed or too right wing to be plausible, it won't really matter. The main thrust of the establishment's policies will be implemented regardless of who wins. That is the genius of our two-party system." p 199
How much pressure do each of us put on Democrat office-holders to put people before corporations?
"And charitable or otherwise nonprofit organizations should no longer be allowed to compensate their executives at almost Wall Street level. Does it make sense that an organization should not pay taxes if it can funnel $5.1 million a year into the pocket of its CEO?" p 208
His footnote is:
"Slideshow: Who Are the Highest-Paid Nonprofit Executives?" Dallas Business Journal, September 16, 2011
Many nonprofits are scientific, charitable, or educational. Some claim to be educational but they are political trying to educate others on their politics. The IRS was right to double check on the non-taxable status of Tea Party organizations. It was not that the Tea Party was singled out per se, but they were the worst offender of all the political abusers. Let's say that drivers for Mucking Trucking were more likely to speed than any other drivers. Shouldn't the State Highway Patrol check on Mucking Trucking drivers more often than other drivers?
"The people of this country must make an effort to clean out their cultural baggage of … fondly-held illusions: illusions that make it easier for ambitious and manipulative politicians to bamboozle them and build bureaucratic empires that only sap the country's true potential." p. 209
He cites the foremost illusion as the myth of American Exceptionalism. It is a disease that has infected all previous great powers or empires. He quotes J. William Fulbright's "The Arrogance of Power":
"The causes of the malady are not entirely clear but its recurrence is one of the uniformities of history: power tends to confuse itself with virtue and a great nation is peculiarly susceptible to the idea that its power is a sign of God's favor, conferring upon it a special responsibility for other nations––to make them richer and happier and wiser, to remake them, that is, in its own shining image."
Or as I've said, who elected the President of the United States as "leader of the free world"?
Monday, May 28, 2012
The majority favors our view, whatever it is
Don't we all fall into this trap. We believe such and such and think "everybody" else agrees with us.
We have politicians who get elected by a majority or even a plurality of the votes cast and claim that they have a "mandate from the people". Does that mean that people who didn't vote for them or didn't even bother to show up are not people?
We have demonstrators who claim that they represent the wishes of the people. Maybe the wishes of "their people", but the rest of us are opposed to them, agree with them but are lukewarm about the issue, or could care less about their issue.
There are writers all over the political map who think they are making statements that "the people" care about an issue as much as the writer does. Maybe the only "people" that care are the editors who can fill some space with material that shows the editors "cover both sides".
In the side bar of a Huffington Post page, the following caught my eye: How Many Anti-Pot Politicians Will be Ousted Before They Realize the Will of the Majority?
Excuse me, but I could care less about the use of marijuana. Well, not quite. I care very much if you smoke it around me. Just like tobacco, one should not force others to participate in one's indulgences. I do care that a lot of tax money is used to enforce use of a substance. Prohibition showed the futility of that. Punish the public use or damage to others caused by use of certain substances.
We have politicians who get elected by a majority or even a plurality of the votes cast and claim that they have a "mandate from the people". Does that mean that people who didn't vote for them or didn't even bother to show up are not people?
We have demonstrators who claim that they represent the wishes of the people. Maybe the wishes of "their people", but the rest of us are opposed to them, agree with them but are lukewarm about the issue, or could care less about their issue.
There are writers all over the political map who think they are making statements that "the people" care about an issue as much as the writer does. Maybe the only "people" that care are the editors who can fill some space with material that shows the editors "cover both sides".
In the side bar of a Huffington Post page, the following caught my eye: How Many Anti-Pot Politicians Will be Ousted Before They Realize the Will of the Majority?
Excuse me, but I could care less about the use of marijuana. Well, not quite. I care very much if you smoke it around me. Just like tobacco, one should not force others to participate in one's indulgences. I do care that a lot of tax money is used to enforce use of a substance. Prohibition showed the futility of that. Punish the public use or damage to others caused by use of certain substances.
Friday, April 13, 2012
Barack Obama may be our first majority president if…
I am in a bit of self back-patting remembering my blog entries in 2008 predicting the Great Recession and that Obama would be elected President.
I refer to the first in "I predicted the Great Recession", the original being "Free market is a construct, not reality", January 2008.
I predicted the second in "We now have a three-party system" in June 2008.
"I think that Obama will win in a landslide because he represents the future. He will win because he will get more people voting than ever. He will win because he has built a strong organization of average people rather than of Washington insiders. He will win because he is a better speaker and thinker. Finally, he will win because people do want change."
Once Obama was in office, too many people expected immediate results. In 2012, many of these with high-hopes didn't even show up, giving many elections to the Republicans.
