New U.S. President

[tallguy]

Originally Posted by Brian-E

Hmm... all the different states voting on the same day by agreement perhaps? What am I missing here?

The reference that David was making is to the "late voters" in CA (West Coast) knowing the results from the East Coast prior to their voting due to EST vs. PST. It doesn't have anything to do with all voting on the same day, and there is nothing we can do about the geographical spread of our country.

Incidentally, the basic reason we don't vote all on the same day is so that smaller candidates who can't mount a national campaign from day one have a chance to build momentum and gain support nationally via their performance in the initial smaller states. Otherwise, someone like Huckabee would never have a prayer (understood, that may or may not be a bad thing depending on one's perspective ).

Only solution I can think of to David's initial concern is mandating that each date can only have states from one time zone. That would be awfully draconian for what is most likely a non-issue. Keep in mind that each state is largely independent on all such matters -- for instance, polls close at different times in different jurisdictions. So, even on the East Coast, you may have late voters from one state aware of results from another state.

[Brian-E]

Well, the results of the vote could still be announced at the same (absolute) time even if the actual casting of votes is spread over different time zones.

Also I cannot understand why the actual voting needs to be spread over months even if the campaigning has to be (and I appreciate the reasons you give for that). Does the vote really have to immediately follow the campaign?

[tallguy]

Originally Posted by Brian-E

Well, the results of the vote could still be announced at the same (absolute) time even if the actual casting of votes is spread over different time zones.

True, but short of a law to the contrary, the media is free to report information as it becomes known. This will not change. As a tradition and by acclimation, the media does not report exit polling results until the polls have closed within whatever jursidiction is in question.

Originally Posted by Brian-E

Also I cannot understand why the actual voting needs to be spread over months even if the campaigning has to be (and I appreciate the reasons you give for that).

I'm not grasping this at all. The campaign--vote--campaign--vote--etc. cycle is a conversation between current voters, candidates, and future voters. It unfolds over a period of time. The length of time provides an opportunity for each candidate to make his/her case, and to either demonstrate aptitude for difficult circumstances and questions, or a lack thereof.

Originally Posted by Brian-E

Does the vote really have to immediately follow the campaign?

It's rather the other way around, isn't it? The campaign is there to persuade voters... up until the time that they actually vote. So, "Yes", the vote must be immediately after the campaign -- or conversely, the campaign only stops once the vote has been taken. One could not say "the campaign is scheduled for x period, whereupon a gag order will be imposed, and then will come the vote sometime thereafter." Maybe I've misunderstood?

Maybe all this sounds odd from countries with a parliamentary perspective? It makes for interesting conversation at any rate

[R.D. Silverman]

Originally Posted by tallguy

The reference that David was making is to the "late voters" in CA (West Coast) knowing the results from the East Coast prior to their voting due to EST vs. PST. It doesn't have anything to do with all voting on the same day, and there is nothing we can do about the geographical spread of our country.

This issue isn't any different from voters who vote NEXT WEEK (or the week
after etc.) knowing what happened this week.

So what if some voters know what happened elsewhere/earlier? The voters
who voted yesterday already know what happened in earlier primaries!

[masser]

Originally Posted by davieddy

Does anyone else feel that there is something unsatisfactory
about late voters in California knowing the results in the rest of
the country before they vote?

David

If the results coming from the other side of the country dissuade you from voting, then you were not very committed to your candidate of choice in the first place and maybe you should not be voting. I do not believe there is anything wrong with reporting the results as the news stations receive them.

[Brian-E]

Originally Posted by tallguy

True, but short of a law to the contrary, the media is free to report information as it becomes known. This will not change. As a tradition and by acclimation, the media does not report exit polling results until the polls have closed within whatever jursidiction is in question.

If it won't change then I suppose there's no point discussing it anyway. But maybe an election is one of the few occasions when some media control could be appropriate.

I'm not grasping this at all. The campaign--vote--campaign--vote--etc. cycle is a conversation between current voters, candidates, and future voters. It unfolds over a period of time. The length of time provides an opportunity for each candidate to make his/her case, and to either demonstrate aptitude for difficult circumstances and questions, or a lack thereof.

