Letters to the editor, July 24, 2010
Gubernatorial poll raises questions
In Tuesday's front-page article about a recent Rasmussen poll, the newspaper states that Paul LePage "leads the race" with support from 39 percent of respondents compared to 31 percent for Elizabeth Mitchell. The poll's margin of error is plus or minus 4.5 percent.
Because of the intricacies of statistical modeling, the margin of error means that LePage's true support could be as low as 34.5 percent and Mitchell's could be as high as 35.5 percent. Therefore, LePage and Mitchell are actually in a statistical dead heat.
According to the article, Rasmussen surveyed 500 people for the poll. In order to achieve a lower margin of error (in the 3 percent range), approximately 1,000 people would need to be interviewed.
Of course, interviewing twice as many respondents would cost a lot more money -- which is why we see a lot of polls with large margins of error.
The Press Herald is surely not alone in this oversight. Research has found that many media outlets tend to ignore or downplay the details of polling margins.
In the future, reporters should be careful how they phrase poll results, and editors may want to be more selective in which polls they choose to highlight.
Matt J. Duffy, Ph.D.
Westport Island
After seeing results of the most recent polling on the Maine governor's race, I feel it's time for Maine to change its election laws.
If the winning candidate receives less than 50 percent of the popular vote, we should have a runoff between the top two candidates. We always end up with a governor who nobody really supports.
If only 50 percent of the people go to the polls and the winner gets 40 percent of the vote, the governor would be directly supported by just 20 percent of eligible voters.
Also, if you have a Democrat and liberal independent running, they will split the vote and a Republican will win; or if you have a Republican and a conservative independent running, they will split the vote and a Democrat would win.
In either event, we get a less popular governor who may not be the best qualified or best choice.
This should apply to all elected officials throughout the state.
Charles Simons
Eliot
Council of Churches wants civil elections
Most faith traditions urge every person to treat other people as they would want to be treated -- with no exceptions for behavior in political life or civic discourse. Most politicians and elected officials in our country consider themselves members of faith traditions that uphold these teachings.
Yet in our public debate and especially during election season, the level of invective, personal insult, and willingness to bend the truth, to do anything to win, seems to be on the rise.
In response to this trend, the Maine Council of Churches recently adopted a Covenant for Civil Discourse, a set of promises regarding the behavior of candidates and those of us supporting them.
The council is now asking every candidate for governor to sign these promises and stick to them as they conduct their campaigns. And we're asking citizens, especially those who volunteer or contribute to campaigns, to do so as well.
What are these promises? They are simple and straightforward but potentially have great power to change the experience of elections for citizens and campaigners alike.
Act respectfully toward others.
Refrain from personal attacks (while maintaining the right to disagree vigorously).
Refrain from demonizing opponents (characterizing the opposition as evil).
Refuse to make untrue statements.
Value honesty, truth and civility while striving to find workable solutions.
And expect that anyone working on your behalf -- or, if you are a voter, anyone you contribute to or work to get elected -- will do the same.
To sign the covenant, just go to the Maine Council of Churches' website, www.mainecouncilofchurches.org. Then do what you can to make sure our public discourse is worthy of the great issues at stake and the great nation we are and can become.
Roger W. Comstock
Vice President, Board of Directors
Maine Council of Churches
Yarmouth
Underage drinking a complicated problem
I agree with Michael Waxman in regards to his column about teenagers and drinking. This topic has bothered me since my children became teenagers.
When they were in middle school, every time they would hop in the car, I would talk about the dangers of drugs and alcohol to the point that they would look at me, roll their eyes and say: "Do we need to talk about not drinking or using drugs again?"
I was confident at the time that they understood, and they were adamant about heeding my warning.
Why I thought 16-year-olds would refrain from doing something that I did when I was their age I will never know, but the reality of what was really going on finally kicked in and I decided to clear out any and all alcohol from my house. I did not want them getting alcohol from home, even though I knew they would get it somewhere else.
Children are being punished as adults when they are caught consuming alcohol. Parents are being punished for furnishing a place for minors to consume alcohol, even if you thought you had an eye out for what was going on, and you were home.
Our children are drinking. They do not realize, because they are children, how this can adversely affect them moving forward with their lives and impact them when they mature to the point of actually being adults.
I thought that talking to them, removing alcohol from my home, and telling them to call for a ride if they needed one would prevent issues from occurring, but I was wrong.
I am not sure anything will help with this issue but time, hopefully without disastrous consequences.
Maria Kennedy
Cumberland
Cutting state budget should focus on waste
Time for state budget cuts again.
As a result of years of mismanagement in Augusta, we are again faced with making significant budget cuts.
So the politicans turn to services that will anger the public. How about looking at the Department of Transportation? We are now spending more on wages than repairing roads.
