Study finds voting is superficial (REAL voting, not 'American Idol' voting)

Every vote counts, it's true. But where are voters getting the motivation to decide how to vote? What leading criteria determine who and what the voters choose to pull the levers for? (OK, nowadays, voters fill in little ovals with a pen or pencil, or complete arrows with a drawn line, but that's not as quaint as "pull the levers".) 

In the June 2010 edition of a behavior journal, it was suggested that appearances win. So the average person picks their candidates the way producers pick reality TV group members: on the shallowness of outward appearance. No surprise to me, "appearance is most likely to influence less knowledgeable voters who watch a lot of television," explains a science Web site, PhysOrg.com, in their piece on the behavior journal's article.  

I've voted for county, city or state positions when I had no idea who one candidate was from another. I've picked based on last names, or party, or if a name appealed to me in some way, like it rhymed, or looked classy, or seemed down to earth. Yeah, I'm not proud of any of that, but I know I am not alone in such banal decision-making among people who reject apathy. I've since avoided choosing at all if I had no clue; choices matter, and gross ignorance is not where votes should come from. It's not just the ignorance I demonstrated, but notable, commonplace stuff that translates into votes. 

How many of us, the electorate (note for habitually ignorant folks: that's a word for "people who can vote"), are sure we knew something useful and reliable about every single ballot choice in recent primaries? How about in the 2008 general election? So in part this behavior article tells us that in the 2008 U.S. presidential election the least informed chose between a fresh, young, silver-tongued black guy, and a crippled, raspy old white guy who's been around forever. 

Who were these people, do you think? First of all, who are the least informed, broadly? Second of all, how do you think they would vote? The young and generally distracted is who they are, and they would vote young and not crippled (crass kids do not care how shallow it is to mock a war veteran or any other stiff old guy, get real), don't you think? Most young punks would go for the fresh young black dude. Unless they've bought a Pat Boone album lately. Odds on that, anyone?

Am I saying Barack Obama, for one, is president in part because clueless young adults voted against the crusty old crippled guy? Am I saying that plenty of young people voted for the candidate that The Daily Show's Jon Stewart liked, and for the side who SNL didn't lampoon nearly every week? 

Youuuuu betcha!

On the face of it, voting's superficial  (on PhysOrg.com):

Are voters truly sophisticated and rational decision makers? Apparently not. Their choices are heavily influenced by superficial, nonverbal cues, such as politicians' appearance, according to Christopher Olivola from University College London in the UK and Alexander Todorov from Princeton University in the US. According to their findings, voters make judgments about politicians' competence based on their facial appearance and these appearance-based competence judgments reliably predict both voting decisions and election outcomes. The research is published in the June 2010 issue of theJournal of Nonverbal Behavior.

The researchers also discuss the potential impact of these judgments on actual voters and show that appearance is most likely to influence less knowledgeable voters who watch a lot of television, a finding consistent with psychological models of persuasion.

Research to date suggests that rapid judgments about the personality traits of political candidates, based solely on their appearance, can predict their electoral success. In other words, voters rely heavily on appearances when choosing which candidate to elect. Since voters need to navigate their way through the flood of information available about candidates in order to make fully informed choices, it is no surprise that they take mental shortcuts to get to their final decision.

After reviewing the published literature on this topic, the authors then introduce a computer model of facial personality traits to identify the particular facial features associated with competence judgments. By manipulating the degree of competence of faces on a screen, they are able to show that facial maturity and physical attractiveness are the two main criteria used by participants to make competence judgments.

(Hit the link, above, to see the whole article.)

- jR

The Motley Fool's Rebuttal of the Latest of Krugman's "1938 in 2010" Twaddle

Image via Wikipedia

Who you gonna believe? Some professional investors or a professional Keynesian? I'm going with the capitalists, and not the sour-faced NY Times columnist. (Note: bolding and links are mine.)

Krugman wrote another Op-Ed about his favorite subject "1937".  The year when the Fed Gov't cut back some spending and the economy faltered.  I've disputed this ludicrousness before, stating that if EIGHT years of spending didn't fix the problem, when in the hell is all this spending supposed to work? Let's also not forget that in 1934 the dollar was devalued by 50% and THAT didn't work.

