Eliminating Voters

Generally when you take an action it should make something better, not worse.

So we see a concerted effort underway to invalidate voter registrations, primarily in states controlled by republicans who don't like people in democratic area voting.

Now, the actions generally involve invalidating voter registrations because someone did not respond to a mailing.

This might have had some validity at one time, but I know that snail mail I get has a good chance of being discarded unopened if it isn't clearly something important.

Putting Important on the envelope isn't enough, in fact it almost a flag that it isn't, at least to my way of thinking.

I have opted everywhere I can to get mail electronically, and this includes statements and bills, so what I get via snail mail is almost exclusively spam, including ironically, many exclusive offers.

Now I do get a certain amount of official correspondence from say the Department of Motor Vehicles and other government agencies, but I know who they are.

Without having received a letter questioning my existence from some state commission to eliminate voters, I don't know if I would recognize it.

It would sound like spam if I even opened it, asking me to verify personnel information, something that is generally discouraged nowadays.

It would likely warn me that failure to respond could result in loss of my privileges, a common spam tactic.

The question is eliminating some number of people who has died or moved and therefore weren't going to vote anyways doesn't justify eliminating actual voters who might vote for someone you don't like.

Unless of course that was your objective all along.

2020 Will We See Better?

Was looking at some poll results and our dontard manages to get over 50% on the economy but much lower numbers in every other category.

These polls were speculating about re-election scenarios and whether his "glowing" reviews on the economy will be enough to get re-elected.

Not sure how scores just over 50% are glowing, but they are at least on the plus side.

I think any speculation about 2020 is premature, but that's not going to stop me from expressing some views.

Clearly, as the polls pointed out, the electoral college works to his favor as many smaller population rural states have extras representation.  Since we are not going to get rid of the college easily this has to factor in to any campaign strategy.

One issue facing both parties is that the democrats have become associated with coastal elitism while republicans appeal to less educated white men and to a lesser extent white women.  We saw in the recent mid-terms that college educated voters were strongly against the republican party as it is today.

The reason for this is partly because the power structure and economics are changing in a way that has resulted in some erosion of what is white privilege, viewed by them as reverse discrimination.

So the issue is to somehow overcome the fake news network which paints this picture and show that rising opportunities for all is not a bad thing and that the economy is not a zero sum game.

Unfortunately, they were hit by economic forces related to automation and in some cases trade but these are not because the jobs and opportunities were funneled to immigrants and minorities, but because the owners made more profits.

Who is best to convey this message remains to be determined, but the message has to be that they are part of the future, not just relegated to the past.

Get Out and Vote

I guess we will see from the results today whether the last minute campaign push by the dontard helps or hurts republicans overall.

His message is so secular that it is only designed to appeal to the people who are already true believers, and he is trying to get them out to vote.

However, they represent a minority of the voters and his controversial visits might very well incite the opposition to get out and vote.

These rallies are more entertainment events than places to spread a message, since the message is so partisan.

The results will be in by tomorrow and its not clear if they will show if he helped or hindered his party.

His alarmist views seem to have given a few democratic senators a bump in the polls but we know that many of them were in very difficult races in states they normally support republican candidates.

Of course republican candidates used to be more centrist, but in the current situation they have to adopt the radical policies of the administration regarding immigration, abortion, guns, etc.

Some of this plays well, some of it doesn't and when you consider how farmers are being hurt by the trade policies and tariffs, we may see a shift in some of the voting.

The turnout is probably the biggest issue today, lets hope its huge.

Form vs Substance

The fundamental question facing Americans is what do they want?

In our age with statistical sampling and other tools you would think it was pretty clear, but while the country generally holds fairly progressive views, those views aren't fully aligned with those who vote.

We also have the issue of apathy and ignorance.

The people who vote in this country are overall older, whiter and more conservative than the population as a whole.

Not necessarily smarter.

I hear a lot about the failings of the modern educational system, and sometimes it becomes quite evident when you see "Man on the Street" interviews.

I hesitate to assume these interviews are fully representative of the public as a whole, but when you see surveys where a majority of people hated Obamacare but liked the Affordable Care Act, it makes you wonder.

We have a society and population that has become attuned to the form more than the substance of issues.

Look at the issue surrounding the second amendment.

I have never heard a real proposal that would seize everybody's guns, but to many, thanks to the propaganda of the gun lobby, that's the issue they think exists.

Similarly, we see the Republicans brand themselves as supporters of the working class, when all evidence indicates they really represent the wealthy class.  Yet many working class Americans, concerned that the wealthy might pay slightly higher taxes fight socialism.

We also react without much sense to arguments about our weak defense when we clearly are able to obliterate any opponent and our need for conventional weapons is far outweighed by our need for counter terrorism.

How can we get rid of the apathy and ignorance?

Its not a shared goal,   Many talk about voter turnout while trying to make sure only their supporters actually turn out.

Mob rule has been a concern of the elite in this country since its founding and certain institutions, like the Electoral College were designed to prevent it.

Suppress voting, convince the ignorant to vote against their own interests, and make elections about money and personality instead of issues.

