So what did you think would happen in 2008?
January 9th, 2008
-
A look at the Forecaster of the Year numbers
The above table shows the leading predictions for the “what will happen in 2008?” section - there were 106 entries altogether.
Other key findings:
Thanks to everyone who entered the competition, and having the spreadsheet format has speeded up “number-crunching” the predictions by several days - good luck to all the competititors.
The full summary predictions, plus all the entries, are here - please email me at pbpredcomp@yahoo.co.uk if you think any of your predictions appear wrongly on the entries sheet.
Paul Maggs “Double Carpet”
Guest Editor
MessageSpace Advertising
From previous thread:
347. *If* this does build up a head of steam (and even if it’s only the allegations alone towards the Clinton Camp that stick) this could fatally damage her chances on Super-Tuesday.
Think about it…
“HILLARY CLINTON ACCUSED OF GERRYMANDERING MASSIVE VOTE FRAUD IN NEW HAMPSHIRE”
Her whole campaign would be in jeopardy and there’d be a huge swell of sympathetic support towards Obama.
Don’t lay off those Barack Obama bets just yet.
I see some people are already out on the lowest LD share and the lowest Tory lead.
And all you Obama-istas?
SBS,
The poll predictions are on ICM Guardian polls, rather than all polls.
And yes, I’ve got Obama (still think he’ll make it, but not the heavily odds-on choice he was)
I wonder how the Section 1 predictions would have fallen out if the deadline had been a couple of days later …
I went for Clinton on nominee and POTUS - so I am in a minority and love the feeling
Anyone like to predict how long it will take ID cards to be ditched after PMQs today?
5 - well Nick P doesn’t want to bet with me on it!
OT — voter fraud allegations in America have been floating around the web and press for years now: 2004 as well as 2000. Just recently a couple of election workers were jailed for faking the recount in Ohio that meant Bush beat Kerry, with the judge saying he doubted the fraud ended there. Recently some states have “decertified” electronic voting machines after expert analysis.
So we should not get too excited about the Clinton NH allegations. For a start, they seem to have begun with Ron Paul supporters and Paul’s votes certainly did not go to Clinton. I can believe these machines are flaky but not that any campaign is forging votes. And I doubt the mainstream American media will run with this.
A related story that does bear watching is voter suppression by the GOP, normally involving removing Blacks and other likely Democrats from the electoral rolls. The fired attorneys general scandal is tied up with this.
We are fortunate that politics is clean in Britain: no postal votes for honours scandals here.
Former Labour Deputy Leader in Solihul defects to the Conservatives - http://icbirmingham.icnetwork.co.uk/birminghampost/news/tm_headline=solihull-labour-councillor-defects-to-tories%26method=full%26objectid=20331928%26siteid=50002-name_page.html
A thought. As has been pointed out before, if Hillary wins in 2008, and then gets two terms (highly likely) then a Bush or a Clinton will have been in power for 28 years.
But that also means that an American born in 1970 will, by 2016, have spent their entire adult life with a Bush or a Clinton as president. That American will be 46 years old.
This is not good for any democracy: the concentration of power in the hands of such a tiny, cosy elite, swapping the presidency between them. Not good at all.
For that reason alone Clinton must be defeated in 2008. Whether by Obama OR McCain.
9 - sets it up nicely for Chelsea Clinton or one of the Bush girls to be elected in 2016. Or Jeb Bush.
Or Kate Bush?
10. “Or Kate Bush? ”
Running up that (capitol) hill? To make a “deal with God”??
She’d be a Republican, natch.
11 - I am sure that by 2016, Bexleyheath will be part of the US so she will be eligible.
345 (previous thread) Paddypower offering 6/5 for a 25bp cut under Current Affairs.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601102&sid=azIiahpnsthE&refer=uk
Brilliant spot Caveman - yet again! As Betfair is indicating, this would be great value even if the odds were the other way around i.e. 5/6.
1 Don’t lay off those Barack Obama bets just yet.
Again Casino, what a difference a day makes.
From needing your hand held by PtP last night at every turn, I see that you now feel sufficiently confident to dispense your own betting advice!
I don’t know if there will be a separate New Hampshire post mortem thread, but some people obviously won big last night and made the news while I slept through it.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=aRt4uW_49b1o&refer=news
11 / 14 Sorry, “slow learner corner” here! The irony of someone taking the Casino soubriquet needing advice on betting, has only just struck me!!
15 I’ve yet to see anyone on PB.com claiming major profits from the NH result, although there was ample opportunity to do so with the favourite for Democratic outright winner changing at least 5 times during the night and lots of massive odds swings besides.