Now in April 2012, I am not so sure yet, but that could change by the summer. However, I do think that if certain things happen, then Obama might not only be re-elected but he may be the first President in a long, long time to get not only a plurality of eligible voters, but a majority of eligible voters.
Those certain things are a very high Democratic turnout and a lower Republican turnout.
If the Democrats put as much energy, time, and money into getting people to show up in November as they do countering Republican campaign speeches and ads, they could get a record turnout.
If many Republicans think that Romney is not conservative enough or if they don't want to vote for a Mormon, many of these will probably not even vote in November.
If many independents think that Romney is too conservative, they may either stay away or vote for Obama.
For Obama to be the first majority President, we would need a 90% turnout in November 2012 with 60% of those who show up voting for Obama. Sixty percent of ninety percent means that 54 percent of eligible voters voted for Obama.
The reality is probably that we will be lucky to have 70% turnout with 50% of those voting for Obama, something less than that for Romney, and a few voting for Ron Paul or some other third-party candidate.
I refer to the first in "I predicted the Great Recession", the original being "Free market is a construct, not reality", January 2008.
I predicted the second in "We now have a three-party system" in June 2008.
"I think that Obama will win in a landslide because he represents the future. He will win because he will get more people voting than ever. He will win because he has built a strong organization of average people rather than of Washington insiders. He will win because he is a better speaker and thinker. Finally, he will win because people do want change."
Once Obama was in office, too many people expected immediate results. In 2012, many of these with high-hopes didn't even show up, giving many elections to the Republicans.
Now in April 2012, I am not so sure yet, but that could change by the summer. However, I do think that if certain things happen, then Obama might not only be re-elected but he may be the first President in a long, long time to get not only a plurality of eligible voters, but a majority of eligible voters.
Those certain things are a very high Democratic turnout and a lower Republican turnout.
If the Democrats put as much energy, time, and money into getting people to show up in November as they do countering Republican campaign speeches and ads, they could get a record turnout.
If many Republicans think that Romney is not conservative enough or if they don't want to vote for a Mormon, many of these will probably not even vote in November.
If many independents think that Romney is too conservative, they may either stay away or vote for Obama.
For Obama to be the first majority President, we would need a 90% turnout in November 2012 with 60% of those who show up voting for Obama. Sixty percent of ninety percent means that 54 percent of eligible voters voted for Obama.
The reality is probably that we will be lucky to have 70% turnout with 50% of those voting for Obama, something less than that for Romney, and a few voting for Ron Paul or some other third-party candidate.
Monday, November 15, 2010
Republicans do not have "people's" support or a "mandate"
Gail Collins wrote "Believing in Barack", for the 2010-11-12 New York Times. She laments that Obama has not come through on many tasks. In it she makes the statement, "The people of America made it clear in the election that they want something done about the deficit." I sent her the following email:
Thanks for an interesting column on your ambivalence about Barack Obama. Much of what you wrote has some basis in what's happened.
However, you fell into the "media-bias" trap of over-generalization with "The people of America made it clear in the election that they want something done about the deficit."
The people of America made nothing clear. 34 million voted for Republican Senate candidates, 31 million voted for Democratic Senate candidates, and far too many stayed home. If we project an estimated turnout of 40.3% to a count of total eligible voters (165 million), we then have the Republicans coming in a distant second to "None of the above", cast de facto by 96 million eligible voters. Unfortunately, too few people actually show up to cast blank ballots, and so they are not counted.
BTW, the Republicans 34 million votes were not even a majority of the votes cast for Senate.
I do wish those who have a bigger platform than my little blog would point out more often just how many eligible voters don't show up and just how hollow claims of electoral victories are.
References:
United States Election Project, George Mason University, http://elections.gmu.edu/Turnout_2010G.html
United States Senate Elections, 2010, Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_2010
End of email to Gail Collins
Thanks for an interesting column on your ambivalence about Barack Obama. Much of what you wrote has some basis in what's happened.
However, you fell into the "media-bias" trap of over-generalization with "The people of America made it clear in the election that they want something done about the deficit."
The people of America made nothing clear. 34 million voted for Republican Senate candidates, 31 million voted for Democratic Senate candidates, and far too many stayed home. If we project an estimated turnout of 40.3% to a count of total eligible voters (165 million), we then have the Republicans coming in a distant second to "None of the above", cast de facto by 96 million eligible voters. Unfortunately, too few people actually show up to cast blank ballots, and so they are not counted.
BTW, the Republicans 34 million votes were not even a majority of the votes cast for Senate.
I do wish those who have a bigger platform than my little blog would point out more often just how many eligible voters don't show up and just how hollow claims of electoral victories are.
References:
United States Election Project, George Mason University, http://elections.gmu.edu/Turnout_2010G.html
United States Senate Elections, 2010, Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_2010
End of email to Gail Collins
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)