As the Presidential race tightens and Hurricane Sandy whips the country into a frenzy only one week before the election, it's becoming very clear that the key state this year will be .... OHIO. Both parties will pour many more millions into Ohio advertising over the coming week, but clearly the outcome will remain uncertain until election day. Obama is currently showing a slight lead based on polling averages at RealClearPolitics.com, but some polls such as Rasmussen show Romney now leading (though Rasmussen does tend to skew Republican).
Without Ohio no Republican has won the white house, and it's unlikely that Romney could be the exception to this rule. If Ohio goes Obama then Mitt Romney would have to win *every other battleground state* to win, and that outcome is very unlikely.
In fact current polling generally shows Obama winning the election by electoral votes while *losing* the popular vote. This is a rare occurrence but as you recall it happened in 2000 when GW Bush beat Al Gore by electoral votes while losing the national popular vote by about 500,000.
Turnout will also be a critical factor. Incredibly, it's entirely possible that a bright sunny Nov 6 in Ohio will give the election to Obama while a rainy cold day will push it to Mitt Romney.
Showing posts with label ohio. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ohio. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
Monday, October 27, 2008
Counting Ohio
A flurry of stories and accusations have raised a lot of suspicion about vote counts, especially in Ohio and Florida in the 2004 presidential election.
However the total Ohio recount conducted in December of 2004 that effectively shifted the results by only a few hundred results based on allowing previously rejecte ballots suggests to me that the claims of counting conspiracies are probably misguided:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/29/politics/29ohio.html
However I remain concerned by reports of defects in Diebold voting machines and optical scanner voting results that appeared to favor George Bush in 2004 by margins that are very hard to explain without invoking fraud.
Without a doubt our elections process is flawed so seriously that outcomes were certainly affected in the 2000 election where Gore would have won Florida without ballot errors, though I do not think this was due to conspiratorial activity unless you count the aggressive vote purging efforts of Katherine Harris and other Secretaries of state as a conspiracy. These suppression activities are probably legal in the narrow sense, though I think vote suppression efforts appear to have become a strategic part of many campaigns and this probably should be considered a somewhat nuanced violation of voting rights laws. Suppression efforts generally seem to hide behind the notion of preventing votes by felons and vote fraud, but I think that in general the true purpose is to alter outcomes in a partisan way.
However the total Ohio recount conducted in December of 2004 that effectively shifted the results by only a few hundred results based on allowing previously rejecte ballots suggests to me that the claims of counting conspiracies are probably misguided:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/29/politics/29ohio.html
However I remain concerned by reports of defects in Diebold voting machines and optical scanner voting results that appeared to favor George Bush in 2004 by margins that are very hard to explain without invoking fraud.
Without a doubt our elections process is flawed so seriously that outcomes were certainly affected in the 2000 election where Gore would have won Florida without ballot errors, though I do not think this was due to conspiratorial activity unless you count the aggressive vote purging efforts of Katherine Harris and other Secretaries of state as a conspiracy. These suppression activities are probably legal in the narrow sense, though I think vote suppression efforts appear to have become a strategic part of many campaigns and this probably should be considered a somewhat nuanced violation of voting rights laws. Suppression efforts generally seem to hide behind the notion of preventing votes by felons and vote fraud, but I think that in general the true purpose is to alter outcomes in a partisan way.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Voter Suppression vs Registration Fraud vs Voter Fraud
The ACORN scandal is serious, but conservative talk shows and radio are absurdly trying to connect this effort to the Obama campaign in irrational and unethical ways. Vote fraud is not much of a problem in the USA where sophisticated voter suppression ... is a problem.
Forget Acorn, I'd hire Ken Blackwell if I was in the vote manipulation biz:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Blackwell
In 2004 in Ohio Blackwell tried to preferentially and illegally enforce a rule that said the *weight* of the paper would disqualify registrations. Even his own offices forms did not qualify as well as standard forms around the state. His ruling was overturned eventually, but had some suppressive effect. It's hard to measure suppression and I don't think it turned the 2004 election but I now think it's clear that without the very strategic suppression efforts against Florida voters in 2000 Gore would have *easily* won the state even with the butterfly ballots disallowed as they were.
