Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
How polls are intellectually lazy
Topic Started: Sep 24 2003, 09:53 AM (457 Views)
benetil
Unregistered

ANOVA
Sep 24 2003, 09:58 PM
. . . If retired General Wesley Clark were the Democratic Party's candidate and George W. Bush were the Republican Party's candidate, who would you be more likely to vote for — Wesley Clark, the Democrat or George W. Bush, the Republican?. . .

I try very hard not to vote for Republican or Democratic candidates - I despise the strangle hold that the two major political parties have on our government.

Last Presidential election, I voted for Ralph Nader (Green Party). If he runs again in 2004 (probable but not a sure thing), I'll vote for him again.

I wish that minor party candidates for President were allowed into the televised debates - ties back to my concerns about the rules that the Republicans and the Democrats make to preserve their hold on power.

Go Nader! :)
| Quote | ^
 
nztrekkie
Lieutenant
benetil
Sep 24 2003, 10:06 PM
ANOVA
Sep 24 2003, 09:58 PM
. . . Finally, can anyone give a legitimate reason why non-voters were polled. This seems odd. A way for polling organisations to keep their reputations while skewing the curve? . . .

ANOVA: the poll was random - the target was adults. The poll differentiated between registered voters and not register voters just to add a layer of detail (I suppose).

I personally think it is fine to allow adults who aren't currently registered to vote to participate in this poll. There is still plenty of time for any of them to register - so their opinions are valid (in my mind).

you don't have to be a registered voter to vote in an election do you ?

only in the Primaries surely ?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
nztrekkie
Lieutenant
Admiralbill_gomec
Sep 24 2003, 10:15 PM
nztrekkie,Sep 24 2003
09:02 PM
You didn't read my question properly - at least I hope that is the issue.

I acknowledged that Sadam killed 10,000 's Kurds in the north and Shia in the south after the uprisings that occurred at each place.

My question was, APART FROM THESE "ONE OFF" INCIDENTS, are there any links which document the claim by some people that Sadam killed HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of Iraqis, each and EVERY year ???????


"In 1993, Human Rights Watch estimated the rural population of the marshlands to be around 200,000, which took into account the huge numbers of army deserters and political opponents seeking shelter in the region after 1991.

Today, there may be as few as 20,000 of the original inhabitants remaining, the rest having fled or migrated to Iran and elsewhere, while an estimated minimum of 100,000 have become internally displaced in Iraq."



These figures simply confirm the figures and reports of the other two reports, which themselves seems to be consistant at least, with what I have read from a variety of sources, including UK and US.

And that is that figures of "hundreds of thousands" killed EVERY year are wildly exaggerated and barring the retribution Saddam took on anyone who fought against his regime after the 91 war - Kurds in the north and Shia's in the south - the ball park figure of his mayhem was much much less. Which is still sickening, but, as I have said right from the beginning of this whole affair, let's try to keep to the "facts".

There's enough fertiliser from other sources as it is.

Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
nztrekkie,Sep 24 2003
11:28 PM
Admiralbill_gomec,Sep 24 2003
10:15 PM
nztrekkie,Sep 24 2003
09:02 PM
You didn't read my question properly - at least I hope that is the issue.

I acknowledged that Sadam killed 10,000 's Kurds in the north and Shia in the south after the uprisings that occurred at each place.

My question was, APART FROM THESE "ONE OFF" INCIDENTS, are there any links which document the claim by some people that Sadam killed HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of Iraqis, each and EVERY year ???????


"In 1993, Human Rights Watch estimated the rural population of the marshlands to be around 200,000, which took into account the huge numbers of army deserters and political opponents seeking shelter in the region after 1991.

Today, there may be as few as 20,000 of the original inhabitants remaining, the rest having fled or migrated to Iran and elsewhere, while an estimated minimum of 100,000 have become internally displaced in Iraq."



These figures simply confirm the figures and reports of the other two reports, which themselves seems to be consistant at least, with what I have read from a variety of sources, including UK and US.

And that is that figures of "hundreds of thousands" killed EVERY year are wildly exaggerated and barring the retribution Saddam took on anyone who fought against his regime after the 91 war - Kurds in the north and Shia's in the south - the ball park figure of his mayhem was much much less. Which is still sickening, but, as I have said right from the beginning of this whole affair, let's try to keep to the "facts".

There's enough fertiliser from other sources as it is.

I never said hundreds of thousands each year. NEVER. I have used the figure of 190,000 total in the past few months over on ST.com.

So then, is 190,000 in ten years okay? What is an acceptable "mass murder per year figure" to you? So, still convinced that Saddam's brutality was a one off incident? I guess stories of people being fed into plastic shredding machines feet first were made up?

By the way, nice job with the quote of me... made it look like I SAID there were hundreds of thousands killed each year when it was YOU WHO SAID IT.

