Nate Silver, the statistics wunderkind now based at the New York Times, has an exhaustive rundown of all the Senate and House races up for vote in tomorrow's midterm election. As expected, the news is horrific for Democrats. Right now he's predicting Democrats will hold on to the Senate by a bare 52-48 majority, but lose the House with a 233-202 minority at night's end.
Silver uses his own statistical model that surveys polls in each race, factoring in local and national trends, and assigns a percentage indicating a candidate's chances of winning tomorrow. An accompanying map allows readers to click on individual races that show current predictions or, if they scroll over it, the race's standing over time.
Like at least 39 of his House colleagues -- and probably more -- Democratic incumbent John Hall of New York's 19th congressional district is now the underdog in his race against his Republican challenger, Tea Party newbie Nan Hayworth. Right now Silver is predicting Hall will lose by 3 points. This, in turn, has spurred people like me to go out canvassing for Hall tonight, just to prove him wrong. Statistics Schmatistics.
But several "x" factors could hurt Hayworth's chances. The first is one Silver himself acknowledges -- the wildcard aspect of Paladino's spot at the top of the GOP ticket. There's no predicting if, say, Paladino will hold down turnout because of his zero chance of winning or his wackiest-guy-at-the-Tea-Party vibe, affecting candidates down ballot like Hayworth.
But there's another variable I haven't seen addressed, but which could have an effect on tomorrow's races: The new optical scanning machines that will get their first full implementation in the state tomorrow. The machines supplant the old lever machines most of us have grown up with and grown oddly fond of. Slamming down the levers, a voter could not only feel the contempt, defiance or pride that drove him or her into that booth, but actually hear it, too. Bang. Bang. Bang. Take that, Bush. And despite a vague feeling that the vote was floating off into the ether, not sure exactly where or if in its original state, it brought back so many memories -- a first vote; a toddler waddling in beside a parent -- it seemed worth the tradeoff. Though I really hope those anti-Bush votes took.
But introducing any new technology is fraught with problems, and, in my mind, there's no predicting what effect this will have on the election, including Hall's race. First, I'm not sure the blue-haired ladies at the desk, or the old guys in vests, are up to the task. They can barely find a name in the register no less shimmy a ballot into a machine or undo an overvote. Sure, they'll learn as the day goes on, but it will certainly slow the process. In addition, machine malfunctions during the September primaries were rampant throughout the state, and are likely tomorrow along with an anticipated shortage of techies. Will all this turn voters away? Which ones? Long waits, though, may not be the only deterrent to voting. From a voter's standpoint, just navigating a new system will be difficult in itself, despite the "easy as 1-2-3" brochures sent to households beforehand. People who haven't read it first, or are thrown by novelty, may end up feeling frustrated at the least and Palm Beach deja vu at the worst.
If it has any effect, here's hoping it hurts them more than it hurts us. Change, after all, isn't exactly their thing.
No comments:
Post a Comment