In this particular Op-Ed he goes further, stating "From an economic point of view World War II was, above all, a burst of deficit-financed government spending, on a scale that would never have been approved otherwise. Over the course of the war the federal government borrowed an amount equal to roughly twice the value of G.D.P. in 1940 — the equivalent of roughly $30 trillion today". 

Pro-WWII end recession/depression economist LOVE to point out that huge spending on a massive scale ended the Great Depression.  I've spoken to many of these people before and asked them EXACTLY when this massive spending ended the Great Depression. There are only two answers: 1) When the war started 2) After the war ended

Let's tackle #1 first (When the war started).  These are the scariest people in the world today, because they don't believe in freedom in the least. 

You'll need to visit the site for the whole thing. More at the Motley site.

-jR

Related articles by Zemanta

• Op-Ed Columnist: 1938 in 2010 (nytimes.com)
• Political Lesson For American Ideologues Especially Democrats (nowpublic.com)
• "Krugman/Keynes Economics in Four Paragraphs" and related posts (newshoggers.com)

Alan Grayson (Nut-job, FL District 8): Beck fans wore “sheets over their heads”

Alan Grayson: Glenn Beck fans wore "sheets over their heads"

(FROM ORLANDO SENTINEL'S Political Pulse]

Since his election two years ago, Orlando Democrat U.S. Rep. Alan Grayson's fame has multiplied exponentially with every inflammatory remark.

Every time he says something like the Republicans' health care plan is to "die quickly" or that Dick Cheney is a vampire who should "STFU," he becomes a bigger hero to liberals and a bigger target of conservatives. Now there's another addition to the list of Grayson's greatest hits.

During an appearance on the progressive talk-radio "Stephanie Miller Show" on Thursday — part of a regular segment called "Face the Grayson" — the congressman likened those who attended Glenn Beck's rally last week at the Lincoln Memorial to Ku Klux Klan members.

Miller: "The Glenn Beck thing — is that going to have an effect in November? To me, they were, I'm sorry, mostly old, white … mostly McCain-Palin leftovers, weren't they? These aren't new voters, these are people that have always voted Republican."

Grayson: "These are people who were wearing sheets over their heads 25 years ago."

The congressman also repeated one of his recent favorites: "You only have three friends in life: God, your mama, and the Democratic Party."

You can listen to the whole 12-minute, 18-second segment below, if you scroll down on this widget and click on the "Face the Grayson" segment.

UPDATE: The Grayson campaign wanted to respond to, well, Grayson's own comment. So, here's an addition from campaign spokesman Sam Drzymala: "[Grayson opponent] Dan Webster should prove Representative Grayson wrong by rejecting the endorsement of David Barton, a man who has spoken at two neo-Nazi rallies, denies the Holocaust, and has led the effort to rewrite history books with a narrative of hate, fear, and discrimination."

Hello, Orlando? Get this kook out of office. Florida already has enough nuts in office, doesn't need this one. Accepting an endorsement or not is far from being in the same court as that person. But Webster ought to reject that guy's endorsement, if the claims of his practices are true.

 - jR

Jeff Greene sues Miami Herald, St. Pete Times

Florida billionaire Jeff Greene sues Miami Herald, St. Pete Times for libel after campaign loss

(article: Jim Weaver, Miami Herald)

Palm Beach billionaire Jeff Greene accused The Miami Herald and St. Petersburg Times in a libel lawsuit filed Wednesday (Sept 1, 2010) of orchestrating a "plan to assassinate [his] character" that cost him the Democratic primary for the U.S. Senate in Florida.

Greene, who lost to Miami U.S. Rep. Kendrick Meek by 26 percentage points, said the newspapers published stories about his real estate dealings in California and his 145-foot yacht Summerwind that were "knowingly based on false information."

"Defendants . . . published the articles with the goal of destroying the personal, business and political reputation of Greene," the suit claims.

Greene, represented by prominent Atlanta lawyer L. Lin Wood, is seeking a total of $500 million in damages from the two papers.

"We don't have any comment on the lawsuit, since the case was just filed," said Herald Executive Editor Anders Gyllenhaal. "But we can say that the coverage of this race and the candidates was fair, deep and thorough."

Said Times Editor Neil Brown: "It is our firm opinion that the allegations in this lawsuit are preposterous. We believe Jeff Greene is a sore loser and he's blaming the newspapers because he can't accept the verdict of the voters."

