How can the numbers move so sharply in just 24 hours? I have tweaked the model slightly at a couple of points recently in order to make it more sensitive to new information. But these adjustments are very minor, and their effects are fairly trivial. The principal reasons these numbers have become more volatile are twofold. Firstly, we're finally getting into crunch time. The closer we get to the election, the smaller the true margins of error in the polls, so relatively small advantages can become more meaningful. But secondly, we have a lot more data to look at. If Barack Obama looks like he's moved up a point or two between two or three polls, that may not be particularly meaningful, and our model will tend to treat it as noise. If, on the other hand, Obama appears to have gained a point or two between 20 or 30 polls, which is what we're getting on a daily basis nowadays, we can say with more certainty that a real shift in the electorate has occurred.
Kilarney, what would you be saying if some small-time person with no chance of winning forgot to file, and now they want on the ballot?
It depends on the context. Did the Secretary of State know that this person would be placed on the ballot? Did the person make efforts to establish their candidacy, or did they come out of nowhere?
If there is a punitive measure to be taken, then I would look at the impact of their removal from the ballot. If NOBODY was going to vote for this person anyway, then removal would not punish the public. If they had a large following, then I would have to balance the harm to the voters versus the harm to the candidate.
In short, there is no "one size fits all" approach.
It could be that the penalty is built into the law (I haven't looked) - if this is the case, then I would expect the law to be followed unless there is a compelling, and legally justifiable, reason not to.
In short, there is no "one size fits all" approach.
So you're not a fan of equal protection under the law?
Personally I think the law should apply to all people the same way, no matter who they are.
Either there is a deadline for filing, or their isn't. If one person can get in after the deadline, then everyone can. Just because you are famous, or have more fans doesn't mean the law should apply to you differently.
So you're not a fan of equal protection under the law?
I am describing equal protection.
Just because the law applies to everybody does not necessitate the "punishment" being the same. Under your theory, every murderer should get the same sentence. That's not how it works, and that's not a violation of equal protection. Equal protection should, and does, involve a test of equity.
You seem to be forgetting that The Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that voting is a "fundamental right" on the same plane as marriage (Loving v. Virginia), privacy (Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)), or interstate travel (Shapiro v. Thompson (1969)). For any abridgment of those rights to be constitutional, the Court has held, the legislation must pass strict scrutiny. (From Wikipedia)
no party has the right to ignore the rules of a presidential election, no matter how "important" they may be.
Agreed. The problem here is that the remedy of alienating the votes of over 23 million people would cause a worse harm than the original offense. Justice would not be met by doing this. The parties should be punished, but the punishment must fit the crime.
Do you think these issues didn't come up for debate when the laws were originally passed? If you set a hard line somewhere, you have to obey it, or else your system is worthless. That's why you have the discussion before you set the line; set it somewhere agreeable, and then stick to it. I know all about people trying to get around standards because they think they're unfair; it's usually a very situational argument. Most people don't care about the standard, or support it, until it gets in the way of someone or something they like; when that happens, everyone is up in arms about it.
Throwing out 23 million votes is the fault of the candidate in question, and not the fault of the government or the laws it set up. Personally, I say that if the candidates can't be bothered to fill out a fucking form correctly and in a timely fashion, they really have no business being in government.
Under your theory, every murderer should get the same sentence. That's not how it works, and that's not a violation of equal protection. Equal protection should, and does, involve a test of equity.
Ah, but different murderers get different sentences based on the nature of the crime they have comitted. If I murder someone by accident with my car, that is different than if I shoot someone. I actually broke the law differently.
What you're saying is if two different people commit the exact same crime, but one happens to be famous, they should get a different sentence.
Ah, but different murderers get different sentences based on the nature of the crime they have comitted. If I murder someone by accident with my car, that is different than if I shoot someone. I actually broke the law differently.
Uh... Scott... people who shoot other people often get vastly different sentences. Where have you been?
What you're saying is if two different people commit the exact same crime, but one happens to be famous, they should get a different sentence.
