36 hours

[davidn]

This election's absolutely killing me. I thought it was tense in September, and have watched the poll numbers daily since then, but nothing can describe what it's like here in the thick of it - there's absolutely no escaping it. Obama's been on television telling people not to get cocky even though he's miles ahead, McCain's been on television telling people how pleased he is he's going to win even though he's miles behind, and the conflicting numbers from all over the place put me in real doubt that anyone can guess what's going to happen tomorrow.

I'm surprised, in fact, that some sources say it's so close - a gap of a few percent is significant, of course, but in Britain we just don't let anyone as stupid as the current runners-up anywhere near leadership of the country (unless they're really entertaining). Though I know that Obama is virtually certain to win all the states that Kerry did and then just has to win one or two of the eight states that he has slightly more than a 50% chance in, that a computer simulation of all the possible outcomes put Obama's victory at a chance of 99.8%, that the Democrats are overwhelmingly ahead in early voting, and that even McCain's home state of Arizona is looking a bit weak at the moment... there's still a tiny, tiny doubt there. Especially as the numbers seem to be narrowing very slightly towards the end. And it's pretty painful - sometimes you just want to hibernate for a while and wake up when it's finally all over.

There are two large difficulties with the polls this year - the idea that people might say that they've voting for Obama in an overcompensation for their subconscious fear of racism and then not really go for him on Tuesday, and the thought that with so many new voters this year on Obama's side but not being polled, his lead might actually be larger than thought at the moment. Ideally these two effects would just cancel each other out, but they really could mean anything for the numbers. Another problem is that so many places seem so spectacularly unprepared for the election taking place - you would think it would have been pretty difficult to miss for the last couple of months - and queues about eight hours long have already been reported in some states where early voting was open. And this is projected to put people off a bit. It seems that this year, rather than the actual number of voters, the election will be entirely decided on which side has the most weather resilience and bladder control.

So I can only say to everyone what I said a week ago as well - if you're in America, and you can, just vote. For whoever you believe in - one of the two main parties or independents - because like I've said before I can guarantee you that you'll miss that right once you don't have it. I can only wait for the result, and leave you with this song that was being bandied about like the Hymn of the Fayth as a ray of hope all over the nations a couple of months ago. His progress so far has been amazing, for someone who I had hardly heard of a year ago - now he just needs to finish the race. It has to happen this time. Please.

Just 36 more hours. I hope that you get the result that you want. (Unless you're voting for the Republicans, in which case I wouldn't be telling the truth if I said anything other than I hope it goes positively disastrously for you.)

Comments

[lordrosemount.livejournal.com]

Well, the 'Bradley Effect' has been fairly roundly debunked, and even showed not to have existed in the original Bradley election (it was an urban myth that arose from one paper having prematurely called the race for Bradley based on a single poll that was an outlier compared with all the others that called the race a statistical tie). There seems to be some confusion about what it actually is: the claim isn't that people will lie to a pollster and claim they're going to vote for the black guy when they won't (which doesn't even make sense: why would anyone bother to lie to a perfect stranger, when there's a whole slew of reasons they could use to justify not voting for him apart from racism?), but that self-proclaimed undecideds were being euphemistic, when in fact they're going to vote for the white guy - and the thing about that is, when a candidate's support has already broken 50%, it doesn't matter what the undecideds do.

On the other hand the new voter and related 'cellphone' effects would appear far more likely to skew the result in Obama's favour. God alone knows what effect the Americans' legendary ability to screw up a simple election might have, but if I were McCain, I wouldn't hold my breath.

[davidn]

Well, I thank you for your reassurance :) It does look like, once again, the prediction you made of the result months ago might just happen...

just because your party's supporters are ashamed of themselves...

[diarytypething.livejournal.com]

Actually, people do lie because they're worried about what complete strangers will think. As a species we seem to be wired to want other people to like us, even if it means making superficial changes to our behaviour. And they're not complete strangers by that point because person from MORI will have asked questions about age and occupation to make sure that they get a representative sample. It's also difficult to get opinions from people in complete privacy without arranging it in advance and setting conditions that your average person can't be bothered with, so it means that they're often answering questions in the street or over the phone, and there is someone else there whose opinion they value more.

Re: just because your party's supporters are ashamed of themselves...