I can claim an overall profit on the night of just £7.78 or around £1.50 per hour of feverish activity on Betfair!
10. Now there’s a Bush I could vote for:
It’s been such a long week.
So much crying.
I no longer see a future…
Re. 10, George P Bush is already being ‘groomed’ for the future, though Jeb Bush, may run as soon as 2012. I think much of the ‘is this all there is?’ feeling among Republican voters re. the current crop of candidates is down to the fact that Jeb Bush would suit them in most respects, but is disqualified by his surname (the Bush brand being rather contaminated at the moment). That said, Sanford or Owens would go down quite well, but neither feels this is a good year to run.
Kinda surprised to see Bloomberg falling for that sort of “story” - people hit 10,000/1 shots all the time and make a bomb, and the bookie then tries to use the news media for free publicity. Largely people have stopped falling for this.
The other trick bookies try do is claim that if event X (England winning usually, but also Grand national stuff) happens they’ll lose a ton of cash - this is probably a barefaced lie most of the time, given they move the odds to balance their books.
16 “The irony of someone taking the Casino soubriquet needing advice on betting, has only just struck me”
Tim - I recall making exactly the same comment in the early hours of this morning!
Fraud allegations building up a head of steam….
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7753
http://www.bostonnow.com/blogs/boston911truthorg/2008/01/09/major-allegations-of-vote-fraud-in-new-hampshire
http://www.maltastar.com/pages/msFullArt.asp?an=17896
by RodCrosby January 9th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
Rod’s post from the previous thread appears potentially massive - anyone spotted further news over the past two hours in the media? - I couldn’t find anything on the Beeb’s website.
PfP: you asked what I was talking about on the last thread. Not sure why it was mysterious, but to restate:
- Clinotn was ahead of Obama in South Carolina until Iowa, when he got a huge bounce.
- Before NH, the bounce had settled to a 6% lead.
- After NH, it’s reasonable to speculate that Hillary has, say, an even shot at SC
- However, Betfair makes Obama odds-on favourite there.
Hence, an opportunity for those of you who bet? Hope that makes more sense than my last post which baffled you.
21 Sorry, Peter, either I didn’t read yours, or, more likely was half asleep, partly absorbed it, only to plagiarise later!
PfP @ 22 — see 7.
Also, the missing Ron Paul votes turned up:
“I just got off the phone with Jennifer Call, Town Clerk for Sutton. She confirmed that the Ron Paul totals in Sutton were actually 31, and said that they were “left off the tally sheet” and it was human error.”
http://blackboxvoting.org/ (and the site has more fraud allegations)
17. My NH bets for the night:
Romney £5 @ 5/1 - loss of £5
McCain £60 @ 1/10 - profit of £6 (placed after the news companies called it for him)
Hillary £5 @ 5/1 - profit of £25
Hillary LAID £5 @ 2.8/1 - loss of £14 (placed midway through the night. Grrr.)
Total - profit of £12, less commission. Not the biggest win I’ll ever have. What’s more, the £200+ I stand to win on Obama for the nomination looks a good deal more dodgy and I’m only level on Hillary. The similar result on McCain’s looking better though.
All in all, it was never going to be a big win because I simply didn’t feel confident enough to place even a moderate amount of money on. My thinking was that the independents were unlikely to break 50-50, so the core vote was likely to see either Hillary or Romney in. As it turned out, that thinking was out as the independents voted Democrat, voted Obama, but Clinton still won.
22. Some more…
http://www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/5251
http://aangirfan.blogspot.com/2008/01/vote-fraud-in-new-hampshire.html
NH is paper ballots though? Easy to get them recounted, you’d only need a small sample to prove the counting machines were off.
Incidentally, that second site is implying the Israelis were behind it all…… (!)
22/27. How credible are these as sources? I had a look at the first one and it seemed to be assuming foul play just because the results didn’t match the polls. Well, there seem to be plenty of legitimate reasons why that might be the case and they’ve been well examined on here today.
Unless these rumours start hitting the mainstream media - and unless there’s genuine evidence then that’s highly unlikely - this looks unlikely to make much impact.
looks like I’ll be well in the hunt when Mrs Clinton wins then. Come to think of it this is just like the Tote’s 10 to follow when you go rooting for the questions in which you’ve got the minority view.
Latest Michigan poll FWIW after New Hampshire
http://www.rossmanmartin.com/
Mike Huckabee 23%
Mitt Romney 22%
John McCain 18%
You’ve got to love the Dem results with only Hillary on the ballot
Hillary Clinton 48%
“Uncommitted” 28%
“unsure” 11%
“other” 10%
re 17 PfP I made £13 but then I put a tenner on Hillary on Sunday and went to bed early last night. Just catching up with the excitement of last night and I noticed someone claiming to have backed Hillary at 100/1 and laid her off at evens and was approx £200 up whoever won.