Greene's defamation suit, filed in Miami-Dade circuit court, is unusual for a political figure. The news media enjoy strong protections of freedom of the press under the First Amendment. To win damages, Greene's lawyer would have to prove the two stories that allegedly defamed him were published by the papers with "actual malice."

The 55-page suit claims that The Herald and The Times "had actual knowledge of facts prior to publication that disproved their false accusations but nonetheless proceeded to publication in an intentional effort to harm Greene and his campaign."

http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/09/02/1804300/florida-billionaire-greene-sues.html#ixzz0yNOwyeWF

Those First Amendment protections are meant for free coverage of events, not to give license to sneering turds who manipulate the impressions of "useful idiots". I wonder if these were protection-worthy articles? The more important question here is, who's Kendrick Meek? Har har har. Hopefully he'll be joining this race outside of the Miami area sometime soon.

 

- jR

 

Sen. Bernie Sanders says: hands off my beloved Social Security, you vicious, anti-government nuts!

Image by Getty Images via @daylife

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I) comments on what he sees as right-wing "hatred" of Soc Sec. Hatred of it is going a bit far, except maybe some far-flung kooks. 

Opinion: We can't allow deep benefit cuts, including a steep rise in the retirement age. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/41628.html

Some of it (note: the links within it are mine):

"The White House deficit commission is reportedly considering deep benefit cuts for Social Security, including a steep rise in the retirement age. We cannot let that happen.

"The deficit and our $13 trillion national debt are serious problems that must be addressed. But we can -- and must -- address them without punishing America's workers, senior citizens, the disabled, widows and orphans.

"First, let's be clear: Despite all the right-wing rhetoric, Social Security is not going bankrupt. That's a lie!

"The truth is that the Social Security Trust Fund has run surpluses for the last quarter century. Today's $2.5 trillion cushion is projected to grow to $4 trillion in 2023. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, experts in this area, say Social Security will be able to pay every nickel owed to every eligible beneficiary until 2039.

"Got that? In case you don't, let me repeat it. The people who have studied this issue most thoroughly and have no political bias report that Social Security will be able to pay out all benefits to every eligible beneficiary for the next 29 years.

"It is true that by 2039, if nothing is changed, Social Security will be able to pay out only about 80 percent of benefits. That is why it is important that Congress act soon to make sure Social Security is as strong in the future as it is today.

"The hatred of Social Security from the right-wing, anti-government crowd is based on the fact that the government program has been enormously successful in accomplishing its mission. For 75 years, in good times and bad, Social Security has provided financial security for tens of millions of Americans. ..."

(use link above to read the whole piece)


Disliking how Soc Sec's Trust Fund is borrowed from by a greedy government, and the balance of pay-ins versus pay-outs, is what is creating worries, as far as I'm aware. Pretty simple that is more money goes out than goes in, it's going to dry up! I don't recall hearing anyone suggest it was going to run out next year, but in 2039? The estimates have varied. Who said banish it? I think younger people just don't trust government with their retirement account.  

Sanders' crude calling of people "anti-government" leaves out a vital adjective. Anarchists and crooks are anti-government; right wingers who are neither of those are against a BIG, dominating, bossy, liberty-sucking federal government. They are not against government. 


Senator, Tea Party people, as far as I am aware and as far as I am informed, are merely against a massive, costly, too-powerful Big Brother government full of people who twist facts -- such as what they feel about Soc Sec. If that is not clear, senator, then you have a scant excuse for being a representative of any people. 

Senator, by the looks of this rant of yours, you are an agitator and extremist, not your right wing antagonists. Judging from the deviant language you used, in the opinion piece, about those who favor an affordable and liable government over a constantly growing, taxing beast, you're way off-center, to say the least. 


Your comments about Soc Sec history of success -- obvious stuff, isn't it? -- aside, your coloring of the right is juvenile, done with crayons, not informed nore sensible, as with fine art oil paint.

Shame, Vermont, for keeping this wacky man in power. He is way off-color.

- jR

Related articles by Zemanta

• Richard (RJ) Eskow: Deficit Commission's Rumored Deal Would Pit Middle-Class Seniors Against the Poor (huffingtonpost.com)
• Thoughts about the real reasons for opposition to Social security (beliefnet.com)