Its sort of working.

Democracy

We saw the ex-director of the FBI describe the current president of the United States as a liar who is morally unfit to be president and most of us said to ourselves, so?

The general attitude towards politicians in general and this one in particular is already so bad that a day in which there isn't an outright scandal is probably a good one.

Not sure if there is anything that politicians can do in the short term, but in the long term we need more regular people and less professional politicians in office.

I don't favor term limits but people should vote in new people who better represent the real world.

One of the factors that helped the dontard was that his opponent was viewed as part of the Washington establishment and he wasn't.

True, but he was a corrupt business and media person who represented the worst of both worlds.

In this country people often decide to be politicians as a career and work their way into office only to stay there unless they can move higher.

This isn't that different than what people do in regular careers except they are supposed to represent the people who vote for them, not cater to donors and special interests.

The way candidates are selected and the campaigns run strongly favor insiders, even if the insiders aren't crooked.

Insiders don't know what the people really are going through and who they hear from normally represent specific constituencies without much contact with the world most of us inhabit.

I think that with modern technology we would be better off if we could have more referendums, but I also realize that most people wouldn't know or care about the details of many important issues.

The solution of course is to have involved citizens who participate and vote.

Simple enough, but its been that way a long time.

Voting

In America today we have one party that is intent on making voting difficult.  They argue a concern for voter fraud, although very little voter fraud has been found in the current era and impose retrictions that poorer less educated people have trouble meeting.

On the other hand some want to make voting as easy as possible to get more participation and a more democratic outcome.

It has certain racial and economic overtones, and the people who want to impose barriers feel that their supporters are more likely to meet them.  This is very similar to the concept that was behind Jim Crow laws in the south which were set just high enough to allow the "right" people to run things.

The fact that we have a republic and an electoral college reflects the fact that this mind set is as old as America is.  Property owners were worried about the rabble who had no stake in the country and might overrun it.

This is why Democracy is scary.  Realistically we all know people who shouldn't get to decide the country's future.  Who those people are sometimes depends on your viewpoint, but if we are a democracy we have to roll the dice.

One thing that is destructive to the running of a country is the factions that exist.  In other words, having parties that decide things that the party supports instead of what the country needs or the majority support.

For example, the majority of the country is in favor of reasonable gun control, but the gun lobby has a lot of influence.  Similarly, most of the country supports LGBT rights but Evangelical have significant influence in one of the parties.

With the States and the gerrymandering that goes on, the majority opinions and views get way laid by the system.The recent election cycle showed the problems with party politics and in response we see reactions in both parties because the people are frustrated.  Of course different people are frustrated in different ways, but the outcomes we get are ultimately satisfying to no one except the special interests and professional politicians.

In some ways the election of an outsider to be President is a good sign, but his ability to actually influence things is questionable.  What is probably sad about this is that the person elected is likely the least qualified person possible, and unlikely to have much real influence on what happens.

The only real solution would be to put significant policy positions to the public for mandatory voting.  Of course the odds of this happening in this country are remote and the system would need to be well designed to expedite it.   Its a shame that we have instituted a system that has legalized a two party system making every election about party more than issues.

I'll discus this further in the future, but what we have now is now really working for most, just the insiders.

About Polls

Polls, polls polls, so many come out every week we get quite conflicting forecasts.

With the number of polls going on you would think we are all being inundated with people asking for our opinion.  Who are the people in the polls?

Since I don't answer the phone is I don't know the caller and don't click on questionable links I know I'm not in there.

In fact it is a big generally undisclosed issue with polls about who they are reaching and how representative that group is.  They publish a margin of error, but I doubt that's as accurate as it should be based on the sample problems.

A perfect poll would get  a random snapshot of the people of this country.  That would includes all demographic categories and be verifiable.  This is essentially an impossible task so the pollsters have to adjust for this in some way.

I'm not questioning the statistical skills or dedication of the pollsters, although some do have a point of view, but they tackle an impossibility and have to adjust for the unreachable.

So ultimately it becomes a bit of a Scientific Wild Assed Guess (SWAG) meaning its correct if all the uncertainties sort of balance out.

What is actually surprising is how close they come, much of the time considering beside the people they can't reach, the possibility that the people they do reach are lying to them.

Now most American are honest and reliable, but some aren't and giving the opportunity they may take delight in trying to hack a poll.

Its hard to say who is underrepresented in the polling although there have been some allegations that certain Trump supporters are embarrassed to tell the pollsters they support him.  This doesn't seem like any of the Trump supporters I have met, but of course it is possible.

Now some sites average the polls together to get a less variable outcome.  Of course there are statistical issues with this as well, but it is likely to be more accurate than any individual poll.

With two months to go it is likely that we will be bombarded with hundreds of polls and many will show significant variations.  They are indicative of what they sample and as a statistical person I find them interesting, but remember they are trying to predict using flawed samples and statistical adjustments.  They may be presented by the media as conclusive when in fact they are SWAG.
This is a good discussion on how to read polls.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/13-tips-for-reading-general-election-polls-like-a-pro/