22, 27. There are much better sites than this for your conspiracy theories and you’ll be among like minded people. And when you get bored with New Hampshire you can find out how the Twin Towers weren’t really hit by planes but by special weapons planted by the CIA and invented by Martians…….
33
how the Twin Towers weren’t really hit by planes but by special weapons planted by the CIA and invented by Martians…….
Thank God ! I thought I was the only one who had realised that.
Casting aside the issue of potential vote fraud for the minute, the American Spectator has an analysis of some of the other reasons Clinton beat Obama: http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12552
For those who don’t want to read it, they are:
1) New Hampshire voters being purposely contrary, and voting for Clinton simply because Iowa didn’t.
2) The Bradley effect - in US politics, black candidates traditionally do worse in actual elections than the pre-election polls suggest.
3) The ‘Clinton crying’ episode, generated her plenty of sympathy by showing her human side.
4) The Clinton ‘political machine’ is stronger and better organised than Obama’s.
That all seems reasonable to me, and adds up to as decent an explanation as any… though of course if those vote fraud allegations have any substance to them, it may be all somewhat irrelevant.
(By the way, the American Spectator is entirely unrelated to the Spectator of Boris Johnson fame, and in fact has a generally left-wing editorial stance rather than a right-wing one. Just thought I’d make that clear.)
For me, the reason why Hillary won is simple. Hillary had the support of the woman who was president of the party for 8 years in NH, this means that she surely knew some Democratic voters, and ask them to help Hillary campaign. Hillary was better prepared, because she always thought(maybe not she, not Penn, but others in her campaign) she could lose Iowa, so she focused in NH. Besides, she gained many voters when she cried. As Alisdair put it, all this will be irrelevant if there was fraud.
Gosh - what a night. Missed this one. Lost out as all my bets were on Obama… went to bed thinking I was nicely up!
Many of us have mentioned lately how vibrant and inclusive the American system is compared to ours.
However, there’s one thing to be said for our system - it’s harder to gerrymander or defraud if votes are cast on pieces of real paper by real people with a pencil on a bit of string, and are counted by real people in front of real people who are scrutinising each ballot and keeping their own tally, where ballots are kept for a year and a day (just in case…)
e-voting, text voting, phone voting, or electronic counting machines for the next GE, anyone?
Between 1952 and 2004 there was only one US Presidential election (1964) in which the name Nixon, Bush or Dole did not appear on the ballot.
1. Interesting results of the predictions, we shall see the the huge Obama predictions stand or fall, I think they will fall and Hilary will now get on a roll.
2. As for the Democrats NH primary, a serious warning never to underestimate the Clinton’s. If you get the chance tof inish them off, you have to do it, Obama failed last night.
3. The GOP primary, good win for McCain which probably takes Romney out of the race. Looks like a Guilliani, McCain, Huckerby battle from now on. Willthey go for a moderate, or will the evangelical wing swing it for Huckerby, they are a group in GOP politics not to be written-off.
4. As for PMQ’s, thought Clegg did ok, the Cameron-Brown slanging match was a score draw, Cameron won the ID section of the debate, Brown was much better on the technicalities of the economy. The stuff about Black Wednesday and Brown supporting CND was just childish from both of them, but hey, polcitics is part showbusinesses.
23 - Nick, many thanks for taking the trouble to explain the logic behind backing Hillary to win South Carolina - I agree this looks attractice and, as Casino would say, I’ve availed myself!
Like you, I was up half the night watching the NH drama unfold and when you first posted this opportunity my brain just couldn’t absorb it.
33. ‘fraid the allegations of voter fraud across the pond are long-standing, authoritive and not the province of “conspiracy theorists”
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen
http://www.electiondefensealliance.org/fingerprints_election_theft
http://www.protectcaliforniaballots.org/Pages/OnLineRef01.htm
“America: the greatest democracy that money can buy!”
$1 = 1 vote…
I’ll post this again and sorry if its so mundane.
Clinton’s support in NH was simply bigger to start with and had deeper roots than in Iowa. It thus held up better against the Obama swing.
In Iowa, the depth of support wasnt there, it wasnt as robust and Clinton’s organisation there wasnt as strong
Chuck in that Edwards wasnt as strong a canadidate in NH and its perfectly viable for Clinton to motivate enough people to vote in her favour to get there.
There was a swing to Obama over the course of the campaign in NH, it just wasnt enough.