So, yes, let's stick with facts and stop trying to fabricate things out of less-than-whole cloth. Better yet, OPEN YOUR EYES.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
benetil
Unregistered

nztrekkie
Sep 24 2003, 11:06 PM
you don't have to be a registered voter to vote in an election do you ?

only in the Primaries surely ?

nztrekkie: Yes, only individuals who are registered to vote are supposed to be allowed to cast a vote on election day. But some states, such as mine, have "same day registration" which means that with proper identification documents, a person can register to vote on the very day of the election. Some states require advance registration.

As far as Primaries go, that is where Party affiliation is required. But not all states even have "Primary" elections (my state, for instance, doesn't have Primaries, we have a Delegate process that determines the candidate who will represent the Party in the actual election).
| Quote | ^
 
Swidden
Member Avatar
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
"benetil
Posted: Sep 24 2003, 04:17 PM "
* President George W. Bush: a war, a recession, one term


I believe in this case the correct order is:
* An inhereited recession, a war, # of terms
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
benetil
Sep 25 2003, 05:34 AM
nztrekkie: Yes, only individuals who are registered to vote are supposed to be allowed to cast a vote on election day. But some states, such as mine, have "same day registration" which means that with proper identification documents, a person can register to vote on the very day of the election. Some states require advance registration.

As far as Primaries go, that is where Party affiliation is required. But not all states even have "Primary" elections (my state, for instance, doesn't have Primaries, we have a Delegate process that determines the candidate who will represent the Party in the actual election).

Benetil, in what state does this happen?

Same day registration?? Geez, the opportunity for fraud is rampant! Think about it, how many poll officials can tell the difference between a real ID and a fake one, taking into consideration today's technology. Remember, these folks are volunteers, not experts. Illegal aliens have been using fake green cards that look as good as the real, holographic green cards for years.

Here in Texas, the cutoff date for voter registration is October 7th (I think). If you aren't registered, you can't vote in our November 4th mayoral elections. We also voted on 22 amendments to our state constitution on the 13th of this month. You had to be registered by August 16th to participate. This allows time for the voter's application to be verified and added to the rolls of the precinct in which he/she lives.

Before people exclaim how unfair this is, does anyone know how EASY it is to register to vote? You can go to any post office and get the card. You can get a form when you renew your driver's license (I hate this idea because some states give licenses to illegal aliens) as well. Here in Texas, you can ask for a voter registration application by mail or the Internet (it must be mailed in, though).

Just my $0.02.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Swidden
Member Avatar
Adm. Gadfly-at-large; Provisional wRench-fly at large
California requires a two week pre-electio cut-off. This was a compromise between the factions that wanted same-day and those that wnatd to leaev it alone.

I would say that, in this day and age, that even if it is weeks ahead the possibility for fraud is still very high. A few years ago there was a minor scandal involving student at the University of California Santa Cruz (aka UCSC, aka Uncle Chalrie's Summer Camp). Seems they were registered at home and at school residences...
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
benetil
Unregistered

Admiralbill_gomec
Sep 25 2003, 10:16 AM
Benetil, in what state does this happen?

Same day registration?? Geez, the opportunity for fraud is rampant! Think about it, how many poll officials can tell the difference between a real ID and a fake one, taking into consideration today's technology. Remember, these folks are volunteers, not experts. Illegal aliens have been using fake green cards that look as good as the real, holographic green cards for years . . .

Admiralbill_gomec: Minnesota. I think that this (registration the day of an election) has been allowed as a way to include as many "voters" as possible. Voter fraud (rather, fraudulent registration) hasn't been a serious problem in Minnesota insofar as "hot news items" go. I'm sure it does occur, though - as it does everywhere.

I do agree that it is so easy to register to vote that there just isn't a good excuse not to register well in advance of the actual election.

Interesting details about Texas - I didn't know. Sounds like a process that works. Here we have many of the same options and opportunities to register - mail, web, DMV, etc. - just the added "same day" for the occasional procrastinator.
| Quote | ^
 
benetil
Unregistered

Swidden
Sep 25 2003, 09:20 AM
"benetil
Posted: Sep 24 2003, 04:17 PM "
* President George W. Bush: a war, a recession, one term


I believe in this case the correct order is:
* An inhereited recession, a war, # of terms

Swidden: yeah, yeah - ok, fine. :) I offer the following correction . . . as long as the parallel "one term" remains in tact!

President George H. W. Bush: inherited a recession, had a war, served one term, succeeded by a two-term Democrat

President George W. Bush: inherited a recession, had a war, served one term, succeeded by a two-term Democrat

Ha! :) Take care.
| Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
Sorry, but George H.W. Bush did not inherit a recession from Ronald Reagan. Reagan had been out of office for two years when the recession of 1990-91 started. In addition, George W. Bush's recession started two MONTHS after entering office, following a seven TRILLION dollar collapse in the stock market the previous year.

The Dems won't win on the economy.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus