I have a new article on Primer this week: 5 Easy to Remember Math Tricks That You Can’t Live Without. Check it out and leave feedback in the comments (on either site).

I downloaded polling data from November 3rd and election results from November 4th from electoral-vote.com. The polling data is a compiled average of polls from a variety of sources such as Rasmussen, SurveyUSA, Research 2000, and many more. I compared actual voting results to the work of professional pollsters on a state by state basis. The average difference between the polling data and actual votes over all 50 states and the District of Columbia was only 3%. Two states and Washington D.C. differed by 10% or more. In each case the polls had understated Obama’s lead, not overstated it.

In the swing state of Ohio polls predicted an Obama win by 5% and election results revealed a 3% margin of victory. In the swing state of Florida polls predicted an Obama win by 4% and election results revealed a 2% margin of victory. Virginia’s margin of victory was overstated by only 1%. These are the few relevant instances where an important Obama victory was overstated, and even then the error was not egregious. In most states the victor’s margin of victory was understated, making the race appear closer than reality. This held true for Obama and McCain (McCain victories were sometimes understated as well). I’m guessing that sometimes pollsters try to poll an even mix of demographics when the state itself may not be an even mix, which could lead to understated victories if demographics tend to vote together.

On November 3rd this method predicted an electoral college victory for Obama by 353-185. Current count of votes reveals the victory to be 365-162 with Missouri’s 11 electoral votes still undecided. Once again, the polls understated Obama’s victory.

What’s my point?

1. Instead of tackling the problem head-on conservatives put their heads in the sand like an elephant crossed with an ostrich and pretended that McCain’s eminent defeat wasn’t happening. However, the Republican strategy was always to show why Obama should not be president, and not give great reasons why McCain should be president, so perhaps there was little strategy to employ that late in the game. This lack of strategy stemmed from the critical error of choosing a nominee with soft conservative credentials.

2. Polls aren’t always correct. Look at the ~10% differences cited above, the Bradley Effect, etc. However, they are usually pretty good within their stated margins of error. Professional pollsters know how to take polls because they earn their living that way! Their polls have to be accurate most of the time in order for the results to be believed and therefore to sell their product! What I heard the week prior to the election was akin to a layman disputing the diagnosis of a problem with his Honda Civic with seven different mechanics that all delivered the same diagnosis. His grounds: “This simply can’t happen to a Civic. You all must be wrong. You just want my Civic to have a problem because you’re biased!”

Do biased polls get reported as fact? Yes. Are some polling methods less than perfect? Yes. Should you blindly believe every poll from a professional pollster? No.

Did many conservatives deny the reality reported by multiple, reputable, professional pollsters the week before the presidential election? 100% yes +/- 0%

I am participating in a project with purplestates.tv that interviews one blogger from each state for fifty consecutive days. The interview takes the form of a video recording my answers to several questions. The video is now live here. The 2.5 minutes is compiled from many minutes of footage I submitted, so if something sounds a little abrupt (info about my tour in Iraq, the financial crisis, etc) it’s likely part of a much longer answer or broader context that didn’t make the final cut. Thanks to PurpleStates for choosing me to represent Alabama and for advocating intelligent discourse from all sides of the political spectrum.

1. A vote for anyone other than John McCain is a vote for Barack Obama.

Did I miss something? Is someone going to change my vote after I leave my polling location? A vote for Joe Blow is a vote for Joe Blow–period. I have no moral or legal obligation to help one of the major party candidates enter the Whitehouse. I have no obligation to help John McCain triumph over Barack Obama, or vice versa. This argument presents the third party voter with a false dichotomy. Traditional economic theory advocates that the best result arises when every individual acts in his own self-interests. This reasoning holds in voting as well. The best result arises when everyone votes for the candidate he thinks is best qualified for a position.

2. Your vote was wasted.

How quaint that you get to define the value of other people’s votes. The reason someone claims the vote was “wasted” is because it was not cast for one of the likely winners. The accuser uses the knowledge of likely winners of a contest to determine the conduct of a contest, which is flawed. We do not kick the other swimmers out of the pool simply because Michael Phelps is participating. In fact, the full participation of the other swimmers is necessary to give legitimacy to Phelps’ win if he earns it, and we all expect the other swimmers to perform to the best of their ability and not hold anything back simply because Phelps is the likely winner.

3. Your vote didn’t make a difference.

Exactly how much difference did your vote make? Our votes were counted equally. You cast your vote for a likely winner. I did not. Unless the race is chosen by one individual’s vote then both our votes were technically irrelevant. However, I voted my conscience. Did you? Who has the moral high ground?

All of these arguments and all similar lines of reasoning assume the winner is known (to be one of two contestants) before the race begins, and that this should influence the conduct of the contest. This assumption is deeply flawed. We hold a contest to decide a winner. In a fair and legitimate contest we do not let the likely winner determine the way the contest is conducted or how much effort is expended to upset the likely winner.