“What a difference a day makes”
I’m almost bursting into song!
Last night - hundreds and hundreds of posts throughout the night, necessitating three threads to bear the load. This evening, barely 40 posts over the past three hours.
44. Its exhaustion. Lets be honest, PMQ’s just dont match up to the process of selecting the most powerful person on earth.
Another Michigan poll taken before New Hampshire: McCain 29, Romney 20, Huckabee 18
http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YmY1OWZmNmJlZjA3ZGZkMzE2YTlmYTUyYWY3NWMzY2Q=
McCain last traded at 60 (e.g. 4/6) on Intrade, so some small value in the Betfair prices of 1.2/1.
46. MI is McCain’s best chance, I think SC could be beyond him. The race in the latter would only go his way with a surge on his part and also a very even split between some of the the others.
The other possible plus he has in MI is that the Dem race there is a non eevent and I believe Independents can vote in Michighan so, on paper, he could get a boost.
At those odds though, not sure. He was a bit more attractive before yesterday mind you.
Something of interest in SC is the fate of Big Fred. Bearing in mind he was a favourite there at one time it’ll be interesting to see if he can hold on to a respectable figure or indeed rise.If he slips closer to polling day it’ll be interesting to see if we can follow where his vote is going. My own guess is that Huckabee at one end and McCain at the other could do better out of any further Fred fade there.
44 it is also the lack of sleep, went to bed at 4 back up at 7:30, pretty successful though even if I did have a foolish wobble on Obama at one point caused by monitoring Intrade and reading tales of hordes of Obama supporting students who in the end proved to be a mirage. It is a problem not understanding the detail of the election, here I would understand the nuances and hopefully be able to sort useful info from wild rumour but not so in the US. I did manage see the opportunity when HC lead from the early returns and picked up some good prices on Betfair, and managed to buy and sell appropriately on Spreadfair. Intrade looked to be only for those with nerves of steel the market was moving very quickly and it would have been easy to loose big time very quickly.
47. Yokel, agreed SC will be tight but Fred might take enough Southern votes from Huckabee to allow McCain to edge it. If I remember rightly there’s a big military population in SC who will back him big time.
I’ve still got a soft spot for old Fred, and I think any endorsement from him could be pivotal especially in Florida if he drops out after SC. I don’t know if anyone has posted these any links to these guys before but I get my Fred Thompson redneck fix here:
http://www.travisandjonathan.com/RedStateUpdate
Re fraud - the point surely is that we have separate results by County (and possibly by precinct?). As no particular County looks way out of line, if there was fraud there would have to be a whole host of separate frauds taking place in all (or the majority of) the different Counties.
This makes the allegations of fraud seem extremely unlikely.
Re Post 7 - I didn’t think there was a recount in Ohio in 2004. Don’t remember the exact figures but I recall Bush won Ohio by over 100,000 votes.
Just watched today’s PMQs properly having missed the real gem of today when viewing online earlier whilst at “work”.
So here’s a prediction for 2008. When Jimmy Carr presents Ch4’s “Top 100 Comedy Moments of 2008″ next Christmas, I’d be amazed if the moment of pure joy at 10mins 38secs into today’s PMQs doesn’t feature in the top 20 at least. When GB - completely deadpan and with perfect comic timing - has the sheer brasskneckery to upbraid Dave over his “pre-rehearsed lines, all these pre-rehearsed lines in front of the mirror”, the explosion of laughter and hoots of derision around the house, not to mention the way Osborne, Cameron and Davis are literally thrown 2 feet forward in sheer mirth - is a real sight to behold. Even Alan Johnson is biting his lip, like that centurion in Life of Brian trying to compose himself at the mention of Biggus Dickus.
Do watch it online if you missed it. It’s a blast.
I didn’t realise Gordon had it in him!
oops - “brassneckery”
must have got my “knees” and “necks” confused. been a long day…
48. Yeah dozed off just around 8 tonight myself after last nights pb.com equivalent of a lock-in.
The nuance issue is certainly a fair one. I tend to think politics and its betting in a fairly wide, high level way, tidal I suppose. The minuate is often beyond me and also just messes with my equilibrium at times. All too easy to swing back and forth with every little bit of information. PB.com is great but there is often a massive flow of information and detail that needs filtering.
Although I had held out against the pb.com hordes over Clinton’s propsects in NH the original bet on her was small and I thought I’d done my money within hours when all those post Iowa polls came out showing Obama ahead and by some margin. I found them surprising but took them pretty much at face value. On the night though there were early signals that this wasnt the Obama sweep. For a start the stories of Obama by single digits began to emerge but the real clincher was Clinton’s own camp who were saying this was a closer race than you’d think.
Given that her campaign had been managing expectations and downplaying NH this was one heck of a signal. They couldnt afford to make a claim like that unless they really meant it. I took the view instantly that it was straight bat stuff and with Clinton’s price being huge it wasnt going to break the stake bank to make profit if a close race resulted.
Factor in a market that swung on every vote counted as they were counting and the profit on the night far exceeded the orignal bet winnings.
The last factor is something that bodes well for punters if it continues. There is clearly a chase the money herd instinct combined with too much information available by the minute. The media flood could prove immensely friendly.
51 Bob - please, please upload the magic moments onto you tube for posterity. I do recall Dave, George & Co. doing their Smash men impressions and the Postie unsuccessfully attempting to conceal his glee!
54 - not got it on my pc to upload - been watching it on the BBC website, here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_7170000/newsid_7178600/7178666.stm?bw=bb&mp=wm&news=1&bbcws=1
51. Just seen the clips again and can’t help but think there could be a great Blackadder based on current times.
Pure ham on both sides.
Another PMQs gem, Louise Ellman (a Liverpool MP) just asked a toadying question about the City of Culture celebrations, then sat down to receive a metaphorical pat on the back from her best friend next to her, Quentin Davies.
They must have so much in common, discussing the problems of Liverpool’s inner cities - the unemployment, the black market economy, the crack dens, the welfare spongers.
They probably went for a nice cup of tea in the Commons tearoom right afterwards…
49. Interesting that you think McCain has a better chance of taking SC than I do. I can see your logic and he’d offer an interesting bet compared to him in MI.
Fred is one of my betting heros of this whole process. He did me well simply by planning to run then running like a donkey. In fact he took my interest again briefly on the basis that if he could hang on in for a bit coudld he benefit from his perceived relatively balanced mix of social & fiscal conservatism. Then I concluded he wouldnt hang in and turned my attention to Rudy.
There is a fair veteran group down there in SC as well as active miltary facilities.
The thing that sticks in my head though is how McCain was absolutely thumped there in 2000. This time it wouldnt be fatal but it was a political assasination of the most decisive kind.
I’m trying to get my way through the trasnfer of allegiances between candidates and broadly I’m thinking (guessing) as follows:
Hucakbee & Fred would show a fair transfer between their bases. Fred seems to score quite well as the alternative to Huckabee for the social conservative vote, if not quite the literal word of the bible types.
Romney failing may see a bit of his vote shedding to McCain and possibly Guiliani as the latter is probably the nearest to an establishment candidate other than Romney himself. Romney, Guiliani & McCain all have some claims on the classic republican fiscal conservative side.
Fred I have always believed has an overlap with McCain in some pools, potentially again fiscal conservatives who also carry socially conservative views and would have to decide between which one would rule their thinking because outside Fred there isnt anyone who could really offer a strong position across both. Maybe Romney but his fade is an issue since he is reportedly making his last stand in MI.
These combinations can go on forever so I’ll stop there give my comments on the problems of minuate that I posted above.
One final thing is money. Fred is reportedly skint, McCain can now hopefully tap into people who’d lihe to support but wanted to wait until he won something. Romney is reportedly losing financial support though can fund a bit longer. Huckabee, no idea. Rudy, no idea. The last only needs to do well but not spectacularly when he properly enters the race and suddenly I think he’ll get a lot of coverage and his position on the spreads in particular will change. I’m trying to ID that possible point because hitting it at tipping point could prove profitable.
54, Anyone else think that in event of Gordon failure, Johnson is the kind of departure from before candidate that could sweep to the top?
59 Well, he was tipped to stand against GB last year until he was advised to play safe and go for the supposed “Gimme” meaningless Deputy Leadership role. Probably, therefore his opportunity has passed as next time, one feels Labour will probably skip a generation and maybe like Dave and the Tories, we haven’t yet spotted who this star in the making is destined to be.
33 I thought it was Mossad who was responsible for the Twin Towers.
Take many of these allegations of voter fraud with a pinch of salt, IMHO. Oswald Mosley reckoned voter fraud stopped him being elected for North Kensington in 1959.
58. Yokel, the story linked below is a good take on SC. Fortunately its on a Sat 19, so I might be able to stay up for it.
http://race42008.com/2008/01/09/thompson-fighting-uphill-battle-against-mccainhuckabee-in-palmetto-state/
Night all.
60 (cont’d)….. but I would suggest almost certainly English and quite possibly female. Answers on a postcard please.
60 (cont’d, cont’d) …. and most certainly not Peter Hain, please God, who anyway doesn’t meet either of the above criteria.
hi, just popping in,
anyone thing ny mayor bloomberg might be worth a punt, rumours now starting that he is thinking of entering the republican race
AP: Richardson drops out of Democratic race….
66. Should help Clinton. Will Edwards be the Nader for Obama-supporters?
65. Personally, I don’t think Bloomberg would bother entering against a Democratic New Yorker (Clinton), or a uniter candidate (Obama).
In terms of Michigan, there is very little campaigning going on there. I think that should help Romney. I’m expecting Mitt’s vote to collapse there, but I’m going to guess he’ll just hang on.
Can’t see McCain winning South Carolina, unless he gets Michigan first. Even though it’d be tough- Southern Republicans dislike McCain’s friendliness with Northeastern liberals, and Evangelicals will help Huckabee,
The story about potential fraud raises a point I missed, why on earth are they using machines when there aren’t that many votes to count?!? Are they completely innumerate in New Hampshire or something?
I’ve said it before but the use of machine voting and counting is madness, it means that those who do not win can always give a convincing case that the result should not stand. You cannot trust the results done this way, period. I hadn’t bet on this race but I try and avoid contests where machines are used extensively, if there’s a paper trail then okay but, in that case, both should be counted and then compared so we have a trustworthy result.
On the Obama/Clinton thing, one sobering factor needs to be confronted by the Dems, stemming from the fact that Obama will always be seen as a black candidate and Clinton as a woman candidate. In Iowa Obama got votes from a massively white population to win, in NH Clinton won because she got more women to vote for her. In essence it shows two contrasting ways of campaigning and ideology, I don’t think the problem of going for the latter one needs spelling out.
38, and on electronic voting in general:
As far as the concept goes, it should be possible to implement your electronic voting systems more securely than paper ballots, which are already subject to all kinds of well-documented exploits, especially by insiders (ballot box stuffing etc.) The problem is that in the US, they’ve done things in a way that indicates that they are either incredibly stupid or intent on fraud. I would suspect both. See http://blackboxvoting.org/ for more details on the whole thing.
There are some key requirements you’d expect in a democracy for the voting system, and voters shouldn’t accept any system that doesn’t fulfil them. One is that the whole system, from start to finish, should be Open Source, so that anyone can inspect it, with a bunch of ways to check that the software actually running on the machines is the same as the software that you inspected. If we haven’t got that, we shouldn’t use electronic voting.
Even if you did have the political will to do this right, I can’t see much point in implementing electronic voting for UK elections as they stand because our whole political system is already optimized to work around the limitations of paper voting. (Infrequent elections, voting for representatives, that kind of thing.)
If you did want to bring in electronic voting (I think you should be able to vote on any computer you can use to access your bank account) it would be so that you could improve your political system. There are all kinds of things you could do if you were no longer constrained by the logistical problems of getting people to the voting booths whenever you needed to make a decision. Guest-blogged on this the other day here:
http://orangebyname.blogspot.com/2008/01/guest-feature-constitutional-qwerty.html
Incidentally, one thing that is even worse in a lot of ways is the way they currently run postal voting in the UK. This would definitely be better replaced by a system allowing you to vote at home using your computer, as described here:
http://edmundintokyo.wordpress.com/2008/01/07/how-to-vote-securely-over-the-internet/
Finally, on the New Hampshire thing - doesn’t look like there’s any definitive evidence, although it all seems a bit fishy. If I was Obama right now I’d be seeing if I could find a way to discreetly verify these paper ballots; Unfortunately it’s probably impossible for him to do this without attracting a lot of accompanying press attention and looking like a sore loser - which probably means that we’ll never know what happened here, if anything.
62. Makes sense to me. I like backing in tighter races and already have some expsoure on SC thanks to Victor Chandler a while back.
I think I’ll look at SC again. I had previously ruled out Fred whe betting with VC and given he was their favourite at the time allowed me to play about quite well.
From my current position theres a good possibility of getting all green on all the people who count in this primary. I need more activity on the exchanges though just to beef up the stake potential, but that should come.
60. I don’t know. Johnson has waltzed through Health fairly well so far and in fact is keeping his head down. Not a bad approach.
65 The Bloomberg story has been doing the rounds for the past week or so, especially since shadsy posted here that Ladbrokes had taken a single £6K bet on him and had consequently halved their odds, iirc, to 16-1. A number of bookies are now offering him as well as Betfair, but the consensus view on here has been that it is an exercise in fishing for mugs’ money.
68. This rumour that Bloomberg would best like a Obama/Romney card to take on baffles me but I think its flip of coin stuff whether he runs.
Its possible he’ll see the current knife nature of the battles as signifying he could do damage. He may not feel that way after Super Tuesday though where on the Democrat side at least I think the clouds will clear.
“knife edge”
70. Huge amounts of money get stolen and directed elsewhere because of personal e-banking. Thankfully, people can check to see what happened to their money and why statements don’t match etc. This is impossible with voting unless we keep records of how people voted. Which means the anonymous ballot is threatened.
71 DoH - the graveyard of so many hitherto supposedly competent ministers. Give it time, give it time, the land mines are all there in place, he just needs to place his size 11 daisy roots onto one or two of them.
So the two Michigan polls quoted above at 31 and 46 (in reverse order) show Huckabee bursting into the lead after NH? Seems odd as you’d think if anyone got a bounce on the GOP side it’d be McCain, yet seemingly he’s dropped back to third?
Ah, solved the mystery - contrary to post 31, that poll was taken Jan 6/7.
I can’t remember whose message it was a few threads ago that this is responding to, but anyway:
If Hilllary Cllinton becomes President, she will be just the same as all the men who have been president - gallumphing around the world being just as ruthless, warmongering, institutionalised, establishment, warmongering, spin, not doing anything significant for the economy or healthcare, soundbites, etc.
President Obama would only be slightly better - get out of Iraq perhaps, but still all the well-established institutional self-interests and exploitation of the world economy, exploitation of the third world, neo-imperialist attitudes, only slightly more progressive in terms of the domestic economy.
Do not fall into the trap of thinking that Obama’s election as president would be hailed by the third world and the DPRK and Cuba as some sort of new messiah of independence and freedom and progress and non-exploitation; the whole structure of the world’s economy and exploitation is too firmly established for any great change.
77. Polls, you trust the polls?
Certainly if McCain was that far down in MI I’d fear for him.
Thing is, where else can he win after SC & MI with the grand entrance of Guiliani like some some dame swishing in fashionably late?
I’d love to know where they think the key oppsotunities lie.
79. Come on John, politics is a power game,its a question of how that power is used.
Given human nature which clearly has its selfish side its bound to be used in a self interest kind of way at times, be it of an individual, a group or a country.
In an ideal world its a matter of maximising the amount of use that power is put to for a more universial good…..universial good being a very elusive concept as it is.
79 Why do you regularly insist on mis-spelling the former First Lady’s name thus Hilllary?
Try googling your version and you’ll find it makes an ‘ell of a difference.
Oi! (it’s the way I tell ‘em you know).
The only way I can see electronic voting, at the moment, is if each individual vote leaves a paper trail that can be verified (which would kill the system through sheer expense). On current examples, I don’t think people would accept it - although it might be useful to allow parish counciils to use electronic voting if they want to, and monitor the results.
82. I found myself calling her Hilz last night, probably due to the fact she was adding to the weight of my wallet…..
That joke deserved primetime not a late night slot….
85 Yokel - tell me about it, what a waste of good talent!
82 I mentioned that the other day, PfP. He does it deliberately. He presumably thinks it’s amusing.
86 Hilllarious, I’m sure.
Blimey, I’m sharp tonight!
87 Remember the witty souls who persistently referred to Tony Bliar? :yawn:
Must be bedtime.
88 Cheers, Peter
Obama secures the Nevada Union..
http://www.koin.com/Global/story.asp?S=7600881
79. Obama himself has argued for more aid to the third world. How is that exploitative self-interest? The ones screwing the developing country are the protectionists like Edwards, who unfairly give an advantage to domestic products over foreign ones.
The way the hard left tells it, if I build a table and sell it to someone, I’m being exploited. The idea that all trade is exploitative is ridiculous, and ignore the fact that different people value different things differently. Most of the left realised this a decade ago. Why do some continue to insist on ignoring it?
The only type of trade that is exploitative is that when the buyer or the seller doesn’t have a choice to go elsewhere, thus giving one trader huge market power over the other. We should concentrate on encouraging more firms to sell to the third world, to disrupt existing monopolies, and drive down prices to make them more affordable for the end user. We should also remove the trade barriers which stop the global poor selling to us on an even playing field.
For some reason, hardcore socialists oppose this. Is it perhaps because they care more about helping the domestic poor rather than the foreign poor, even though the domestic poor are relatively rich? Class interest anyone…?
79. It must have been a Freudian slip that I wrote “warmongering” twice in the same sentence.
81. That is exactly my point. I was responding to someone a few days ago who wrote that Obama would be welcomed as a big change even by Iran and the DPRK for example (unless I misread or misremembered something).
82. To make fun of the fact that it is mis-spelt in the first pllace with 2 Ls instead of 3.
86. Satire is not necessarily meant to be funny.
91. Aid from the rich world to the third world is often bound up with conditions and restrictions which are dictated by the imbalance of economic power by the World Bnak, the IMF etc, and are counter-productive in the long term.
92. (82.)
To make fun of the fact that it is mis-spelt in the first pllace with 2 Ls instead of 1.
(whoops)
87. Ha ha ha ha ha - I nearly missed that one on the way past
58 Yokel
re South Carolina GOP Primary
I think you are on the right track. A few thoughts
- Age is not a problem in SC elections. Strom Thurmond was relected at 92 !
- South Carolina is a conservative place in the general sense and insurgent, populist candidacies do not historically do that well there. McCain lost to Bush, Pat Robertson lost to Bush Snr, Buchanan lost to Bush and Dole.
- The reason for this is the state Republican machine there. If you thought the Clinton machine in NH was good, the Republican one in SC is better still. They deliver for their candidate, who will generally be a pro business low tax mainstream conservative. SC Republicans really hate taxes.
- The candidate who probably best fits the profile politically is Romney or Thompson. (Romney has been endorsed by Senator DeMint) Their priority however will be making sure that Huckabee doesn’t win in a split field.
Leads me to conclude that if Huckabee is still in it, esp if he does well in Michigan and Romney doesn’t, then the machine will kick in and reluctantly support McCain to stop him.
I’d wait until Sunday before betting…
95. Thurmond was (IIRC) re-elected at the age of 94 let alone 92. He retired as Senator only just before his 100th birthday.
92. Yes, conditions which insist on policies that have been proven by study after study to improve countries’ development. After millions of dollars of aid were wasted on Import Substitution practices, it makes sense to encourage policies which will make sure the aid is put to good use. The huge discrepancy between the performance of the Eastern and Western economies have shown that statist policies do not work. The fact that academic analysis is so ignored by those arguing for state control is testament to the fact that the socialist left is becoming as anti-intellectual as the religious right.
Socrates@75 (on the electronic voting tangent)
Obviously the same kind of attacks you get with e-banking are an issue for voting online; The big risks are tricking someone into divulging their passwords (phishing etc) and stealing their accounts having compromised their PCs. That said:
a) The amount stolen through abuse of e-banking is “huge” in the “if I received that amount of money I would be very happy” sense, but probably not “huge” in the grand scheme of things - for example, as a proportion of the amount of money theoretically accessible through e-banking. I don’t have any specific numbers, but my guess would be that as a percentage that number is fairly miniscule.
b) In most cases stealing someone’s money is probably going to be more attractive than stealing their votes, so the risk would be lower for e-voting than for e-banking. (Although people care more about their money than their votes, so there is a risk that they’d be less careful.)
c) There a few things that the government could do to make both e-banking and e-voting safer; For example, they could educate people from primary school about how to manage passwords and how to verify that a website is what is says it is - they already teach us life skills like how to cross the road safely in school, so they should really be teaching how to use our computers safely. And they could mandate/encourage making PCs easily bootable from CDs - that would allow them (and banks) to distribute CDs with their own secure OS on them, thus bypassing people’s Windows PCs (which have already been owned by Chinese spammers).
And you wouldn’t necessarily need to store all the data about how somebody had voted to allow them to check if their authentication details had been stolen and misused; You could cover most cases just by only storing - say - a history of _when_ you voted on what.
Yesterdays’ news now, but I didn’t see that New Hampshire result coming at all - a sobering lesson to the posters who were declaring that momentum from Iowa was everything. Just maybe, at the end of the day, even Aericans vote for their favourite candidate rather than who they are told to, although that doesn’t explain those stinking opinion polls -makes us realise how lucky we are with the accuracy and amount of polling over here.
Good to see Clegg off to a solid start, there is probably a space in the market for a ‘no Punch +Judy, and unlike Cameron I mean it’ party leader. Look forward to seeing him pursuing this sty;e at length as he needs the party ore than anything to be taken seriously.
And finally, if Kerry Katona was responsible for the founding of pb.c, can we not have her in the masthead?
I think Darling is in for a rough ride if the economy goes south, even though he isn’t responsible for any of it. He’d certainly make a nice scapegoat for Gordon towards the end of next year.
http://lettersfromatory.wordpress.com
test
100. Yes Brown is primarily responsible. However Darling as ex Chief Secretary, ex Minister for Social Security and also Pensions is partly to blame. Those Ministers which over several years allowed Brown to dominate the cabinet are all partly to blame for the economic mess we are in.