USA Election 2012

[slothpomba]

The US Presidential election is coming up tomorrow (our time). Coverage starts from 10:30 AM our time on ABC24/ABC2. Tonight's episode of the drum also mentioned it a fair bit and there's a special foreign correspondent episode on ABC at 8 tonight about the USA election and how they vote (machines over paper, etc).

The real clear politics average of polls points towards a very, very narrow obama victory, with a margin of +0.7%.

Who do we all think is going to win? Is anyone here actually rooting for romney?

Time for some funny campaign videos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TiXUF9xbTo&feature=g-logo-xit

https://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=ltCIEbLMaQg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTCRwi71_ns&feature=related

Coverage

Everyone likes their own varying news sources obviously but i think a few recommendations would be good. Took me awhile of hunting to find anything that's accessible (and easily) to us aussies, so, i thought i'd share it along.

---> ABC is covering it. ABC24(even got a news story on him, right now) will have live streaming coverage both on their website and on TV starting 10:30 AM tomorrow - http://www.abc.net.au/news/specials/us-election-2012/.

---> Al Jazeera is probably one of my favourite news sources. I don't know if they'll have live streaming video coverage (they do have free live streaming news around the clock though) but i know they'll have a live blog and their page is absolutely stuffed to the brim with articles and previous videos and shows made about it - http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/spotlight/us2012/ .

---> Slate is an American news magazine. They also have some very good articles and will probably have some form of live coverage. Plenty of interesting articles on other stuff too - http://www.slate.com/ .

---> Huffington Post is another great news site to check out - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ .

[paulsterio]

I'm not rooting for Romney, but I have bets on him LOL!

[slothpomba]

I'm not rooting for Romney, but I have bets on him LOL!

Should of used intrade (http://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/contract/?contractId=743475). It's sort of like a share market but you trade "shares" on whether an event will happen or not.

Each share is up to a maximum of $10.00 .

Romney is being sold for $3.22, so, if you bought a single share in Romney at the current price of $3.22 you'd get $10.00 if he won.

If he lost, the person selling you the share would keep your $3.22.

So, you'd win roughly triple which is probably better than what the bookies are offering right? What price did you get it for?

---------

Here's a quiz that figures out which candidates you stand with most and on what issues - http://www.isidewith.com/presidential-election-quiz .

It works a lot better if you answer the option questions and don't just tick yes or no but have a look at the views under "Choose another stance".

[Truck]

http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2012

^ says a lot imo.

And king, I got Jill Stein on the link you gave me . What about you?

[paulsterio]

So, you'd win roughly triple which is probably better than what the bookies are offering right? What price did you get it for?

Ahh, I'm getting paid $4.40 for Romney with Luxbet (who are pretty reliable because I've won like $240 bets from them before). Obama's current price is $1.20, so the reality is, I don't know if Romney will win or not, but he's definitely good value at $4.40 when the polls + political analysers all think he has a pretty decent chance of winning.

In terms of betting with shares though, the thing is, I don't think equity is the same as cash in hand

[Yendall]

[slothpomba]

In terms of betting with shares though, the thing is, I don't think equity is the same as cash in hand

Not betting with shares, i said it's like *buying* shares in the candidate. Once the results are in, you either win or lose your cash, like a regular bet.


Here are my results for that quiz ----- > http://www.isidewith.com/results/217878053

The other one or two times i took it (they update questions though) i sided much more with the greens/jill stein it seems.

[Truck]

Interesting . I'm relatively similar I think.

Here's mine: http://www.isidewith.com/results/217891732

[slothpomba]

http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2012

That's just one dudes subjective opinion though.

Look at his other political compass charts, they're fairly off i reckon.

Greens are only very marginally left while labour is almost no longer center right, they're right wing (http://www.politicalcompass.org/aus2010).

I'm not sure what standards his using, right wing by Australian standards (i don't really think so).

Even if you overlay the USA chart on the aussie one, labour aren't far from the democrats. Labour is clearly far more left than any of the major two parties in the USA system, so, i think his charts are kind of broken and wrong.

Oh, look, its gratuitous photo o'clock:

[JellyDonut]

3rd party master race

http://www.isidewith.com/results/217974063

(Image removed from quote.)

