Tracking The U.S. Presidential Polls

[snyder]

For fellow political junkies, here are the best sites I have found

Current electoral projections, based on statewide polls.

Election Projections, notable because the sponsor of the site is strongly pro-Bush but his mathematical formulas are predicting a big victory for Kerry.

Pollingreport.com, used by a lot of media outlets.

Pollkatz, graphically disorganized but don't write it off because it's a treasure trove of data.

Rasmussen site, the most encouraging if you favor Bush, vice-versa if you're vice-versa.

Race 2004, another site that uses only state polling data.

[Ardennes44]

And the latest, hot from the press.....

International team to monitor presidential election
Observers will be part of OSCE's human rights office
From David de Sola
CNN



WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A team of international observers will monitor the presidential election in November, according to the U.S. State Department.

The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe was invited to monitor the election by the State Department. The observers will come from the OSCE's Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights.

It will be the first time such a team has been present for a U.S. presidential election.

"The U.S. is obliged to invite us, as all OSCE countries should," spokeswoman Urdur Gunnarsdottir said. "It's not legally binding, but it's a political commitment. They signed a document 10 years ago to ask OSCE to observe elections."

Thirteen Democratic members of the House of Representatives, raising the specter of possible civil rights violations that they said took place in Florida and elsewhere in the 2000 election, wrote to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan in July, asking him to send observers.

After Annan rejected their request, saying the administration must make the application, the Democrats asked Secretary of State Colin Powell to do so.

The issue was hotly debated in the House, and Republicans got an amendment to a foreign aid bill that barred federal funds from being used for the United Nations to monitor U.S. elections, The Associated Press reported.

In a letter dated July 30 and released last week, Assistant Secretary of State Paul Kelly told the Democrats about the invitation to OSCE, without mentioning the U.N. issue.

"I am pleased that Secretary Powell is as committed as I am to a fair and democratic process," said Democratic Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, who spearheaded the effort to get U.N. observers.

"The presence of monitors will assure Americans that America cares about their votes and it cares about its standing in the world," she said in a news release.

Democratic Rep. Barbara Lee of California agreed.

"This represents a step in the right direction toward ensuring that this year's elections are fair and transparent," she said.

"I am pleased that the State Department responded by acting on this need for international monitors. We sincerely hope that the presence of the monitors will make certain that every person's voice is heard, every person's vote is counted."

OSCE, the world's largest regional security organization, will send a preliminary mission to Washington in September to assess the size, scope, logistics and cost of the mission, Gunnarsdottir said.

The organization, which counts among its missions conflict prevention and postconflict rehabilitation, will then determine how many observers are required and where in the United States they will be sent.

"OSCE-participating [nations] agreed in 1990 to observe elections in one another's countries. The OSCE routinely monitors elections within its 55-state membership, including Europe, Eurasia, Canada and the United States," a State Department spokesman said.

The spokesman said the United States does not have any details on the size and composition of the observers or what countries will provide them.

OSCE, based in Vienna, Austria, has sent more than 10,000 personnel to monitor more than 150 elections and referenda in more than 30 countries during the past decade, Gunnarsdottir said.

In November 2002, OSCE sent 10 observers on a weeklong mission to monitor the U.S. midterm elections. OSCE also sent observers to monitor the California gubernatorial recall election last year.

More recently, OSCE monitored the elections in Northern Ireland in November and in Spain in March

[buford]

I take it they've replaced all those machines in Florida that don't punch holes properly in cardboard.

[snyder]

I take it they've replaced all those machines in Florida that don't punch holes properly in cardboard.

Yeah, with computers that don't produce a verifiable physical voting record yet can be hacked into from afar. That's progress, Florida style. Oh, and the company providing the computers is a donor to George W. Bush. Not that this would be relevant.

[Mike]

I got a better Idea for you Colonial Cousins......Watch a series or two of The Benny Hill show... Its far more funny and twice a educational..
Lets face it you are only voting for the most powerful man in the world
I take it the vote will not be rigged by Florida this time.......Is there a brother lurking in the shadows somewhere out there?
Aye
Mike

[snyder]

I take it the vote will not be rigged by Florida this time

I wouldn't be so certain of that, Mike. All they did was replace the punch cards with computer touch screens that are, if anything, even more prone to error. And yeah, Bush's brother still rules the Third World country that we call the State of Florida.

[buford]

I take it the vote will not be rigged by Florida this time

I wouldn't be so certain of that, Mike. All they did was replace the punch cards with computer touch screens that are, if anything, even more prone to error. And yeah, Bush's brother still rules the Third World country that we call the State of Florida.

What do you see as the appropriate solutiion Snyder? We still fill out voting sheets by hand and they get counted by hand, in central locations, with scrutineers from all the major parties keeping watch. I suppose this is only viable because of our small population. It seems to work well, the results go to the central tally room and we generally know the result about 4 hours after voting closes.

[snyder]

The solution is so simple and obvious that neither the government, the news media or the bribe-seeking corporations that make voting machines could ever be expected to notice it: Touch-tone voting.

Look, here in Washington State, about half the ballots are cast absentee on punch cards. In Oregon, they've done away with polling places altogether, and all voting is "absentee," i.e., by mail. So, I say that we convert all voting to absentee, but instead of mailing in the ballots you vote via telephone. Everyone has a touch-tone phone; everyone knows how to use it; everyone is familiar with "interactive voice response" systems, i.e., "punch 1 for Yes, punch 2 for No, punch 3 for Who the Hell Cares ..." The telephone system is as secure as it gets, because it was designed to be bulletproof (this is something I have detailed knowledge of; rather than bore you, please accept it on faith.)

So, each election cycle the election authority mails you a voting booklet listing the candidates and propositions on the ballot and a few paragraphs of propaganda for each one. And there's a card that gives the toll-free number to call, and an access code. Access code, you say? Yes, I answer, haven't you ever used a long-distance calling card?

You dial the system and make your choices. Nothing is recorded until you punch "1" for "these are my final answers." At that point, your votes but not your identity are recorded. (To insure this, the ACLU, Jimmy Carter and the National Rifle Association are invited to superivse the system.) At the very same time, two paper receipts are generated. One is kept at the election authority, proving that you voted. The other is mailed to you, proving that you voted. Your votes are not listed on those receipts, only the fact that you voted.

Oh, but what about the handicapped and what about people who just want to do it the old way? Fine, I say. Special procedures for them. Maybe even paper ballots for old codgers. Or maybe special booths in local libraries. Just wait until the fools get in there and find out that they vote via touch-tone there, too. Why? Because everyone knows how to use a touch-tone phone.

O.K., now that I've figured that one out, would anyone like me to solve the Israel-Palestine conflict?

p.s.: I've written letters to several newspapers suggesting touch-tone voting, but they never publish them. Maybe I need to do what everyone else who wants to manipulate the media does, and go hire a public relations agent for $400 an hour.

[buford]

The solution is so simple and obvious that neither the government, the news media or the bribe-seeking corporations that make voting machines could ever be expected to notice it: Touch-tone voting

Sounds interesting. Is it used anywhere else in the world? Possibly 'they' presumably similar body to our 'Australian Electoral Commission' is worried about the effect it will have on voting patterns and behaviours. Are you below 50% votor turnout in the US? We have the wonderfully democratic system of compulsory voting, so that wouldn't be an issue here. Is it just resistance to change or something more?

[snyder]

No one has suggested touch-tone voting. I think the following reasons would explain it:

• Traditionalists. Many journalists fall into this camp. They see something romantic in the notion of "going to the polls," i.e., a separate physical location for voting. Oregon's exclusive mail-in voting and Washington State's high rate of mail-in voting are anomalies.
• Internet mania. The techies are just obsessed with incorporating "the Internet" into anything like this. Now, I could get off on a serious rant there, because the mechanics of the telephone system is something I have a good deal of knowledge about. Suffice to say that the standatd voice telephone network as we know it is vastly preferable to the Internet as a mechanism for casting votes. Why? Because it's simple and vastly more secure. Come to think of it, the high security inherent in such a system might also be a problem for those who want a new system to be easily manipulated.
• No money in telephone solutions. What I am talking about would be cheap. No one wants it to be cheap, because there aren't sufficient opportunities for corruption. Nothing significant happens in the United States without a big rake-off for well connected corporations. You think Indonesia or China are corrupt? They're amateurs, folks.
• Lack of imagination. For all the blather about how "innovative" America is, the country runs on group-think and unless the "right" person suggests something it's not going to be considered. The "right" people have never ever considered telephone voting.
• Participation is a threat. At present, voting participation in the U.S. is strongly correlated to age and income. This serves the interests of both political parties, who therefore feel threatened by the possibility of a huge new cohort of voters that might have very different priorities. Making it inconvenient to vote serves their interests.

p.s.: Voting participation hovers at about 50% for presidential elections. It's a lot lower for "off-year" contests and local issues. In some places, for example, school board elections draw a 10% turnout.

[buford]

• Participation is a threat. At present, voting participation in the U.S. is strongly correlated to age and income. This serves the interests of both political parties, who therefore feel threatened by the possibility of a huge new cohort of voters that might have very different priorities. Making it inconvenient to vote serves their interests.

That's interesting. I presume you mean that the largest proportion of non voters would be younger and from lower incomes brackets and tend to feel disillusioned with politics and political processes. In Australia though, this group tends, when 'made' to vote, to vote for parties of the left. That's why the parties of the left here strongly oppose optional voting whenever it is raised as an issue. I would have thought that if voting were to be made easier with touchtone voting, it would be more likely to favour the left than the right side of politics, for that reason.

[snyder]

That's interesting. I presume you mean that the largest proportion of non voters would be younger and from lower incomes brackets and tend to feel disillusioned with politics and political processes. In Australia though, this group tends, when 'made' to vote, to vote for parties of the left. That's why the parties of the left here strongly oppose optional voting whenever it is raised as an issue. I would have thought that if voting were to be made easier with touchtone voting, it would be more likely to favour the left than the right side of politics, for that reason.

The last thing either party in the U.S. wants is for the public at large to participate in the governance of the country. It wouldn't break down neatly along party or class lines, and it would be very unpredictable. The American public is half-asleep or at least distracted most of the time, but if they ever get focused on how the country is governed a lot of apple carts would be tipped over.

[buford]

The last thing either party in the U.S. wants is for the public at large to participate in the governance of the country. It wouldn't break down neatly along party or class lines, and it would be very unpredictable. The American public is half-asleep or at least distracted most of the time, but if they ever get focused on how the country is governed a lot of apple carts would be tipped over.

So how have you got into such a pickle over there? I know its a generalisation, but I would say the degree of voter disconnection is not so high here. Because we have to vote, people tend to pay attention to what they are doing, at least during the period leading up to the election. I'm not saying that they are not distracted or ill informed, but just that the mere fact of having to do it makes people think about it a little. The 'donkey vote' ie people just numbering the ballot paper from top to bottom plus the informal vote I think together is still only about 10 percent.

[Guest]

The last thing either party in the U.S. wants is for the public at large to participate in the governance of the country. It wouldn't break down neatly along party or class lines, and it would be very unpredictable. The American public is half-asleep or at least distracted most of the time, but if they ever get focused on how the country is governed a lot of apple carts would be tipped over.

So how have you got into such a pickle over there? I know its a generalisation, but I would say the degree of voter disconnection is not so high here. Because we have to vote, people tend to pay attention to what they are doing, at least during the period leading up to the election. I'm not saying that they are not distracted or ill informed, but just that the mere fact of having to do it makes people think about it a little. The 'donkey vote' ie people just numbering the ballot paper from top to bottom plus the informal vote I think together is still only about 10 percent.

Because we have an immense number of Iggie-know-nothings who run along like sheep and vote the way their 'party' tells 'em to. The 'educational system' here isn't... and the art of critical thought has disappeared here. We have crooked horse-thief Officials who are finishing up with taking the I'M A SCAMMER SPAMMER!!! sink because they've already gotten off with everything else... et voila... America the great is now umerikuh duh wastelan...

[snyder]

Part of the problem might be that we're now in a sort of perpetual campaign where everything is just charges and counter-charges without enough of that boring but responsible and informative discussion that a healthy political system needs. It's all a constant battle for temporary advantage. The only thing that gets raised is everyone's temperature, so more and more people just bail out of the whole circus. This is very much in the interest of both political parties, whose strategy is to distract people with meaningless battles while they both pull outrageously corrupt thefts.

Being a Democrat who really does believe in that old time religion as laid out by FDR and It's A Wonderful Life, I think the Republicans are much more guilty of this than my side is. But I'm not so bamboozled as to miss the games played by the people I vote for. If you had 75% or 80% of the public voting in American elections, there'd still be plenty of shenanigans but I don't think it would be nearly as brazen as it is today. The new voters wouldn't put up with it.