Comments on: Endless Elections http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/endless_elections/ Online Journal of Politics and Foreign Affairs Thu, 26 Nov 2009 22:53:54 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: yetanotherjohn http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/endless_elections/comment-page-1/#comment-1016854 yetanotherjohn Sat, 11 Apr 2009 18:00:05 +0000 http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/?p=34567#comment-1016854 Perhaps the problem could be turned into a solution. In this day of computing and the internet, truly go into permanent campaign mode. Voters can vote their support for the current incumbent. When he isn't the top vote winner, put in the new guy. Add in a term limit and the reality of the permanent campaign becomes part of the solution. The incumbent would still have the advantage, but I suspect that people like Dodd would already be on the sidelines. Perhaps the problem could be turned into a solution. In this day of computing and the internet, truly go into permanent campaign mode. Voters can vote their support for the current incumbent. When he isn't the top vote winner, put in the new guy. Add in a term limit and the reality of the permanent campaign becomes part of the solution. The incumbent would still have the advantage, but I suspect that people like Dodd would already be on the sidelines.

]]> By: Charles Fenwick http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/endless_elections/comment-page-1/#comment-1016786 Charles Fenwick Sat, 11 Apr 2009 16:46:17 +0000 http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/?p=34567#comment-1016786 My thought on statistical data for this was that people who work congressional re-districting would have info on this. Browsing around however, I realize that 1. The finished products classify "competitive races" relatively broadly and 2. They are focused on particular states. Still, it seems like someone with access to the CQ databases could crank out numbers fairly quickly. My instinctive response to these sort of situations (where a new trend is claimed without supporting statistical data) is "No, it's not, we're letting our ignorance of the past (and sharp memory of the present) get the better of us." That said, it's plausible to me that an examination of the data would reveal a shrinkage in the number of races that are "kind of close", with a 5-10% margin of victory, and an expansion in the numbers of "truly close" and "non-competitive races". Some grad student out there needs to get cracking on this! My thought on statistical data for this was that people who work congressional re-districting would have info on this. Browsing around however, I realize that 1. The finished products classify "competitive races" relatively broadly and 2. They are focused on particular states. Still, it seems like someone with access to the CQ databases could crank out numbers fairly quickly.

My instinctive response to these sort of situations (where a new trend is claimed without supporting statistical data) is "No, it's not, we're letting our ignorance of the past (and sharp memory of the present) get the better of us."

That said, it's plausible to me that an examination of the data would reveal a shrinkage in the number of races that are "kind of close", with a 5-10% margin of victory, and an expansion in the numbers of "truly close" and "non-competitive races".

Some grad student out there needs to get cracking on this!

]]> By: Steven Taylor http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/endless_elections/comment-page-1/#comment-1016708 Steven Taylor Sat, 11 Apr 2009 15:48:46 +0000 http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/?p=34567#comment-1016708 Some version of a run-off would be an extremely useful solution. While not a 100% guarantee, the likelihood is that it would result in far clearer results in these close cases. We can know with near certainty that it would have in the Minnesota case. Had there been, say, an instantaneous run-off system in place, we would have avoided all of these legal challenges. Some version of a run-off would be an extremely useful solution. While not a 100% guarantee, the likelihood is that it would result in far clearer results in these close cases. We can know with near certainty that it would have in the Minnesota case.

Had there been, say, an instantaneous run-off system in place, we would have avoided all of these legal challenges.

]]> By: odograph http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/endless_elections/comment-page-1/#comment-1016668 odograph Sat, 11 Apr 2009 14:58:02 +0000 http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/?p=34567#comment-1016668 I still like my solution(*), "if the first count is within x% of a tie, automatic run-off election." * - I suppose this sensible approach must be in place somewhere I still like my solution(*), "if the first count is within x% of a tie, automatic run-off election."

* - I suppose this sensible approach must be in place somewhere

]]>