As everybody should know but does not, there is *no rational dispute whatsoever* that the butterfly ballot spoilage lost the election for Gore. It's not clear you could have done anything about that legally (eg allocate votes proportionally rather than destroy them), but it is clear that in terms of voter intent Gore won Florida. Also not well known, but shown by a Miami Herald recount of every ballot (a great read!), is that even if the Supreme Court recounts had gone through Bush would have won using most of the prevailing counting standards of 2 or more chads disconnected. (Gore did not challenge the factors that lost the election - Palm Beach spoilage and/or voter suppression). Bush was "necessarily" installed as President after losing the Florida election, although there was a precedent for keeping those ballots and proportional votes.
I think if one is truly interested in Democracy working more than partisan concerns, they should be a lot more worried about the suppression efforts, especially in Ohio and Florida. These are simply appalling. The system is very good at finding fraud and very bad at avoiding suppression and ballot spoilage.
The reason suppression is a lot more worrisome is that it appears they keep a lot of legitimate voters from voting where voter fraud is likely to be very uncommon (convicted felons, for example, even if registered by ACORN, are hardly gung ho to go in and vote illegally).
I started looking at the situation after the Florida fiasco of 2000 and was really appalled because until then I'd bought the line that fraud was the big deal. I do think fraud helped Kennedy win Illinois thanks to Daley and possibly the mob, but suppression is more relevant now.
Forget Acorn, I'd hire Ken Blackwell if I was in the vote manipulation biz:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Blackwell
In 2004 in Ohio Blackwell tried to preferentially and illegally enforce a rule that said the *weight* of the paper would disqualify registrations. Even his own offices forms did not qualify as well as standard forms around the state. His ruling was overturned eventually, but had some suppressive effect. It's hard to measure suppression and I don't think it turned the 2004 election but I now think it's clear that without the very strategic suppression efforts against Florida voters in 2000 Gore would have *easily* won the state even with the butterfly ballots disallowed as they were.
As everybody should know but does not, there is *no rational dispute whatsoever* that the butterfly ballot spoilage lost the election for Gore. It's not clear you could have done anything about that legally (eg allocate votes proportionally rather than destroy them), but it is clear that in terms of voter intent Gore won Florida. Also not well known, but shown by a Miami Herald recount of every ballot (a great read!), is that even if the Supreme Court recounts had gone through Bush would have won using most of the prevailing counting standards of 2 or more chads disconnected. (Gore did not challenge the factors that lost the election - Palm Beach spoilage and/or voter suppression). Bush was "necessarily" installed as President after losing the Florida election, although there was a precedent for keeping those ballots and proportional votes.
I think if one is truly interested in Democracy working more than partisan concerns, they should be a lot more worried about the suppression efforts, especially in Ohio and Florida. These are simply appalling. The system is very good at finding fraud and very bad at avoiding suppression and ballot spoilage.
The reason suppression is a lot more worrisome is that it appears they keep a lot of legitimate voters from voting where voter fraud is likely to be very uncommon (convicted felons, for example, even if registered by ACORN, are hardly gung ho to go in and vote illegally).
I started looking at the situation after the Florida fiasco of 2000 and was really appalled because until then I'd bought the line that fraud was the big deal. I do think fraud helped Kennedy win Illinois thanks to Daley and possibly the mob, but suppression is more relevant now.
Monday, March 03, 2008
Marc Andreessen on Barack Obama
Internet legend and pioneer Marc Andreessen has some detailed and interesting observations about Barack Obama, who Marc, his wife, and a friend met with at some length a year or so ago.
http://blog.pmarca.com/2008/03/an-hour-and-a-h.html
As he notes himself Marc is not necessarily a political expert, though I don't think anybody can really hold that title. Andreessen is, without doubt, an extremely sharp and influential technology guy so his effective endorsement of Obama is yet another feather in Obama's cap, with tomorrow's Texas and Ohio outcomes looking like they may effectively be the *national* outcome.
http://blog.pmarca.com/2008/03/an-hour-and-a-h.html
As he notes himself Marc is not necessarily a political expert, though I don't think anybody can really hold that title. Andreessen is, without doubt, an extremely sharp and influential technology guy so his effective endorsement of Obama is yet another feather in Obama's cap, with tomorrow's Texas and Ohio outcomes looking like they may effectively be the *national* outcome.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)