I don't give a rat's ass if they are famous. I am saying that justice in one situation is not necessarily justice in another.
If you set a hard line somewhere, you have to obey it, or else your system is worthless.
Assuming that no remedy is spelled out by the statute, I don't agree with this statement. Again, you have to weigh the harms. That is the just thing to do.
Surely a voter would sue. The statute would have to pass strict scrutiny. Maybe it will, maybe it won't. Not that it will EVER get that far, but there are a lot of hurdles for Barr to overcome.
Permit me a straw man. If a state had a law that said "if you fail to register your land with the county commissioner every year no later than April 15th, you lose all of your land." Would you really think that the penalty would survive a court challenge? You have the government taking your land. Surely a Court would say that the punishment is too draconian. What's the difference between taking your land and taking away your right to vote for whom you please? I'm just saying that the punishment proposed in this case may be too draconian, especially in light of a strict scrutiny test.
I don't give a rat's ass if they are famous. I am saying that justice in one situation is not necessarily justice in another.
The situation is the same. Small time candidate doesn't file to be on the ballot. Unknown guy doesn't file to be on the ballot. Big time guy doesn't file to be on the ballot.
Either none of them get on or they all get on. There are differences between these people, but they all broke the exact same law in the exact same fashion, then the same justice should be dished out. If the fashion in which they broke the law was different, then you can start to make differences. Not handing in papers is pretty cut and dry. You can't fail to hand in papers differently than someone else. It's pretty much a boolean.
Permit me a straw man. If a state had a law that said "if you fail to register your land with the county commissioner every year no later than April 15th, you lose all of your land." Would you really think that the penalty would survive a court challenge? You have the government taking your land. Surely a Court would say that the punishment is too draconian. I'm just saying that the punishment proposed in this case may be too draconian, especially in light of a strict scrutiny test.
That's because the government taking all your land is an unwarranted seizure, it's unconstitutional.
Now, if you are talking about some eminent domain, it should totally fly.
What you're saying is if two different people commit the exact same crime, but one happens to be famous, they should get a different sentence.
I don't give a rat's ass if they are famous. I am saying that justice in one situation is not necessarily justice in another.
Are you actively trying to not get it? It is THE EXACT SAME SITUATION if you forget to file on time no matter if you are a libertarian, a democrat, a republican or what have you so THE EXACT SAME PUNISHMENT should be adjusted.
I agree. That's why the punishment must be tailored to the circumstances of the case. And that is why punishments differ all of the time. It's even more complicated here because by punishing the candidate you are also punishing the voters.
Under your theory, you would predict how many votes the unknown candidate would get. You would allow the major party candidate to run, but subtract that many votes from his/her total. After all, shouldn't the voters get the same exact "punishment"?
Are you actively trying to not get it? It is THE EXACT SAME SITUATION if you forget to file on time no matter if you are a libertarian, a democrat, a republican or what have you so THE EXACT SAME PUNISHMENT should be adjusted.
Read my posts. I agree that the punishment should inflict the same harm - no matter who is involved. That is why you must tailor the punishment based on the circumstances of the person being punished. (Of course this situation is muddied because you are going to punish the voters as well. Also, all this assumes that the punishment is not built into the statute.)
Let me give an example...
A law says that a company that pollutes shall be fined. The law gives the court broad discretion in establishing the fine. Company A pollutes and is fined $1,000. Company A is worth on paper $10,000. Company B pollutes and is fined $10,000. Company B is worth on paper $100,000.
Isn't the punishment equal in this case? If the goal is to punish the companies so they will not engage in polluting, then the punishment is equal. If you fine Company B $1,000, they will have financial incentive keep polluting.
I'm comparing apples to oranges, but the above example shows how to different punishments can be "equal". It isn't at all analogous to the election dilemma - it's just illustrative of the basic point of varying punishments being equal.
It's even more complicated here because by punishing the candidate you are also punishing the voters.