In the larger political picture, the two-party voter line of reasoning leads to inferior conservative candidates like John McCain. If you believe the two-party system is a problem, as I do, then advocating that everyone should vote for one of only two presidential candidates is being part of the problem and not the solution. This is not to say that everyone should vote for a third-party candidate. Vote for the candidate you think is best– whether that’s John McCain, Barack Obama, Chuck Baldwin, Ralph Nader, Ron Paul, or someone else. However, the condescension, ignorance, and downright aggression I see exhibited towards third-party voters is appalling. Don’t listen to those who try to minimize your participation. Either their logic is flawed or they lack the courage to take a non-traditional position (and likely resent you for doing so). Neither is a label that I want to wear.

1. Ever since Senators Obama and McCain secured their parties’ nominations each has run a strikingly similar campaign: talk about Obama. I think this has been extremely effective…for Senator Obama. Yes, he’s gotten dirty and slung some mud along with Senator McCain, but the overall theme of his campaign has been about what he plans to do as president. McCain’s theme has roughly been, “You really don’t want ‘that one’ as your president.” This has been contagious and has infiltrated almost every outspoken McCain supporter in the media (and especially talk radio).

Last week I listened to conservative talk radio as I worked doing some tedious manual labor. I don’t have transcripts to do a keyword search, but I’ll put a solid 95% confidence that between Neal Bortz, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity I heard the following words repeated at least this many times during a single day of programming:

Obama: 164
Socialism/-ist: 75
Ayers: 67
Wright: 59
Spread the wealth: 61

Compare that to

McCain: 24
Palin: 53
Joe the Plumber: 44

and

Liberty: 5
Freedom: 7
Conservative: 12

I really don’t think you can scare undecided voters into voting for McCain in this way. Then again, the mind of a voter undecided between McCain and Obama this late in the game is a quagmire that Freud himself couldn’t navigate. Perhaps scare tactics like this can penetrate the mushy labyrinth atop the shoulders of the 11 remaining undecided voters, but I hesitate to call this strategy widely useful.

2. Those sneaky liberals. They’ve already penetrated the media, Hollywood, and every Toyota Prius. Now they’ve infiltrated the polls. While polls were extremely credible, reliable, and fair game to quote as fact just a few months ago, conservative commentators everywhere have now turned to exposing the liberal bias in polls rather than examining the polls’ implications. If there’s one thing I despise it’s an apologist that won’t concede even one tiny flaw in his argument, even when it is staring everyone straight in the face. However, today we see that many conservatives are simply unwilling to fathom the idea that the majority of voters may actually intend to vote for Obama. Hey, I’m a conservative. I don’t like it either. But much like death, taxes, and morning lipcrust, it simply is. I’m sure this strategy boils down to, “People tend to vote for the more popular candidate, so you can’t concede that your candidate is less popular.” However, it’s disgusting because I thought conservative idealism is supposed to be above that. I thought that when you have principles to stand on like limited government, low taxes, individual liberty, individual responsibility, and fiscal discipline that you shouldn’t need to attract the mental comatose that decides his president based on popularity. Perhaps I’m wrong. It’s happened before.

3. Is it just me, or has the McCain camp’s rhetoric started to sound like a weird self-fulfilling prophecy? It seems like all I hear from McCain is, “When Barack Obama is president, he is going to raise your taxes.” It almost seems like he’s decided to move into full “I told you so” mode a week before the election.

4. In Germany it is illegal to depict Hitler in art positively. In Austria it is illegal to deny the holocaust. In Russia political pundits that are not informally “approved” by the government to be shown on TV are digitally removed from broadcasts. In France it is illegal to photograph police, even in public places. In China the government requires you to live and work in the geographic area of your birth. Sure, you knew that third-world crapholes often oppressed their citizens and denied them basic rights, but did you realize exactly how different we are–even from some of our NATO allies and economic competitors?

In January 2009 the most powerful leader in the world will voluntarily abdicate his power and peaceably transfer it to someone else. This is also not something to take lightly, but we’ve been doing it successfully for over 200 years. No matter who wins on Tuesday, our government has as its foundation the most powerful, peculiar, and liberating document in modern history: The U.S. Constitution. Regardless of who wins, it won’t be as bad as the other half claims, and we will still hold claim to the title of “freest country on God’s earth.”

Jay, that’s a fair question.

In the 2008 Republican primary I supported Ron Paul. I believe he was the best GOP presidential hopeful since Reagan. I don’t think he is perfect, but I think he was head and shoulders above every other candidate. On that note, I’d also vote for Reagan were he running.

To show you that I have a little flexibility, I would have voted for Mitt Romney were he the GOP nominee. I buy the fact that he essentially had an awakening and changed many of his values to conservatism. I believe it’s OK and healthy for people to change their minds in the face of new facts and experiences. I also like businessmen in government. I think they are generally more fiscally conservative because they know how to run a business. I’m sure there are examples from both sides of that, but either way, it makes sense to me with all other things being equal.

Primarily, I want a candidate that is grounded in principle and bases his positions out of that principle. The Constitution has been our government’s guiding principle, but modern politicians are not concerned with it.

When is the last time McCain quoted the Constitution when talking about government reform? When is the last time he challenged Obama’s position on the grounds that the Constitution doesn’t authorize it? I can’t remember it ever happening, and I’ve been paying attention for the past 18 months.

Have you listened to Reagan’s speeches on capitalism, limited government, and individual liberty? He mentions these ideas often and refers to them as the backbone of our government. He obviously believes in them very strongly. Ron Paul makes similar speeches and videos on government, economics, and foreign policy. He tries to educate voters on why his position is supported by economic fact and the Constitution.

I think McCain, like most politicians, forms his position on a topic based on how he feels as a result of several other positions. The left hand shakes the right. I don’t think he is grounded in principle. Essentially, I think he is a semi-conservative guy that supports what feels right at the time without any real basis in principle.

During the last debate Obama and McCain clashed several times on some particular fact where one would say, “My opponent did/believes/said A.” The other would then retort, “That is absolutely false, I did/believe/said B.” A and B are often polar opposites, so to be blunt, WTF? How about a little education from one of the candidates saying, “OK, when he says A he means ____. He’s distorting the facts in ______ way. When I say B….” Actually one candidate does do this to some degree: Obama. I greatly respect him for trying to help voters cut the BS.

To do this means you are grounded in principle and you are willing to peel back the layers to disclose the hows and whys of your decisions. I believe Senator Obama is an honest and well-meaning public servant whose values border on socialism. He is grounded in values that he really believes. I respect that. I disagree with him vehemently on almost every issue, but I’m not afraid to acknowledge that he is grounded in principle (the wrong principles).

I think Senator McCain, on the other hand, has principles rooted in modern semi-conservative ideas, and he evaluates every situation based on what feels right at the time, such as the $700 Billion bailout. Because he leans to the right, he sometimes gets things right. However, it’s akin to a blind man that limps to the right picking his values off a wall in front of him. He sometimes ends up with a conservative stance because of blind luck, but this means he often stumbles onto a non-conservative position. He doesn’t really have any rhyme or reason to the way he votes and proposes policy (else it would be more consistently conservative).

Illegal immigration.
Financial bailouts.
Bloated departments of government.
Social security reform.

These are issues that should require politicians to look their constituents in the eye and tell them, “I know this hurts, but if I don’t do the right thing then we’ll all hurt much worse in the end.” That means that if the constituent is an emotional moron you lose his/her vote. Accept it. Let it go. What we’ve seen in the past 20 years is politicians that will say and do anything to ensure they piss off as few voters as possible. That’s not principled decision-making.

We need a candidate grounded in the principles that founded this country as expressed in our Constitution which is our nation’s binding definition of government. These principles create a society of free, independent, and self-determined individuals with equal representation under the law, free from government tyranny. I want a decision-maker that uses the Constitution as a ruler by which he measures all his positions– not a politician that tries to read the ruler in such as way that his positions measure up.

1. Do you consider yourself a conservative? If yes, proceed.

2. Do you plan to vote for John McCain? If yes, proceed.

3. Do you think John McCain, his record, and his plans for America represent conservative values? If yes, stop and use google to find out why you are wrong. Here are some search terms:

a. McCain-Feingold
b. McCain-Kennedy
c. $700 Billion Bailout
d. S. 1805
e. Pharmaceutical price controls

Now that your answer is no, proceed.

4. Do you plan to vote for John McCain because you believe an Obama presidency would be much worse? If yes, proceed.

5. If the Republican party nominated a liberal democrat for president and the Democrat party nominated a socialist, would you vote for the liberal to keep the socialist out of office? Proceed, because you answered this question in #4.

6. If the race were between a socialist and a fascist dictator, would you vote for the socialist in order to keep the dictator out of office? If yes, take a break to find where you misplaced your conscience, then proceed.

7. Last question. Open-ended.
How far would you take your logic–What kind of person would you cast your vote for before trying to find better options?

I believe my vote must be earned. I owe it to no one because they are the “lesser of two evils.” Furthermore, I consider it immoral to cast my vote for someone that I do not wish to represent me. It distorts and corrupts the voting process that we cherish in our Republic. I do not subscribe to the self-fulfilling prophecy that everyone should vote for one of the two major candidates because only they have a chance of winning because everyone should vote for one of the two major candidates… Continuing to advocate the failed two-party system is to be a part of the problem and not the solution–unless, of course, one of those candidates best represents your values. I encourage everyone to vote for the candidate that best represents his/her values.

Contrary to the opinion of many, I will not be wasting my vote this November by failing to cast it for either Barack Obama or John McCain. Such a definition of “wasting” is arbitrary and inherently flawed because it is defined by those who will vote for a candidate I will not. I, and only I, determine whether my vote is wasted. To waste my vote would be to cast it for John McCain and reward the Republican party for nominating a candidate that does not represent the conservative values that were once the foundation of the party. This would only encourage party voters to continue this shift to the left. What would say “I embrace a more leftist Republican party” better than electing its leftist candidate as president? You don’t reward a dog for pissing on your leg and I won’t reward Republicans for this debacle.

I honestly don’t care if this position means that Barack Obama is elected president. Over the last eight years the Republican party has failed to deliver on countless promises of fiscal conservatism, limited government, and individual liberty. Failed institutions must be allowed to fail. The national Republican party in 2008 is a failed institution.