June 07, 2004

MARIAN CAN'T COUNT

At the end of her sneering Reagan obituary ("running against Jimmy Carter, one of the most unpopular presidents in history, he was voted in by only 27 per cent of Americans"), the SMH’s Marian Wilkinson writes:

Eight years after Mr Reagan left the White House in 1988 he was diagnosed with Alzheimer's and his mind deteriorated rapidly.

Reagan was diagnosed in 1994 -- six years after leaving the White House. Perhaps Marian needs an Alzheimer’s examination herself:

As the disease progresses, memory loss, difficulty in completing simple tasks, and more overt personality changes, often combined with depression, become more evident. Mathematical and verbal skills decline, which mean that a person may no longer be able to read instructions or to count their change. Conversation can become empty and meaningless.

Posted by Tim Blair at June 7, 2004 01:56 PM
Comments

man, that is priceless. ron the don single handedly defeated the nazis AND freed the slaves. what did marian ever do? plus, she can't count. unbelievable.

Posted by: tim a. at June 7, 2004 at 02:04 PM

Reaganomics won admiration especially from Thatcher, but also burdened America with the largest budget deficit in history ...

Why are only right-wing deficits ever a burden?

Posted by: ilibcc at June 7, 2004 at 02:18 PM

1980 election results:

Others 1.7%
Anderson 6.6%
Carter 41%
Reagan 50.7%

That took almost 2 1/2 minutes to check and write. This woman is a real journalistic treasure.

Posted by: Rick Ballard at June 7, 2004 at 02:58 PM

A politician who got expert and technical advice from hand chosen experts in the field - what kind of dangerous manic was this man!

"I hope your all Republicans" - beautiful stuff.

The more things these dills write about him the more I'm reminded of why I like him.

Posted by: Gilly at June 7, 2004 at 03:15 PM

My real-life first name is Marian. On behalf of all of us, everywhere, I apologize for this shrew.

Posted by: Sonetka at June 7, 2004 at 03:22 PM

Rick,

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html

Take the 52.6% voter TURN OUT from the link above.
Take your 50.7% of vote share OF the turn out.
And you get: 26.66682

She rounded up for Regan.

And just for the call-back, she said "he was voted in by only 27 per cent of Americans". Clearly something slipped by you there.

But fair is fair, that is their particular system of government and it can swing both ways.

I was delayed in writing up a response, but it took me less than a minute to check that up


And Tim B., the exact date of a medical diagnosis isn't that important, because he was showing signs of it earlier.

sgt failure.

Posted by: sgt failure at June 7, 2004 at 03:25 PM

Why isn't it important, Sgt? She was talking about diagnosis, and that has an easily identifiable fixed date. You'd think journalists, who are paid to get their facts straight, could actually do so once in a while.

You might also expect them to not be shamelessly disingenuous, as she was when she referred to the 27% figure, insinuating that he was not very popular. But every presidential election has had similar turnouts (less, actually, in recent years), and her highlighting that number was a cheap shot. But then, I've come to expect that from journalists.

When they're not being dishonest, they're typically being incompetent.

Posted by: Russell at June 7, 2004 at 03:42 PM

It is nevertheless disingenuous to make that statement in a country which has compulsory voting and in which percentages of voters are frequently referred to - disingenuous, that is, without a clarifying note that US, unlike Australia, does not have compulsory voting.

Then it would at least paint a fairer picture.

Which is that more than half of Americans who got off their asses to vote had the good sense to pick Reagan.

Posted by: ilibcc at June 7, 2004 at 03:42 PM

Um, Sarg?

Not all Americans can vote. Say those 18 or under, criminals, and don't our population # include legals who also can't vote, so only 27% of Americans doesn't really make sense. Now if she had written 25% of eligible voters, I can see. We're not Germany, you know, where they want babies to vote.

And contrary to popular opinion, not Cuba 100%, Iraq under Saddam 100%, Stalin - 100% and so on.

Posted by: Sandy P at June 7, 2004 at 03:50 PM

sgt failure:

The US Constitution does not base Presidential elections on the popular vote. Never has. I hope it never will. The President is elected by the Electoral College, explained here. Took me less than a minute to find this site on Google.

The popular vote for Presidential elections exists only within state boundaries, not at the national level. It does not "swing both ways". The calculation that 27% of the population voted for Regan (or any President for that matter) is an exercise in futility, an attempt to discredit how the US Constitution works, or a display of ignorance.

In any case, the final election of the President is totally not by popular vote. It's been that way since the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution in 1787. As you say, it's our particular system of government.

And it is important to note that voter turnout in our elections is usually less than 50% of the eligible voters. Garnering 50.7% of 52.6% is a significant achievement, when you look at it from the American perspective.

Either way, Marian is full of crap.

Posted by: The Real JeffS at June 7, 2004 at 03:56 PM

The point is Sgt is the negative spin aspect. No mention of his result in the 1994 election which was much better dont you think? Why not mention that figure as well? I mean after his first term don't you think that this result would be an even better indication of what people thought of his presidency?

Bias detector off the scale here which is what Tim is pointing out.

Posted by: Rob at June 7, 2004 at 03:56 PM

Even with that "low" figure of 27%, he still got more than Jimmy C.

blah blah .... Lies damn lies and statistics, blah blah blah

Reagan will still be the Good Guy in history.

Posted by: DaveACT at June 7, 2004 at 04:09 PM

Hey Rob,
Reread your post.

sgt

Since I voted for him twice, I didn't care how many
votes he got as long as he was elected.
BTW, what did you fail at?

Posted by: Mike H. at June 7, 2004 at 04:10 PM

Using the paragraph in italics of the article as a guide, does that mean that left wing media prodominately has Alzeimers disease. Their conversation is empty and meaningless.

As a matter of interest doesn't anyone know how few of her shitty books sold, what will have more books pulped, hers or the new Margit fiction.

Posted by: Nuffy at June 7, 2004 at 04:21 PM

Reagan also left the White House in 1989, a rather basic fact.

It's a pet peeve of mine when people forget that Presidential terms begin and end in odd-numbered years.

Posted by: Adam Yoshida at June 7, 2004 at 04:35 PM

An interesting link betweem John Hinckley and the Bush family
http://www.hereinreality.com/hinckley.html
George W. Bush said he was unsure whether he had met John W. Hinckley
the world is a small place.

Posted by: davo at June 7, 2004 at 04:35 PM

all,

I think it is reasonable for her to say 27% of americans voted for him. Why? Because it is a statement of fact. Whereas saying 50.7% voted for him is deceptive in the sense that it makes out that half of everyone voted for him. The fact he had 27% of people vote for him and the fact he was president should clue someone on to the fact you can be an american president with so small a number. To say that the 50.7% figure is better is to say that the people reading her article are so dumb they need a counter-spin. And we don't like normative counter-spins in journalism. Just give us the facts.

Sandy P: The germans don't want babies to vote....

Real JeffS: Re-read what I said dolt. It swings both ways in the sense that ANY candidate (or either as the case may be) can benefit. I was pointing out there has been democratic presidents with small numbers too. The electoral collage may well be important for little lawyers, but all federal systems that weight the states have been show to become outdated (look at the Australian system and Tasmanian federal representation) through the passage of time. People only care about the number of voter a particular candidate has.


Rob, if I am not mistaken the total "spin" for regan has been good. This is one example otherwise. Everyone else has been gushing over how good he is. It's good to hear both sides of the story - and I'd hardly call getting an six year date two years wrong is evil. It's sloppy though, and I never said I supported it, I just said I didn't think it was that important.

Mike H, re-read your post, come back with a point.

The crux of the issue is people were criticising her over two points. The date issue and the "spin" of the 27% figure. I have argued a) the 27% figure is correct and b) it would be more of a "spin" to say 50.7%

She is sloppy on the date, but it doesn't immediately invalidate all her argument or what she has to say. I don't think the date isn't important.

I have been called into line by Real JeffS over the electoral collage. And actually after Bush's first election everyone around the world who was watching did learn about the electoral collage.... but we, and most of the America (media and people) talk about the election in terms of percentages. It's like JeffS talking about John Howard being Australia's head of state and me jumping in and saying "Don't disrespect the Australian constitution, Howard isn't the head of state it's the Queen of England". i.e. you have a point, but nobody cares.


And actually, seeing as she is the "Herald Correspondent in Washington" I assume it isn't sydicated and she is writing for an Australian audience. In such a case, Australia has mandatory voting which nets us 80-95+% voter turnout in state and federal elections (sometimes 10-20% lower in local elections). In such a case it can be assumed that her target audience equates percentages of votes won to actual percentage of a mandate giving populance. But even if she were an american journalist, writing for an american audience - she would be justified in writing 27% because americans live in that system. So any way you cut it "50.7%" would be spin and 27% is not.


sgt failure

Posted by: sgt failure at June 7, 2004 at 05:04 PM

Why do I get the feeling that we're debating Reagan's legacy with children who's knowledge of history comes only from one Phil Collins video?

Posted by: nofixedabode at June 7, 2004 at 05:06 PM

Just to make sure the math is right:

President Ronald Reagan left office on January 20, 1989 when George H.W. Bush was inaugurated as his successor.

Former President Reagan's letter to the American public announcing that he was suffering from Alzheimer's disease was issued on November 5, 1994.

That's a total of 2115 days (five years and 289 days - including one leap day in 1992) between the two events. That's short of six years and well short of eight years. And my guess is that Reagan's actual diagnosis was made well before his letter announcing it.

So you're all wrong! Nyah.

May God rest the soul of Ronald Reagan. Though if there's one thing liberals and conservatives can agree on about Reagan, it's that his soul always seemed to already be at peace.

Posted by: Dana at June 7, 2004 at 05:07 PM

sgt failure, what Marian puts out is bias. It swings either way only if you ignore the rules of the system. Read what I wrote, dolt.

Once again, you live down to your screen name.

Posted by: The Real JeffS at June 7, 2004 at 05:07 PM

Oops! Forgot one point, sgt failure. You are clearly comparing two different electoral systems....and using yours as the base line for what you think should happen in America.

Yep, people think about the popular vote. So what? By law, the Electoral College is the way we do it. Until the Constitution changes, that's the way it remains. If people don't like it, they can amend the Constitution. Wouldn't be the first time.

Posted by: The Real JeffS at June 7, 2004 at 05:12 PM

I am ready to promote sgt failure. He is obviously a Major failure.

Anyhoo. As tired as I get of teaching this to undergrads (they typically don't understand the presidential electoral system any better than non-nationals), let me make a couple of points.

There is a difference between "potential voters" and "eligible voters." Potential voters are all those who meet the criteria to be eligible to vote. These include, citizenship, 18 years of age, not mentally incompetent, not barred by other law or circumstances and a few others. This is, basically, the potential voting pool. It's hard to calculate precisely (no foolin'!) but is certainly in the rough neighborhood currently of 200,000,000.

Eligible voters are those who will be permitted to vote on election day IF THEY MEET OTHER REQUIREMENTS. These include being properly registered to vote in an established voting precinct. This group is generally way less than 100% of the potential. It has run as high as more than 90% in the late 1800s' (that I know of) and as low as 65% or so recently.

Thus, when around 100,000,000 voters cast ballots in 2000, it was about 50% of the potential. It was bout 67% of the eligible (near as I can tell).

Still doesn't matter. Subject to the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments and subsequent SCOTUS rulings, the states still run elections, and the President is still elected by a majority of electoral ballots cast by individual state. The states can apportion their votes any way they want that is not unConstitutional, but in practice, all but two are winner-take-all. Thus, if only one person had voted in Florida, and had voted for Bush, Bush would have won all of Florida's electoral votes even if every other potential voter in Florida had preferred Gore.

We've done it that way for about 225 years, and, while imperfect, what look to many (outsiders, especially) to be bugs are actually valuable features.

Finally, while state and local elections all too frequently have turnouts of less than 50% of eligible voters (let alone potential voters) presidential elections routinely had turnouts welll above 50% until about 1960. The reasons for the decline (although it started back in the 1880's, very slowly) is the subject of many books and articles.

Reagan's election totals stand up admirably to everyone except George Washington, who was basically elected unanimously.

Posted by: JorgXMcKie at June 7, 2004 at 05:15 PM

My distinct memory of that November evening in 1980 was that we high school students (I was 17) were led to believe that the election was going to be too close to call and would probably last well into the night...(as it actually did in 2000).

We returned on a school bus from a soccer playoff match between 9 -10pm (Eastern time; it was only 5-6 in California) and asked, "How's the election going?" The answer was Carter had already conceded. It wasn't even close!

Reagan was invincible and only Carter's work for Habitat for Humanity after the White House has even slightly rehabilitated his reputation among Americans.

Posted by: JDB at June 7, 2004 at 05:18 PM

Perhaps I should also note that unlike many nations, we do not feel that it is necessary to force people to vote. The US has, in many instances, taken the lead in increasing the voting pool. Last I knew, two cantons in Switzerland still didn't let females vote.

Anyone attempting to be unbiased would report the percentage of the total presidential preference votes cast, not the percentage of total possible votes, or worse, the percentage the votes made of the total population. By this count, I presume the most recent Australian elections had much less than 90% of its population vote, since not everyone (to my knowledge) who is in Australia is eligible to vote. Two-year-olds, failure? Non-citizen immigrants? Vacationers?

In Australia, are election return percentages (i.e. ALP proportion of the vote) reported as percentages of the total population?

Posted by: JorgXMcKie at June 7, 2004 at 05:24 PM

The figures being disputed for voter turn-out are for the first time Reagan was elected. I wouldn't doubt they were low. I recall those years, near the end of Pres. Carter's term, as being one of the worst in terms of morale in the US.

The economy wasn't doing very well, the Japanese seemed to be buying up everything, people were being laid off, plus we had the hostages in Iran. The country was in a bit of a shock. Seemed there was just bad news no matter where you turned.

Pres. Carter had the wrong personality to lead the US at that time in our history. I don't think he was a bad president, just bad for that point in our history. We needed someone like Reagan to help us out of our malaise. His enthusiasm was infectious and was what we needed at the time.

I'm not a Reagan cheerleader. I think he was a great president who had the qualities we needed at that time. I wouldn't say he was *the* best president ever. But, he was a very able and decent man who opened a dialog with the Soviets that eventually led to something I never thought I'd see... the Berlin Wall coming down.

It may be hard, for someone who didn't live in the US during the Cold War, to understand what a big relief it was to see the Soviet Empire fall apart. I recall being very afraid, as a child, of the 'Russians'. I never understood (as a child) why there were people who might blow us up, but I was constantly reminded of it. We had air raid drills in school, air raid tests in town, air raid shelter signs on the buildings in the center of town, etc.. I was very aware, from a young age, that another country may send bombs and blow us up. To have this threat removed was wonderful!

Pres. Reagan's detractors would never give the guy any credit for having half a brain cell. The same stuff that's being said about Pres. Bush was said about Pres. Reagan. It's still being said, even when we look back and see all that he helped achieve.

There are people, like M. Wilkinson, who seem to dislike Pres. Reagan and enjoy tearing the man down. It's sad to see them tear him down at this time. Could they wait until he's buried, at least?

Posted by: Chris Josephson at June 7, 2004 at 05:27 PM

It's about time that we abolished compulsory voting in Australia too. If you really don't give a shit about politics, you shouldn't be forced to vote with the threat of a fine.

If we abolished the compulsion, I reckon we would have turnout figures comparable to the USA. Maybe even less, given the generally laid back and cynical attitude of Australians to politicians. Only people who care about politics and show enough of an interest in the issues to want to vote would cast their ballot - and that's a damn good thing, as far as I am concerned.

Labor opposes this idea because it knows that it benefits from the "ignorant deadhead" demographic.

TFK

Posted by: TFK at June 7, 2004 at 05:28 PM

JorgXMcKie,

You're correct about President Washington's 100% Electoral College win.

In President Monroe's overwhelming victory, one Elector voted against him simply to keep Washington's record intact, as a sign of respect to the "Father" of the Nation.

Posted by: JDB at June 7, 2004 at 05:29 PM

As other posters have pointed out, using the 27% figure is misleading. That said, using Sgt Failure's sources, I note that Reagan's 27% in 1980 was better than Clinton (24.6% in 1996, 23.8% in 1992) or GW Bush (24.8%) and was eclipsed by Reagan's 31.4% in 1984.

There are only two explanations for Wilkinson's choice of the 27% figure: (a) the SMH's Washington correspondent knows nothing about the US electoral system or (b)what in reality is a high vote for a candidate under that system has been deliberately spun to look like a low vote.

Oh - sorry a third explanation- both (a) and (b)

Posted by: Procrustes at June 7, 2004 at 05:33 PM

JorgXMcKie,

Voting in Federal Elections is not compulsory in Oz; what is compulsory is that all Australian citizens over 18 register to vote and turn up at a polling booth on election day to get marked off on a list. At that point the electoral officer gives you a ballot paper for the House of Reps and a ballot paper for the Senate (Australians don't need machines to vote, as they can still write). You then vote by writing numbers in the appropriate spots on the ballot papers. However, if you do not wish to vote, you can put a blank paper into the ballot box. Where a ballot paper is not completed correctly, it is known as an "informaml vote" which doesn't count in the election.

In most elections we have bewteen 5% and 10% informal votes, so our voter turnout is in the 90s. Once all the preferences are counted the winning party will usually get about 50% to 52% of the total vote. This means that the winnining party would usually get the votes of very close to a majority of the registered voters.

Posted by: Toryhere at June 7, 2004 at 05:46 PM

Marian Wilkinson has written as ungenerous an account of the life of a President of the USA as I have ever seen. What was her motive? Did she wish to make people vote Democrat? It was an article in an Australian newspaper, we don't vote in the elections.

Has Ronald or an immediate member of his family ever hurt her in any way? If so maybe she should declare it.

There are so many problems with her article that I will leave it to Professor Bunyip to deal with them but I want to mention one here. It is within my field as an economist and banker of 30 years experience and may not be within the Professor's. "The Federal Reserve and Treasury moved swiftly and a recession was delayed until after his successor, George Bush snr, took office".

That is stated as fact, not opinion by Ms Wilkinson and nobody, not her or any other idiot like her can make that statement unchallenged. All governments, all the time seek to delay recessions and all of the literature shows all of the time that they have little effect.

Ms Wilkinson is yet another symptom of a declining newspaper.

Posted by: Allan at June 7, 2004 at 05:53 PM

If eligible non-voters were compelled to vote, there is no reason to suspect this would change the outcome of any election, since there is no reason to assume that the preferences of the class of non-voters deviates from the preferences of the class of voters. In other words, if Reagan received 50.7% of the vote, he would most likely have received 50.7% support from the non-voters, if they had been compelled to vote. So long as voters are a representative sample, the voter turnout percentage is irrelevent.

Posted by: Tim Shell at June 7, 2004 at 06:21 PM

The print version of the article corrects both the error Tim noticed and the one he didn't, saying that the diagnosis was five years after Reagan left the White House in 1989.

Posted by: Tim Lambert at June 7, 2004 at 06:23 PM

Real JeffS and JorgX your insular view of the world assumes that we should all bend to American will.... when Austrailan journalists write for Australian audiences they will describe things best for those audiences. Just because you think it's spin dosesn't mean it is in the case of an Australian audience. Secondly, you have failed to make a case for 27% being "spin" in the case of an America audience.

FURTHERMORE, Ms Wilkinson qualifies her statement by saying "of Americans". Re-read it if you failed to grasp it. She hasn't lied, and as Procrustes points out Clinton got 24 then 23 and GW Bush had 24. (which is what I was saying when I said "swings both ways" which Real JeffS still fails to comprehend - get it through your skull now?).

It's so amusing to watch you twist and turn to attack this lady over her statement of a fact.

JorgX,

ALP shares are not reported as a share of the whole population, they are reported as a share of the votes. But only a complete moron would assume we are talking about the whole population (Sandy P, check your six) so why do you even bother to bring this up? You are only confusing the issue. So don't bother breathing, I was never disputing those points.

Real JeffS,

"You are clearly comparing two different electoral systems....and using yours as the base line for what you think should happen in America."

I never said what I thought should happen in America.... I said what I thought was reasonable for an AUSTRALIAN journalist, writing in an AUSTRALIAN publication for an AUSTRALIAN audience. And it's damned reasonable for her to say 27% because thats around the number of people who vote for ronny. You are imposing an american view on this Australian issue.

TFK,
Actually it is howard who benefits from having idiots in the polling booth. Whether his policies and agendas are correct or not is a seperate issue to his playing the sound-byte fear politics, and out-right vote buying (so many examples I don't even need to link). And you can always spoil your ballot should you be so inclined. Preferential voting only makes the deal sweeter. If you think it benefits the ALP so much why hasn't Howard proposed to amend the constitution on it?... exactly....

Posted by: Maj. Failure at June 7, 2004 at 06:33 PM

What a contemptible and mean-spirited obituary.

You really wonder at the sickness in the soul of liberals like Wilkinson, that they could be so vindictive, and cruel.... I'm going to redouble my efforts at smearing the Herald, to friends, business acquaintances, and on the Net and talk radio. They sacked 45 journalists, last month. Maybe, if we can keep the pressure on, in our own small way, scum like Wilkinson will eventually get their marching orders, too.

Posted by: Byron_the_Aussie at June 7, 2004 at 06:33 PM

Real JeffS and JorgX your insular view of the world assumes that we should all bend to American will.... when Austrailan journalists write for Australian audiences they will describe things best for those audiences. Just because you think it's spin dosesn't mean it is in the case of an Australian audience. Secondly, you have failed to make a case for 27% being "spin" in the case of an America audience.

FURTHERMORE, Ms Wilkinson qualifies her statement by saying "of Americans". Re-read it if you failed to grasp it. She hasn't lied, and as Procrustes points out Clinton got 24 then 23 and GW Bush had 24. (which is what I was saying when I said "swings both ways" which Real JeffS still fails to comprehend - get it through your skull now?).

It's so amusing to watch you twist and turn to attack this lady over her statement of a fact.

JorgX,

ALP shares are not reported as a share of the whole population, they are reported as a share of the votes. But only a complete moron would assume we are talking about the whole population (Sandy P, check your six) so why do you even bother to bring this up? You are only confusing the issue. So don't bother breathing, I was never disputing those points.

Real JeffS,

"You are clearly comparing two different electoral systems....and using yours as the base line for what you think should happen in America."

I never said what I thought should happen in America.... I said what I thought was reasonable for an AUSTRALIAN journalist, writing in an AUSTRALIAN publication for an AUSTRALIAN audience. And it's damned reasonable for her to say 27% because thats around the number of people who vote for ronny. You are imposing an american view on this Australian issue.

TFK,
Actually it is howard who benefits from having idiots in the polling booth. Whether his policies and agendas are correct or not is a seperate issue to his playing the sound-byte fear politics, and out-right vote buying (so many examples I don't even need to link). And you can always spoil your ballot should you be so inclined. Preferential voting only makes the deal sweeter. If you think it benefits the ALP so much why hasn't Howard proposed to amend the constitution on it?... exactly....

Posted by: Maj. Failure at June 7, 2004 at 06:34 PM

Compulsory voting?

What kind of madness is that? What, do the nabbers kick down your kitchen door and drag you, screaming and dribbling crumbs, off to the polls if you take a few minutes too long at breakfast?

Pass the sausage, please...

Posted by: mojo at June 7, 2004 at 06:57 PM

Mojo, no - but you get a fine if you don't turn up to the polling booth. It creates jobs for the bureaucracy, before and after the election.

Even so, running against Jimmy Carter, one of the most unpopular presidents in history, he was voted in by only 27 per cent of Americans.

Major, surely it's still a disingenuous statement given the context - especiallyif that is the figure generally achieved by winning Presidents.

Posted by: ilibcc at June 7, 2004 at 07:00 PM

Major Failure,

Compusory voting in Australia is not prescribed by the constitution, it was legislated early last century:

"In 1924, the Commonwealth Parliament legislated for compulsory voting at Federal elections. The bill to make the change was sponsored by E Mann in the House of Representatives and H Payne in the Senate, one of the few private members’ bills (that is, bills not put forward by the government of the day) ever to pass through the Commonwealth Parliament. Although some parliamentarians spoke against the measure, it attracted very little debate and was passed quickly in both houses without a division."

(http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/liac/hot_topic/hottopic/2001/4/4.html)

Compulsory voting is generally seen to favour the Labor Party, although I've never seen any hard evidence for this.

Your suggestion that Wilkinson is right to express Reagan's vote as an absolute percentage for an Australian audience is absurd. If anything the reverse is true - she should express it as a % of voters. In any case, it is perfectly obvious in context that she did it that way to make the Reagan vote look small, when in fact it was historically strong:

"running against Jimmy Carter, one of the most unpopular presidents in history, he was voted in by only 27 per cent of Americans"

Unpopular opponent, only 27% - geddit?

I imagine not (sigh).

Posted by: James at June 7, 2004 at 07:13 PM

Tim Shell,

"So long as voters are a representative sample, the voter turnout percentage is irrelevent."

It's highly unlikely that voters would be representative of all eligible voters (assuming non-compulsory voting). Reesults would not be the same under each system. How big the difference would be (and in what direction) would be extremely difficult to estimate, even with the most carefuly designed survey.

Posted by: James at June 7, 2004 at 07:19 PM

I couldn't care less what that turgid hack writes about Ronald Reagan.

Her article will be wrapped around tomorrows rubbish.

Ronald Reagan's name is indelibly marked in the history of the world.

Posted by: Pedro the Ignorant at June 7, 2004 at 07:39 PM

Have a look at Wilkinson's record and you wou't be surprised at any vicious, truth-and-ethics-free shit she writes. She was even praised by Robert Manne in the latest Quarterly Essay, and you can't get much lower than that.

Posted by: Sue at June 7, 2004 at 09:06 PM

Voting in Federal Elections is not compulsory in Oz; what is compulsory is that all Australian citizens over 18 register to vote and turn up at a polling booth on election day to get marked off on a list.

According to the letter of the law, (section 245 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act), voting is compulsory,
and according to sections 239 and 240, the elector must vote correctly.

Of course, it is quite impossible to enforce sections 239 or 240. But it does mean that it is an offence to encourage people to spoil their vote.

The good thing about compulsory voting is that the government has to make it easy and convenient for people to vote, so we have lots of polling centres, we have absentee votes (voting outside your normal district) and postal votes.

Prisoners in Australia don't lose the right to vote, and electoral officials take ballot boxes to prisons so the prisoners can vote.

Posted by: peggy sue at June 7, 2004 at 09:59 PM

It isn't reasonable to run the 27% comment, even if it is accurate, because it's an unmoored statistic. There's no point of comparison.

It's presented as a counter to the belief that Reagan was popular. She's using an isolated truth to convey an inaccurate impression.

Posted by: tim at June 7, 2004 at 10:18 PM

James -- "Compusory voting in Australia is not prescribed by the constitution" I never claimed it was in our constitution only in our system.

peggy sue,
enforceability in that situation is zero, so donkey voting, spoiling your ballot in protests etc. is all valid. The only pity is they don't often show the stats for it.

ilibcc, I was defending her against Rick B's "50.7%", not defending her entirely. But I am sure she has her reasons. But we aren't allowed to judge the american presidential system here, people get touchy even when you do it in a non-partisan manner. It's sad that it is an electoral collage and not a preferential system. (you could even have a terminating preferential system if you don't want your vote to go to "any of bastards"). Anyway, electoral reform is out of the question, asides from blatant republican gerrymander (another area where we have fewer problems) :P

Nobody said she was unbias, there is no such thing as not being bias. I noticed that iran/contra didn't receive much attention, just be thankful.

Posted by: Maj. Failure at June 7, 2004 at 11:10 PM

ronald reagan will be remembered and beloved by americans and the people he freed in the eastern block for many years to come, whereas whats-her-name is forgotten already by the person in the cubicle next to hers.

Posted by: Mr. Bingley at June 7, 2004 at 11:32 PM

"Eight years after Mr Reagan left the White House in 1988..."

Reagan's 2nd term did not end until January 1989. This is a very basic fact to get wrong. Inexcusable for a paid reporter.

Posted by: A E Hansen at June 7, 2004 at 11:40 PM

JDB, I remember that ``too close to call'' too; it ran right up until the day of the election. Support for John Anderson (as indicated by polls) was 'way overinflated too: he was polling at something like 18-20% support; he actually got about 6% in the end.
Another reason not to trust polls: people aren't always truthful in their answers.

And Chris Josephson is right too. It's hard to remember now, but fear of Communism was very real, and not at all ``inordinate'' as Jimmy Carter thought. (Gulags, famines, forced collectivization, the sheer waste of human and intellectual capital - the intellectuals may not have minded, but the rest of us did). Reagan forthrightly called it an ``evil empire,'' and was excoriated in the press (just as Bush is today) but he was right in the end. The pressies still don't get it, of course, but that's their problem.

Posted by: Annalucia at June 7, 2004 at 11:59 PM

As Tim pointed, the simplest explanation of this discussion is that the 27% datum has no comparison in fact. It's a meaningless statistic whipped up to support a garbage obituary.

sgt failure was demoted to Major failure for not getting the point. As Major Failure still fails to get the point, I forthwith demote Major Failure to General Failure.

Posted by: The Real JeffS at June 8, 2004 at 12:57 AM

Even though Republicans were a minority party, only 26% of the American people voted against Ronald Reagan in 1980.

Posted by: Gary and the Samoyeds at June 8, 2004 at 01:03 AM

She makes the statement after mentioning the lack of popularity of his opponent, inferring that he only got in because of Carter's unpopularity
And she states that he only got in with 27%, inferring that he got in through electoral college trickery a la the usual scream about GWB, and doesn't put this in context with other presidents.
She's writing the usual pretentious, sneering elitist crap veiled in an obituary.

Posted by: RhikoR at June 8, 2004 at 01:06 AM

Tough but fair Real JeffS. Where to from there? Is the General influential enough to actually Marshall Failure?

Posted by: CurrencyLad at June 8, 2004 at 01:08 AM

Oliver Kamm on 'The Peacenik President'.

An intelligent and brilliant antidote to the distortion of President Reagan's worldview. Definitely worth a read.

(via Natalie Solent).

Posted by: CurrencyLad at June 8, 2004 at 01:25 AM

I think it is reasonable for her to say 27% of americans voted for him. Why? Because it is a statement of fact.

Thus illustrating the difference between being factual and being truthful.

Posted by: R C Dean at June 8, 2004 at 01:38 AM

"Why do I get the feeling that we're debating Reagan's legacy with children who's knowledge of history comes only from one Phil Collins video?"

Amen!
Ba~wahaha! Oh, I am so GLAD for intellects deeper and quicker than mine that put the liberal drones in their place! :-)

Posted by: elizabeth at June 8, 2004 at 01:38 AM

Well, CurrencyLad, we might consider Premier Failure.

Posted by: The Real JeffS at June 8, 2004 at 01:53 AM

Haven't come across Oliver Kamm before, he's looks to be very good

Posted by: RhikoR at June 8, 2004 at 02:53 AM

Major Failure, General Failure, God of Failures. Whoever this is probably shouldn't pontificate about systems he knows so little about. As in 'republican gerrymanders." Historically, since Democrats have been in the majority in most states since FDR, gerrymanders have been Democratic. Texas, for instance, went on electing a Democratic majority of their US House of Reps delegation despite the overall vote total being in favor of Republicans. More than 70 years of gerrymandering by Democrats was reversed by Republicans this past year. Payback is a bitch.

In general, the US system of districting (by the state legislatures) and state elections, along with divided government, have combined to make gerrymandering, once accomplished, very hard to change. In fact, most gerrymandering today is in favor of incumbents of both parties. Since until recently most incumbents were Democratw, they were most favored. Didn't hear much about it then.

It is interesting, however, to watch the contortions as he attempts to defend the indefensible. Anyone with even half a working brain can puzzle out her intent. It must be interesting to live in a world where "it depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is."