[Starlight]

Lol at obama with the hair

[slothpomba]

Another thing to remember about the USA is their voting system is totally screwed up.

Electoral College

You don't vote to elect the president. You vote to elect a member of the electoral college. The members of the electoral college then get together and cast their vote for the president, which, hopefully, mirrors your vote. Of course, if you vote democrat, they'll choose a hardcore democrat person to represent you in the electoral college and same for republican. Some states have laws to punish electoral college voters that don't vote the way they were elected.

This goes all the way back to the founding of the USA. They're really big on having checks and balances on the government. George Washington and all the founding fathers thought democracy was good of course but they wanted it to be overseen by a group of elders (eg. the electoral college) to make sure the people in exercising their democracy dont vote for someone totally insane or ineligble. We also have to remember a lot of this was layed down pre-internet, pre-phone. News traveled on horseback and things like that. It's another reason why you elect a member of the electoral college, because, he can then travel on and make his vote.

Each state is given a certain number of electoral college voters depending on population.



In some states, the winner of the most votes, wins every electoral college seat. So, if Obama got 49% of the votes in California and Romney got 51%, he would get all the 55 seats. Obviously, this isn't very democratic in representing the people, 49% of the people are totally unrepresented in their views. In some states, its a bit more proportional, they do it on a district by district basic.

So, its not done on sheer number of votes. Even if a candidate gets a million more votes, they can still lose if the other guy gets more electoral college seats.

This happened in 2000 with George Bush and Al Gore. Al Gore was the choice of the people, purely on number of votes, Bush however, won more seats and thus the election. Gore had ~500 000 more votes and still lost. Some people think we might see this but in reverse this election, with Romney getting the majority of votes but Obama winning on the electoral college. In-Trade, a website where people bet against each-other on the outcomes of events has this at 22.8% chance of happening, if peoples money is at stake to be won and lost, people tend to do their homework.

There are plenty of problems with how their ballots are even structured and how voting is done too.

[slothpomba]

The Ballot

Another stark difference between Australia & the USA is the facts of how they vote.

Here, we have instant run off voting. You list your candidates in order of preference:

[1] Greens

[5] DLP

[2] Labour

[3] Family First

[4] The Australian Democrats

Your vote is put in a pile with all the other green votes, as it is your first preference. If it becomes clear from numbers that the greens aren't one of the top two piles, your vote is redistributed to your second, labour, if it becomes clear once again that labour isn't in the top 2, your vote is redistributed to your third choice...and on and on.

It is a good system because you vote for the party you truly believe in and like the most, even if they are unlikely to win.

In the USA, it is different. You only have one preference. So, if you vote for a party that isn't Democrat or Republican and they don't win, you are literally throwing your vote away. This is one of the reasons the two party system is so entrenched there. People are scared of wasting their vote. Since voting isn't compulsory, those that do vote, usually want their vote to have some action behind it.





I've seen some grassroots movements though. In area's where obama is hugely favoured to win, people are voting for one of the 3rd parties to send a message first of all but secondly, if you get over 5% of the popular votes in this election, in the next one, you are eligible to have the public fund your campaign (if you dont you have to pay for it yourself, which limits the 3rd parties even further). If it is close between Obama and Romney and you are an Obama supporter, since there are no preferences, you clearly should vote Obama and vice versa.

Sometimes, third parties can do very well. This is incredibly rare.

Ross Perot got ~19% of the popular vote in 1992(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1992) but 0 electoral college seats. This is another problem with the electoral college. It's still amazing how many voted for him despite the risk of throwing your vote away.

CGP Grey does a great job of explaining all this (using animals) in his video series - https://www.youtube.com/course?list=EC7679C7ACE93A5638&feature=plcp

Considering how this topic can get, its fairly non-boring too.

[ShortBlackChick]

Obama and I have something goin on, ladies form a line

http://www.isidewith.com/results/218547770

Thanks kp, for all the information!

[MonsieurHulot]

Thanks for the information Kingpomba, cleared up my vague idea of the electoral colleges.
As for the test, Jill Stein and I are 93% compatible 
http://www.isidewith.com/results/218583083