Great, you just backed up Scott's point. The law is supposed to be neutral and equal, and it currently is, but you want to have it changed mid-game because he is popular.
It is not the laws fault if the candidate does not obey the election statutes and bars people from voting for him.
Edit: I got your problem. You think this is an analog problem, but it is a binary problem. If you file your nomination correctly and on time, you get to be on the ballot. If you don't, you don't get to be on the ballot.
It's even more complicated here because by punishing the candidate you are also punishing the voters.
Under your theory, you would predict how many votes the unknown candidate would get. You would allow the major party candidate to run, but subtract that many votes from his/her total. After all, shouldn't the voters get the same exact "punishment"?
The voters don't come into it at all.
Let's say that the quarterback of a major NFL team robs a convenience store. The next day, I rob the same exact convenience store in the exact same way, at the exact same time. I take the same amount of money, use the same force, etc.
If you give us both the same sentence, is that fair? I mean. Putting me in jail punishes my friends, family and listeners, sure. Putting the quarterback in jail punishes many many more people than that. It punishes the team owners who invested so much money in the player. It punishes all the fans who bought tickets to see him play. It punishes all his teammates who now have almost no chance of winning the games the player will miss.
Should the quarterback get a lesser sentence than I get because it will punish others besides himself?
The answer is no. You don't take that shit into account. When you bring a defendent into court, they are faceless. You look only at the nature of what they did. You say "If citizen X did this, what should be the punishment for them?" Who they are, or other circumstances that are not directly related to the illegal activity they engaged in should not be considered at all.
but you want to have it changed mid-game because he is popular.
You're just not getting it. It has nothing to do with popularity. It has everything to do with balancing the rights of citizens to vote with the right of the government to place reasonable restrictions on that process. For the government to alienate 23 million voters, there must be a much more important reason than confusion in the filing process. (Keep in mind, the State itself says that both campaigns acted within the law. So don't give me crap that there was no confusion here.)
You don't think that they will sue? How naive are you?
Should the quarterback get a lesser sentence than I get because it will punish others besides himself?
I don't give a crap if the guy is a quarterback. You should get a similar sentence. In your scenario, there is no competing constitutional right. That's the gaping hole. You're also not talking about punishment designed as a disincentive such as fines for polluting.
However... if you were abused as a child and suffered from mental illness, I think you should get a lesser punishment than the quarterback. What do you think about that?
You do realize that the popularity of a nominee is the number of votes he gets.... And yes, the state says that they acted within the law which is why there is a goddamn lawsuit because the law says something different.
I am not sure if kilarney read it in the first post since I edited it later in, so I repeat it:
Edit: I got your problem. You think this is an analog problem, but it is a binary problem. If you file your nomination correctly and on time, you get to be on the ballot. If you don't, you don't get to be on the ballot.
Could you please describe to me where there are more circumstances to consider and adjust punishments?
See, Kilarney. The problem here is the difference between a UK style justice system and a US style justice system.
In the UK judges are a lot more free to just use common sense. I actually think that's totally awesome. We need a lot more common sense in this world. Things would be a lot better off if justice were metered out more fairly and more tailored to the individual situations, like you are saying should be done in this situation.
The alternative is to have a lawyer system, as you well know. The letter of the law is king. Think about it. We play board games and RPGs. The words in the rules are extremely important. Any violation of those words on paper can not be tolerated. We spend countless hours making sure that everything is played exactly according to the rules. We even have rules arguments in a simple family game like Villa Paletti.
Either of these systems has its pros and cons, and in all honesty, pick either one. They both seem to work in their own way. The reason we get up in arms is because of inconsistency. You can't use common sense in one case, and then strictly adhere to the letter of the law in another case. We argue against the religous people for doing the same thing. One minute they will interpret the bible literally, then they turn around and claim another passage is a metaphor. You can't pull that shit.
Either we have to have a strict literal interpretation of the law, or we have a loose interpretation where judges get more leeway to make common sense decisions. You can't switch back and forth. You can't give little Joe a literal interpretation and make an exception for Obama.
We have judges who have no choice but to convict and sentence people as sex offenders who did nothing more than urinate in public, or grab a girls arm and scold her for running out into the street, because of the wording of Megan's law. We have injustices like a man who is on death row right now, who probably didn't shoot a cop. We have that kid who was in jail because he got some oral sex in high school, even though the law changed. If judges aren't allowed to make common sense judgments in those situations, you can't go telling me that now that we can suddenly allow common sense to come into play.
but you want to have it changed mid-game because he is popular.
You're just not getting it. It has nothing to do with popularity. It has everything to do with balancing the rights of citizens to vote with the right of the government to place reasonable restrictions on that process. For the government to alienate 23 million voters, there must be a much more important reason than confusion in the filing process. (Keep in mind, the State itself says that both campaigns acted within the law. So don't give me crap that there was no confusion here.)
And once again, the onus of potentially alienating 23 million voters was considered before passing the law. The circumstances are considered before a law is passed, not once it is to be enforced. Laws dictate different procedures depending upon circumstances. For example, there is no crime of "murder." There are several crimes that involve murder, and each one is different depending on the circumstances. Murder in the 1st degree is a different crime than Murder in the 2nd degree. Killing someone in the heat of the moment is different than planning a person's death for months, and both are different than using deadly force to defend oneself against deadly force. The law accounts for circumstance. If the law doesn't account for a particular circumstance, it can be amended appropriately.
However, "I forgot to file" is not a circumstance that warrants different treatment. "I filed incorrectly," according to the law, is a circumstance that warrants different treatment. Think about the IRS: there's a difference between not filing a tax return, and making a mistake on a tax return. They're different circumstances and warrant differential treatment.
And all this aside, you're not throwing away 23 million votes. They can vote for someone else, someone who followed the proper procedure and is a valid candidate for election.
Mr. Shark, you're saying it's a strict liability thing, like running a traffic light. As Mr. 99 says, it's binary. I tend to agree.
Just as OJ Simpson should pay the same $50.00 fine and costs for running a traffic light that anyone else does, so should McCain be struck from the ballot.
You can't use common sense in one case, and then strictly adhere to the letter of the law in another case.
Very fair.
And once again, the onus of potentially alienating 23 million voters was considered before passing the law.
I understand. All I'm trying to say is don't hold your breath assuming that a court will agree with the legislature. Call me a realist. You can't pretend that there aren't competing constitutional rights at work here. That's all I'm trying to say.
And once again, the onus of potentially alienating 23 million voters was considered before passing the law.
I understand. All I'm trying to say is don't hold your breath assuming that a court will agree with the legislature. Call me a realist. You can't pretend that there aren't competing constitutional rights at work here. That's all I'm trying to say.
Oh, I completely agree with that point. The point I'm trying to make is that nobody should be OK with that. If we're just going to ignore the system in place, why have it there at all? I would say that it's a sign that there's something wrong with the system. In that case, if enough people agree, the system needs to be changed.
Really, I think it's too difficult to change laws. In my experience developing, implementing, and monitoring management systems, I've found that you need to enforce the system as it exists to the letter, but be very open to changing the system as needed. That way, the best possible system develops naturally as it is implemented, and it is implemented fully to allow for maximum utility and development.
You can't pretend that there aren't competing constitutional rights at work here. That's all I'm trying to say.
You know, they wouldn't be taking away the people's right to vote; that is guaranteed to them as always. Say the elections were an ice cream shop that is open once every four years. The menu is usually strawberry, chocolate, and vanilla, but the delivery guy who brings the chocolate ice cream didn't show up on time today, so chocolate was removed from the menu on this day. The people can still buy whichever ice cream is available, but the menu was changed on the shop's end due to the failure of the delivery. The customers may be angry about the lack of chocolate, but the shop is only doing what it should under the circumstances.
In the real-world case, McCain forgot to deliver himself to the "ice cream shop" that is the state election officials on time, and so he's not supposed to be on the ballot under the law. The voters may be angry, but their right to vote is still there and if it's not for the candidate they wanted, then they have to realize it's entirely that candidate's fault in this case. I left out the Obama situation for the sake of a simpler metaphor, so please forgive me.
So if the government selects a candidate (like North Korea does), and you get to vote for the pre-ordained candidate - you didn't lose your right to vote? No offense, but Constitutional rights are a little more complicated than ice cream. The "right" to vote involves more than the physical act.
Comments
If there is a punitive measure to be taken, then I would look at the impact of their removal from the ballot. If NOBODY was going to vote for this person anyway, then removal would not punish the public. If they had a large following, then I would have to balance the harm to the voters versus the harm to the candidate.
In short, there is no "one size fits all" approach.
It could be that the penalty is built into the law (I haven't looked) - if this is the case, then I would expect the law to be followed unless there is a compelling, and legally justifiable, reason not to.
Personally I think the law should apply to all people the same way, no matter who they are.
Either there is a deadline for filing, or their isn't. If one person can get in after the deadline, then everyone can. Just because you are famous, or have more fans doesn't mean the law should apply to you differently.
Just because the law applies to everybody does not necessitate the "punishment" being the same. Under your theory, every murderer should get the same sentence. That's not how it works, and that's not a violation of equal protection. Equal protection should, and does, involve a test of equity.
You seem to be forgetting that The Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that voting is a "fundamental right" on the same plane as marriage (Loving v. Virginia), privacy (Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)), or interstate travel (Shapiro v. Thompson (1969)). For any abridgment of those rights to be constitutional, the Court has held, the legislation must pass strict scrutiny. (From Wikipedia)
There are definitely competing interests here.
Throwing out 23 million votes is the fault of the candidate in question, and not the fault of the government or the laws it set up. Personally, I say that if the candidates can't be bothered to fill out a fucking form correctly and in a timely fashion, they really have no business being in government.
What you're saying is if two different people commit the exact same crime, but one happens to be famous, they should get a different sentence.
Surely a voter would sue. The statute would have to pass strict scrutiny. Maybe it will, maybe it won't. Not that it will EVER get that far, but there are a lot of hurdles for Barr to overcome.
Permit me a straw man. If a state had a law that said "if you fail to register your land with the county commissioner every year no later than April 15th, you lose all of your land." Would you really think that the penalty would survive a court challenge? You have the government taking your land. Surely a Court would say that the punishment is too draconian. What's the difference between taking your land and taking away your right to vote for whom you please? I'm just saying that the punishment proposed in this case may be too draconian, especially in light of a strict scrutiny test.
Either none of them get on or they all get on. There are differences between these people, but they all broke the exact same law in the exact same fashion, then the same justice should be dished out. If the fashion in which they broke the law was different, then you can start to make differences. Not handing in papers is pretty cut and dry. You can't fail to hand in papers differently than someone else. It's pretty much a boolean.
Now, if you are talking about some eminent domain, it should totally fly.
Under your theory, you would predict how many votes the unknown candidate would get. You would allow the major party candidate to run, but subtract that many votes from his/her total. After all, shouldn't the voters get the same exact "punishment"?
Let me give an example...
A law says that a company that pollutes shall be fined. The law gives the court broad discretion in establishing the fine.
Company A pollutes and is fined $1,000. Company A is worth on paper $10,000.
Company B pollutes and is fined $10,000. Company B is worth on paper $100,000.
Isn't the punishment equal in this case? If the goal is to punish the companies so they will not engage in polluting, then the punishment is equal. If you fine Company B $1,000, they will have financial incentive keep polluting.
I'm comparing apples to oranges, but the above example shows how to different punishments can be "equal". It isn't at all analogous to the election dilemma - it's just illustrative of the basic point of varying punishments being equal.
It is not the laws fault if the candidate does not obey the election statutes and bars people from voting for him.
Edit: I got your problem. You think this is an analog problem, but it is a binary problem. If you file your nomination correctly and on time, you get to be on the ballot. If you don't, you don't get to be on the ballot.
Let's say that the quarterback of a major NFL team robs a convenience store. The next day, I rob the same exact convenience store in the exact same way, at the exact same time. I take the same amount of money, use the same force, etc.
If you give us both the same sentence, is that fair? I mean. Putting me in jail punishes my friends, family and listeners, sure. Putting the quarterback in jail punishes many many more people than that. It punishes the team owners who invested so much money in the player. It punishes all the fans who bought tickets to see him play. It punishes all his teammates who now have almost no chance of winning the games the player will miss.
Should the quarterback get a lesser sentence than I get because it will punish others besides himself?
The answer is no. You don't take that shit into account. When you bring a defendent into court, they are faceless. You look only at the nature of what they did. You say "If citizen X did this, what should be the punishment for them?" Who they are, or other circumstances that are not directly related to the illegal activity they engaged in should not be considered at all.
However... if you were abused as a child and suffered from mental illness, I think you should get a lesser punishment than the quarterback. What do you think about that?
And yes, the state says that they acted within the law which is why there is a goddamn lawsuit because the law says something different.
In the UK judges are a lot more free to just use common sense. I actually think that's totally awesome. We need a lot more common sense in this world. Things would be a lot better off if justice were metered out more fairly and more tailored to the individual situations, like you are saying should be done in this situation.
The alternative is to have a lawyer system, as you well know. The letter of the law is king. Think about it. We play board games and RPGs. The words in the rules are extremely important. Any violation of those words on paper can not be tolerated. We spend countless hours making sure that everything is played exactly according to the rules. We even have rules arguments in a simple family game like Villa Paletti.
Either of these systems has its pros and cons, and in all honesty, pick either one. They both seem to work in their own way. The reason we get up in arms is because of inconsistency. You can't use common sense in one case, and then strictly adhere to the letter of the law in another case. We argue against the religous people for doing the same thing. One minute they will interpret the bible literally, then they turn around and claim another passage is a metaphor. You can't pull that shit.
Either we have to have a strict literal interpretation of the law, or we have a loose interpretation where judges get more leeway to make common sense decisions. You can't switch back and forth. You can't give little Joe a literal interpretation and make an exception for Obama.
We have judges who have no choice but to convict and sentence people as sex offenders who did nothing more than urinate in public, or grab a girls arm and scold her for running out into the street, because of the wording of Megan's law. We have injustices like a man who is on death row right now, who probably didn't shoot a cop. We have that kid who was in jail because he got some oral sex in high school, even though the law changed. If judges aren't allowed to make common sense judgments in those situations, you can't go telling me that now that we can suddenly allow common sense to come into play.
However, "I forgot to file" is not a circumstance that warrants different treatment. "I filed incorrectly," according to the law, is a circumstance that warrants different treatment. Think about the IRS: there's a difference between not filing a tax return, and making a mistake on a tax return. They're different circumstances and warrant differential treatment.
And all this aside, you're not throwing away 23 million votes. They can vote for someone else, someone who followed the proper procedure and is a valid candidate for election.
Just as OJ Simpson should pay the same $50.00 fine and costs for running a traffic light that anyone else does, so should McCain be struck from the ballot.
Really, I think it's too difficult to change laws. In my experience developing, implementing, and monitoring management systems, I've found that you need to enforce the system as it exists to the letter, but be very open to changing the system as needed. That way, the best possible system develops naturally as it is implemented, and it is implemented fully to allow for maximum utility and development.
In the real-world case, McCain forgot to deliver himself to the "ice cream shop" that is the state election officials on time, and so he's not supposed to be on the ballot under the law. The voters may be angry, but their right to vote is still there and if it's not for the candidate they wanted, then they have to realize it's entirely that candidate's fault in this case. I left out the Obama situation for the sake of a simpler metaphor, so please forgive me.