Posted by: JorgXMcKie at June 8, 2004 at 03:15 AM

I suspect General Failure will have undergo yet another name change in the event GWB wins in November. To save him some time, may I suggest the Linux-inspired Colonel Panic?

Posted by: Brent at June 8, 2004 at 04:27 AM

"...he was voted in by only 27 per cent of Americans."

Reagan's total number of votes in the 1980 Presidential election: 43.9 million

Total number of Americans in 1980: 226.5 million

This means that Reagan was voted in by 19.4% OF AMERICANS.

Dumb bitch can't even get her numbers straight when it'll help her sneer.

Posted by: David Crawford at June 8, 2004 at 05:00 AM

Ruler of the Known Universe failure,

"Clearly something slipped by you there."

Are you sure that you are inferring correctly?

It is so very difficult to do so when the logical links are missing. The professor in my first class in logic used what he referred to as "reiterative illustration" in order to determine our level of comprehension. I see that it still works. As R C Dean noted above, more than facts are required in order to reach a semblance of truth.

Posted by: Rick Ballard at June 8, 2004 at 06:40 AM

Here's a good statistic for Marian:

Of the 43.9 million Americans that voted for Ronald Reagan in his first election, 100% voted Republican.

Hey, howzat? Huh? Do I get lotsa media attention for pointing out this sinister fact of the VRWC? Huh? Huh?

Posted by: The Real JeffS at June 8, 2004 at 06:52 AM

CONSPIRACY!


What did Clinton get on his second term, like 19%?

Posted by: Sortelli at June 8, 2004 at 07:58 AM

Sortelli, in 1996, Clinton got 47,401,185 popular votes and 379 electoral votes.

The total voting age population in 1996 was 196,511,000.

Based on the politically correct (but statistically meaningless) mathematical algorithm favored by Marian Wilkinson and General Failure, Clinton won his second term with a mere 24.1% of Americans. Less than the 27% attributed to Ronald Regan. I can only conclude that Ronald Reagan was a better man than Clinton.

Imagine that!

Posted by: The Real JeffS at June 8, 2004 at 11:31 AM

Amusing to say the least.

JorgX, when will you stop your history lessons the fact you couldn't understand the fragment "swings both ways" alludes to your incompetence.

When I said "swings both ways" I was drawing attention to the fact it was a systemic problem; not a partisan one. As both parties can benefit from a systemic problem.

Thus all this bashing of clinton is irrelevant, as *I* was the one who brought it up. You guys a thick as sh*t.

Well I suppose that's what you get when you read support the blog of a guy who claims that cars "clean the air". Maybe environmental loons are wrong when they say the planet is going to die tommorow. But at least they don't claim that cars "clean the air" like Mr Tim Blair.

Nobody even sniffed at the comment that a 27% president, ailling from mental disorders, managed to get away with iran/contra. You all convieniently overlooked that one.

What a bunch of hypocrites.

Difference between facts and truth eh? So where are the WMDs that were FACT only a moment ago?

Put it into perspective. At least she is using REAL facts in her spin. Unlike you WMD liars.

I find it so amusing in the extreme that you are all so blind. And all you resort to is name calling while you support liars.

Posted by: Kernel Failure at June 8, 2004 at 03:09 PM

What a bunch of hypocrites.
...
And all you resort to name calling while you support liars.

Speaking of hypocrites...

Posted by: RhikoR at June 8, 2004 at 03:21 PM

failure, failure, failure.....how can I say this?

You're a failure.

Much of what you say in your last post is twisted facts. Example:

"When I said "swings both ways" I was drawing attention to the fact it was a systemic problem; not a partisan one. As both parties can benefit from a systemic problem."

You miss the point that this is NOT a problem; as Jorg pointed out, it benefits both parties. Therefore, it's not a problem. It's the system that exists. It's what we have. People don't like the system, you say? So change it! Wait, have you heard of any amendments to the Constitution recently? No? Neither have I.

Therefore, no problem. Just grumbles. Those are normal in a healthy democracy.

"Nobody even sniffed at the comment that a 27% president, ailling from mental disorders, managed to get away with iran/contra. You all convieniently [sic] overlooked that one."

First, 27% is a meaningless statistic, as everyone has pointed out; I calculated Clinton took 24.1% of the Americans in 1996. By your definition (not mine) he stole the White House, yes? Stop hooking on this one. It confirms your inability to accept your mistakes.

Second, Reagan was not diagnosed with Alzheimers until 1994, some 5 years after he left office. Are you assuming some conspiracy that detected the disease while still in the White House? Or do you just assume that he always had it because you don't like him? OK, by your logic, I make the following statement:

"Nobody even sniffed at the comment that a 24.1% president, ailling from eating and sexual disorders, managed to get away with Somalia/Sudan. The left wing routinely overlooks that one."

Yeah, I'm bashing Clinton -- why not? He's still alive and can reply to this. Is this a valid statement? No, it's not. I don't know that Clinton has any sort of problems. But, hey, it's less than 5 years since he left office! Who knows what might turn up? And if he did have medical problems (which I doubt, by the way), I have no idea if those conditions affected his judgement while he was President.

You are equally wrong to say that about Regan.

Your defense of Marian Wilkinson is sad to behold. You cling to facts when they are demonstrated to be incorrect or not relevant. Your logic is pathetic to non-existant. Yes, we called you names -- because you're a failure.

Posted by: The Real JeffS at June 8, 2004 at 03:38 PM

Sgt

--Sandy P: The germans don't want babies to vote....

Give them time to get used to the idea.

...Globally, though, the most radical proposal to enfranchise youth belongs to Germany, where parliament will consider this fall giving children the vote from infancy, giving new meaning to the social policy "from cradle to grave."

Under the proposal, which would immediately increase the number of potential voters by 13.8 million, parents would vote on behalf of their children until they are 12, when the children could decide whether to allow their parents to vote for them....

9/17/03 abcnews.com (American Broacasting System.)

Posted by: Sandy P at June 8, 2004 at 04:41 PM

Complete Failure,

Nice to see you back for another kicking.

You wrote (to me):

"James -- "Compusory voting in Australia is not prescribed by the constitution" I never claimed it was in our constitution only in our system."

In fact, you earlier wrote:

"Preferential voting only makes the deal sweeter. If you think it benefits the ALP so much why hasn't Howard proposed to amend the constitution on it?... exactly...."

I wasn't having a go at you, I was merely correcting you. But I guess you "can't handle the truth".

Posted by: James at June 8, 2004 at 04:44 PM

--"When I said "swings both ways" I was drawing attention to the fact it was a systemic problem; not a partisan one. As both parties can benefit from a systemic problem."--

Then it's not a bug, it's a feature.

Posted by: Sandy P at June 8, 2004 at 04:48 PM

>Nobody even sniffed at the comment that a 27% president, ailling from mental disorders, managed to get away with iran/contra.

Hey, how does it feel to know that a Republican with mental disorders still performed better in the job and in popular image than any Democrat since Roosevelt?

Posted by: John Nowak at June 8, 2004 at 05:32 PM

Nowak, as it has been pointed out endlessly the disorder didn't really affect his presidency. ALthough it's effects would have been present before diagnosis.

James, you implied I had stated it was part of the constitution. I had not stated it was part of the constitution. You fail miserably at even the most basic test.

Interesting Sandy P. But I would like to see a more credible source than abc news. How about something german? I recall a proposal for lowing the voting age by a couple of years. Even then, only proposals, not actual law.

Real JeffS the point, which you STILL fail to grasp. Is that JorgX implied a totally different meaning to "swings both ways" to the one I clearly used. So he is a dolt. And the point I was making.... wait for it now.... was that the system benefits all parties. So as it was ME who brought up the bipartisan nature of the systemic flaw why are you lauding the clinton thing over me like it's some kind of victory? You are agreeing with my original point.... did someone drop you on your head as a baby? You are just letting these things smack you in the face and you just sit there grinning while your nose bleeds.


I return to my original point which is that 50.7% is misleading in the greater context of the article and it would be misleading for her to state otherwise. As I am clearly more schooled in Australian politics than the americans here who can barely breathe this falls on my turf. I say she is justified. If you don't like it, go take your american interpretations and apply them to an american journalist in an american paper. So she is darn well justified yankees.

Again, a silence on iran contra, which when we widen the context even more shows that ronny has been treated softly by almost all commentators.

Posted by: Kernel Failure at June 8, 2004 at 06:45 PM

Total failure,

I'm not sure why I bother but you wrote (to me):

"James, you implied I had stated it [compulsory voting] was part of the constitution. I had not stated it was part of the constitution. You fail miserably at even the most basic test."

Whereas earier you posted (June 7, 2004 at 06:34 PM ), in respect of compulsory voting:

"Preferential voting only makes the deal sweeter. If you think it benefits the ALP so much why hasn't Howard proposed to amend the constitution on it?... exactly...."

Do you have some sort of brain disorder that precludes rational thought?

Posted by: James at June 8, 2004 at 07:35 PM

Firstly, my comment doesn't state it is in either legislature or constitution, it only suggests if Howard were to reform it he would likely go for a referendum (any politician going for such a change without the will of the people would be represented as doing so for his political advantage, therefore he would only make such a move through a referendum... also so that labour wouldn't be able to change it back easily.... but that logic is lost on you). So stop reading into things.

Secondly, even IF I had said it was in the consitution you little qualification is entirely a little SWOT sits in front of the class legalism which is irrelevant to the issue at hand.

So on either count you are a freaking dumbass.

All you people are declaring you know what the intentions of the article author are. And claiming you know what my intentions are (ala. JorgX totally failing to understand "swings both ways"). Well guess what, they are actually your *interpretations*.

This james thing is a good example, asides from the fact it doesn't really matter (as to the good or evil of it, or as to the benefit to the ALP or to the Liberal Party) whether it is at a constitutional level or not he totally just streamrolls his interpretation onto the my phrase. What a load of shit. It's lawyering of the worst kind James. And you are caught out not only being irrelevant, but erroneously irrelevant.


And you can twist and turn as much as you like, but you didn't ask me to qualify "do you think it is at a constitution level, or are you saying howard would have to make an amendment to get it through" ... no you just streamrollered in on some BS interpretation of a phrase, without asking for qualification and even had you been right... what you said was entirely irrelevant posturing.

You are wrong, lap it up, James.

Posted by: Kernel Failure at June 8, 2004 at 09:01 PM

>Nowak, as it has been pointed out endlessly the disorder didn't really affect his presidency. ALthough it's effects would have been present before diagnosis.

Funny you brought it up, then.

Posted by: John Nowak at June 8, 2004 at 10:51 PM

Miserable Failure,

You are clearly far too clever for me.

Have a nice life.

Posted by: James at June 8, 2004 at 10:57 PM

Miserable Failure:

You still fail. Now go away.

Sincerely yours,

Posted by: The Real JeffS at June 9, 2004 at 12:58 AM