[lordrosemount.livejournal.com]

As a principle that might be quite true, but I still don't see why it justifies the existence of the so-called 'Bradley Effect'. Again, why should a person lie? Unless some pollster has been ringing up and saying "If you answer 'McCain' to the following question, I shall consider you a racist. Now, who do you intend to vote for?", there's utterly no reason why anyone would imagine that they were somehow compelled to say they were voting Obama when prejudice meant they wouldn't - it just defies all reason and common sense. Again, there might be a reason why some kooks might declare themselves 'undecided' when they're not (which is what the 'Bradley Effect' really is), but they certainly wouldn't say they were voting for Obama (when they weren't) based on that.

As for the 'people in the household overhearing' bit, we might equally imagine it having the opposite effect - if there's a racist listening in on your call and you felt pressured to avoid confrontation with them, you might well answer that you're voting McCain even though you actually vote Obama in the privacy of the polling booth. It's no indicator of systemic polling bias either way.

Re: just because your party's supporters are ashamed of themselves...

[diarytypething.livejournal.com]

I wasn't defending the Bradley Effect; I just said that there's a lot of evidence that people lie in opinion polls, and several reasons that motivate them to do so, but I didn't specify what the lie is. Now, I'm not saying that staunch Republican supporters would lie about how they would vote, because if you're really into the politics you might not worry so much about how others perceive you, but those who are less loyal to one party will be more easily swayed. Someone who hasn't really decided might give the first name that enters their head just to get rid of the interviewer - there's less incentive for deep contemplation when you're not in the voting booth - or they might have no intention of voting but say their politically motivated friend or relative is listening and they want to avoid another lecture on the importance of exercising their democratic rights.

Additionally, you have to remember that this is all taking place in another country, where people are generally very sensitive about race and racism, and unlike here, they talk about it. "Affirmative action" is far more emotive than "equal opportunities".

[diarytypething.livejournal.com]

Opinion polls are not an exact science, and they're often used as a case study for teaching Social Science students (a) how stats work, and (b) why they sometimes don't.

In the UK you need at least 1000 respondents from different backgrounds before you can get a result with any hope of being representative, but there's probably no reliable way of assessing this in the American system without polling a representative sample of every state. Then there's the margin of error: anything within 5% is considered to be accurate enough, but that doesn't mean that it's correct. According to the opinion polls, Labour should have won the 1992 General Election, but they were tripped up by that 5% margin of error (although victory speech Neil Kinnock gave the night before probably didn't help). Since it takes a lot less than 5% to swing an American election either way, and it's probably more difficult to get that degree of accuracy, there really aren't any certainties unless every single poll predicts and landslide for the same party - even then it's only a probability. And yes, people lie. Plenty of studies have shown that when forced to take part in anonymous surveys, people will try to make themselves look good by predicting the answers that the interviewer (or any family members) wants to hear from them. In Europe, people tend to fib towards the political left, but at least you can take comfort in the fact that there are probably places in the States where it works the other way - if I haven't just managed to convince you that the polls are all rubbish anyway.

If you want to be really depressed about it, try watching the film "Recount". Channel 4 showed it on Saturday night, and although the satirical bits are quite watchable, it's a soul-destroying recap of what happened 8 years ago. Incidentally, tomorrow night's viewing on Channel 4 includes a drama about the (totally fictional) assassination of George W. Bush.

[davidn]

Oh, thanks very much. Although that is pretty much as I thought - the polls might not mean much, but that also means the tightening over the last week also doesn't mean anything either. And we do still at least have the hard fact that early voting has definitely favoured the Democrats (by over 10% most of the time and over 20% in rare cases).

I'm surprised that Channel 4 (well, it's Channel 4) are showing anything like that this early, but I was pleasantly reminded of how much more you can get away with on British TV last night when we watched Have I Got News For You.

[diarytypething.livejournal.com]

Yeah, these American commentators complaining about the "librul media" don't know they're born. We could teach them a thing or two about free speech over here in heathen Europe.

[lordrosemount.livejournal.com]

You really think so? I've always found the level of satire present in the Us to be fairly equivalent to ours - SNL is good because it even gets the satirees in on the act, but you also have the likes of John Roberts and Jay Leno, who aren't known for pulling their punches.

[e-to-the-ipi.livejournal.com]

Have I got News for You is a comedy panel show which broke their network's ban on saying that a certain politician was gay, and has as regular panellist the most sued man in UK history.

I don't think there's a US equivalent of Private Eye, more shame.

[davidn]

I think that the closest thing is probably The Daily Show with The Biggest Smeghead Ever (tell me you haven't seen that exact expression on Chris Barrie), which is sort of news commentary and pointing out hypocrisy sometimes along the same lines as Ian Hislop's magazine - smug though Stewart is, he's often very funny.

[stubbleupdate.livejournal.com]

Is Ian Hislop the most sued man in UK History?

[e-to-the-ipi.livejournal.com]

He definitely was at some stage. Mostly libel, obviously.

[davidn]

Allegedly!

[davidn]

That's true... I was actually surprised at how... likable McCain appeared on SNL, after the image I've had of him for the rest of the campaign, and the late night programmes are sometimes quite daring especially with the Republicans. It never seems quite as vicious, though - like Jonny just said, I haven't heard of them being sued anywhere near as much as Ian Hislop!

Specifically, it was the comment about the Sarah Palin/Tomb Raider doll, and how that's what she'll be if she visits McCain next year, that really stood out to me. :)

[stubbleupdate.livejournal.com]

In favour of a McCain victory is that the people that are likely to support Obama (the poor, ethnic minorities and the young) traditionally don't vote.

It's one of these things where an Obama victory seems that it might be inevitable, but elections are never rational and people will make decisions based on arbitrary and seemingly irrelevant factors (speaking of which, did Michelle or Cindy win the cookie recipe competition? The winner of that always becomes first lady.)

You can also make your own John McCain poster with this website (http://johnmccainisyournewlogo.com/). Here's mine

[jenny0.livejournal.com]

I'm so excited for tomorrow. I'm taking the whole afternoon off, because the early voting lines have just been ridiculous - I drive by the voter bureau on my way to/from work, and the line is always out the door and down the sidewalk. I'm feeling pretty good about the polls so far - like David explained above I think they actually are representative of how the voting will go.

[diarytypething.livejournal.com]

Do you know what would happen if there are people still waiting when the polls close? Would they be turned away even if they've been there for a couple of hours? I'm genuinely curious about this, and asking a keen American voter seems like the sensible way to get an answer.

[jenny0.livejournal.com]

I think they get turned away. I read something recently that during the last election (I think?) some voting precincts in Colorado (or a similarly snowy western state) decided to keep the polls open longer so that people could make it there through thirty-six feet of snow (or whatever). There was an ensuing froo-fraw from voters who were not able to vote because they lived in districts that did not extend voting. So presumably if your polling place is open until 6:00, you can't vote after 6:00. Whether this applies to people who are already there I don't know. With the dismal voter turnout this country usually has, I don't think it's often an issue.

[lordrosemount.livejournal.com]

Actually it's dependent on state laws - and most states' laws are such that if you're in the line when polls close, you get to vote. The problem with that state was that they'd voluntarily decided to extend hours to accommodate those still travelling to the polls, which they weren't compelled to do (and, indeed, in some cases didn't), so then you'd have questions over election tampering based on which political direction the districts that did and did not extend voting leaned towards.

[jenny0.livejournal.com]

Thanks for clarification - I hadn't paid much attention to the original article. It does seem like that kind of decision should be made state-wide, to avoid these kinds of complications.

[lordrosemount.livejournal.com]

Oh, I didn't even read it - I just guessed! :)

[kjorteo]

In New Mexico in 2006, at least, they made it so that no new people could get in line as of when the polls "closed," but everyone who was already in line at the cutoff point was still good, and they just remained open (turning away latecomers) until everyone who was already there finished.

[starfishchris.livejournal.com]

The ideal outcome would be for McCain to win, then reveal himself and Palin to be liberal, smart and astute and lead the country to prosperity and technological and cultural progress. That'll learn 'em hicks.

[e-to-the-ipi.livejournal.com]

To be fair, Boris is the mayor of London. This is not something that should happen.

[davidn]

It really shouldn't, but I'm somehow prepared to forgive the country for that just because he's so hilarious. In things like this... you get the feeling that it really matters.

[e-to-the-ipi.livejournal.com]

Bush is hilarious. Especially the fact he's in high political office...

[stubbleupdate.livejournal.com]

And, just because this is the place where yo're most likely to read this

Comments made by Jeremy Clarkson on Top Gear about murdering prostitutes have plunged the BBC into fresh controversy.