But why the real full-blown and decisive vote as an answer to each campaign? Why not use opinion polls? They are a good way of measuring current mood and they usually work well if carefully conducted by specialist bureaus.

Maybe all this sounds odd from countries with a parliamentary perspective? It makes for interesting conversation at any rate

I think all of us can learn from each other and nowhere has it quite right. Also in many cases a system which works in one country would never succeed in another which has different population count, size and established culture. Definitely interesting to discuss.

[R.D. Silverman]

Originally Posted by Brian-E

If it won't change then I suppose there's no point discussing it anyway. But maybe an election is one of the few occasions when some media control could be appropriate.

I don't agree. "One can't get a little bit pregnant".

[tallguy]

Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman

I don't agree. "One can't get a little bit pregnant".

Bingo.

Originally Posted by Brian-E

But why the real full-blown and decisive vote as an answer to each campaign? Why not use opinion polls? They are a good way of measuring current mood and they usually work well if carefully conducted by specialist bureaus.

Hrmmm... at some point everyone who wishes to do so should get to have their say, right? No matter how carefully constructed, a poll is a poll and a vote is a vote.

That being said, opinion polls do play a part. As the race unfolds -- even prior to the Iowa Caucuses and NH primary, candidates drop out when they see that they don't have any traction in the race (based largely on opinion polls)... their voters may then be persuaded to back the alternative that their candidate endorses... and so on.

[Brian-E]

Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman

I don't agree. "One can't get a little bit pregnant".

Maybe I should elaborate on what I mean by media control because I realise I didn't make myself very clear and perhaps you actually disagree with something I did not mean. I meant not releasing information to the media: I did not mean preventing the media from publishing or broadcasting information which they already have. Surely even in the United States the media are not always given access to any information they like? And for the good of democracy there is definitely something to be said for not revealing the (partial) results of the vote until everyone eligible to vote has done so.

Originally Posted by tallguy

Hrmmm... at some point everyone who wishes to do so should get to have their say, right?...

Absolutely. I am merely arguing that this should happen simultaneously so that the voting behaviour is not altered by previous voting elsewhere. Your arguments are eloquent and informative, but I have not really yet read anything from you which adequately explains why this cannot be achieved.

[tallguy]

Originally Posted by Brian-E

Maybe I should elaborate on what I mean by media control because I realise I didn't make myself very clear and perhaps you actually disagree with something I did not mean. I meant not releasing information to the media: I did not mean preventing the media from publishing or broadcasting information which they already have. Surely even in the United States the media are not always given access to any information they like? And for the good of democracy there is definitely something to be said for not revealing the (partial) results of the vote until everyone eligible to vote has done so.

The media generate their own results via independent exit polling, they are then released information as each precinct reports its results. There is no central control of precincts, nor would we want it any other way.

We are often mistakenly called a democracy, when in fact we are a federal republic. Even within the states (some are actually formally called commonwealths), there is a federal structure generally speaking in that the towns/cities are self-governing and autonomous. In fact, sometimes these jurisdictions agitate to secede from one state and join another. Scroll down to New Hampshire and Vermont in that link and you'll see the recent goings-on in my neck of the woods. This all may seem crazy, but we like our particular and peculiar brand of freedom.

Point is, nobody can control how precincts announce their results, and attempting to control that would be detrimental anyway. Transparency is a fundamental concern otherwise.

Originally Posted by Brian-E

Absolutely. I am merely arguing that this should happen simultaneously so that the voting behaviour is not altered by previous voting elsewhere. Your arguments are eloquent and informative, but I have not really yet read anything from you which adequately explains why this cannot be achieved.

Make a concrete and detailed proposal, and I'll provide a (friendly!) rebuttal.

Not saying our system is perfect, but rather that it is more reasoned than it might appear at first blush.

[ewmayer]

Romney just quit his campaign.

NYT Op-Ed: Clinton, Obama, Insurance: NYT's Paul Krugman compares the 2 proposals, concludes Obama's falls short.

And another NYT op-ed piece discusses some of the more surprising aspects of Obama's showing on Super Tuesday: Obama: The Shock of the Red