Clarkson said in Sunday night's programme after competing in a lorry-driving task: "This is a hard job, and I'm not just saying that to win favour with lorry drivers - it's a hard job.

"Change gear, change gear, change gear, check mirror, murder a prostitute, change gear, change gear, murder."

The United Road Transport Union has demanded an apology.

Spokesman James Bower said: "We would absolutely condemn what he said about murdering prostitutes. It beggars belief that those words can be broadcast on TV."

[davidn]

I was just saying to silver_tarna the other day about being able to take something as a joke because it was said by Frankie Boyle, and that's what he does - I get the feeling that, notorious for this kind of thing as he is, people would have got the same feeling from Jeremy Clarkson several years ago.

So Top gear's back - I'll have to start downloading that again!

[the-twilighted.livejournal.com]

To be fair, that joke was a lot funnier when it was in Viz years ago.

[stubbleupdate.livejournal.com]

To be fair, if truckers stopped killing prostitutes, none of this would be an issue.

[kjorteo]

I've said this before, and it bears repeating. If there's one thing I hope I can contribute to the massive outreach effort both sides are employing, one message I can get as many people to take to heart as I possibly can, and hopefully even have them spread on to their friends and so on, it is this:

Vote absentee.

Voting is absolutely vital, especially in elections like this. It's almost unthinkable that, as you put it, "rather than the actual number of voters, the election will be entirely decided on which side has the most weather resilience and bladder control," and yet that's what we're seeing. Not only that, but how many people can't vote because for whatever completely insane reason, Election Day isn't a holiday? The degree of sheer torture voters are being asked to put themselves through just so their vote could count--get out of work at 5:00 (if you're lucky) and go stand in line until about midnight--is absolutely ridiculous. Fortunately, we already have a solution.

When you vote absentee, you can:

1. Vote early. Just as soon as it takes to get the form in the mail and then send it back.
   
2. Be informed. Should judge Stanley Whitaker be retained as judge of New Mexico's 2nd Judicial district (Bernalillo county)? Hell if I know who he even is, but what if there's secretly a really tight race and my vote could accidentally throw out a decent man or keep a bad judge in? If you're at a polling place, in the booth, and questions like this come up, there's really nothing you can do. At home, it's an open-book test, and you have free access to word from your friends, newspapers, Google, anything. You can actually research the races and cast votes once you know. (Yes, he should, by the way.)
   
3. Take your time. This sort of ties in with #3. The only thing worse than being at the back of a six-hour line is being at the front, in the booth, feeling the pressure of everyone behind you. If you don't know what's at stake in the local elections, you're not really in a good position to take out your phone and call around and do extensive research when thousands of people are mentally willing you to die for not being done ten minutes ago. When I voted this year, it took me a week to fill out the ballot, and no one was even slightly inconvenienced.
   
4. Beat the questionable polling place standards. We've all heard the horror stories about paperless electronic voting machines, clueless poll workers in complete disarray, etc. Absentee ballots, being physical ballots you physically fill out and turn back in, are their own paper trail. In short, vote absentee if you want to be 100% sure your vote actually counts.

In 2006, I was watching the local news on election day. They had continuing coverage (they would just cut back to give us an update every hour or so) about a polling place in utter chaos, with lines that they weren't done processing until somewhere between midnight and two in the morning. I had already sent my absentee ballot in two weeks prior, and was currently comfortably in bed, watching the news.

[davidn]

When I saw the extent of the "Information for voters" pamphlet (novel, more like) that came through the post at the start of the week I did get some idea of why nobody seems to have told the ballot workers there's an election coming up - it's the sheer size of the voting sheet. In Britain, it's mostly just ticking a box, throwing it at someone and walking out - here, it seems to be half an exam paper and I'm told that the one I'm looking at here is one of the shorter ones.

Given your advantages, of course, I can't understand why more people wouldn't vote absentee. I actually had an absentee vote in Scotland because I lived somewhere other than where I was actually registered, but given its simplicity it didn't really have any of the benefits you listed there apart from not actually having to go out to vote.

As for actually getting to the polls, well, more people should work like us :) If the country gave me a vote as well as taxing me, I could just tell people at work that the refining workflow would be finished as soon as I'd helped their country get back into line.