I'm also getting sick of jobs that have 12 state workers leaning on shovels, on a four-person job! Where is the outrage?
Dave Libby
Falmouth
Were you interviewed for this story? If so, please fill out our accuracy form
Most...
Copyright ©2010 MaineToday Media, Inc.
16 COMMENTS
lotekguy said...
Does the Maine Council of Churches propose to assemble a"Truth and Civility" committee to set strict guidelines for what we are allowed to discuss? I thought that was the function of an all-knowing government,to protect us from ourselves and make sure we don't become too"free". Spare me your"civility pledge". America is based on free markets,and that includes a free market of ideas,where we freely exchange beliefs and opinions in a variety of forums such as these discussion boards. I want a"free-for-all"of ideas--a knock-down,drag-out ideological battle where the best thoughts compete with all comers,and we the people determine which make the most sense. That's true democracy,and we don't need self-appointed arbiters--secular or sectarian--setting the groundrules for us.
July 24, 2010 at 8:01 AM Report abuse
AFVET said...
"True democracy"? The Supreme Court in the Citizens case made that concept laughable. We have 'democracy' as chosen by the highest bidder.
July 24, 2010 at 10:06 AM Report abuse
JWR said...
lotekguy,--That's probably best thing you have have posted on the various threads on this site I've read. So, you are open minded, now if your Republican party had more of you we could get some serious work done. Good post.
July 24, 2010 at 10:08 AM Report abuse
JWR said...
I forgot to mention that Mr. Comstock's comment is quite admirable, however it could never fit into politics and we can take that back all the way to Jefferson, who in today's world would be a charter member of the so called new-age 'tea-party'. We don't care much for truth in government and even less in the private sector. We have become a society who likes to cut and paste sound bites to fit our agenda. If truth ever did grace our dialog on what's best for America we would no longer be a greedy self absorbed capitalist consumerist nation.
July 24, 2010 at 10:16 AM Report abuse
lotekguy said...
AFVET,all the Supreme Court did was turn back part of the McCain-Feingold assault on the 1st amendment. Money in politics is not the problem. The problem is a political class that has the power to pick winners and losers,using money from ALL sources,including the funds they forcibly extract from us. Corporations and other"lobbying"groups--some of which you may belong to--don't vote. They may use money to attempt to influence legislation,and promote candidates,but it still comes down to us casting our individual votes. YOU determine whether you agree or disagree with"special interest"groups,and voters decide election outcomes. Get informed,get active,and vote,as we all do,your"enlightened self-interest".
July 24, 2010 at 10:23 AM Report abuse
CyMc said...
Matt Duffy - By your logic, the real numbers could have Lepage with 43.5% and Mitchell with only 26.5%. It's relative, and used to measure trends, not some hypothetical election prediction. Get a life, you and other liberals are just horrified to think that Mainers are finally tired of the Augusta Politik always winning every statewide race.
July 24, 2010 at 10:39 AM Report abuse
henryelm said...
I disagree JWR it is possible to have clean politics instead of dirty politic. We have had DECADES where we had civil discourse based upon facts, and even differences of philosophy. policy and opinion. "Firing line" was a great show in the past, watched by many, that had opposing views on issues and then let the VOTERS decide.IN MY opinion FOX , cable news and scream radio which values enetertainment and ratings above facts and truth has done the great harm to the civility and truth of discourse In america. Lotke they don't to control wht you discus BUT HOW you discuss it .starting with "thou shall not lie. "I would love to see RUSH and Maddow go head to head on an issue based upon the FACTS!!!
July 24, 2010 at 12:47 PM Report abuse
henryelm said...
The fairness doctrine which the right loves to hate REQUIRED exactly that head to head discussion of opposing views. It gave the listener( voter) both "sides" and the FREEDOM to think the issue thru considering both sides arguments and facts. They had the freedom to use their own brain on loan from God to DECIDE for themselves which view was valid and in line with their own belief system. TV shows used to regularly debate the hot issues of the day with BOTH sides presenting their view" face to face' We had better informed and involved voters as a result.
July 24, 2010 at 12:58 PM Report abuse
henryelm said...
The fairness doctrine which the right loves to hate REQUIRED exactly that head to head discussion of opposing views. It gave the listener( voter) both "sides" and the FREEDOM to think the issue thru considering both sides arguments and facts. They had the freedom to use their own brain on loan from God to DECIDE for themselves which view was valid and in line with their own belief system. TV shows used to regularly debate the hot issues of the day with BOTH sides presenting their view" face to face' We had better informed and involved voters as a result.
July 24, 2010 at 1:00 PM Report abuse
henryelm said...
the worse thing to happen to civil public discourse was cable news and am "talk' radio---aka politics for dummies or the lazy. BOTH seek to substitute their thinking for yours. Instead of allowing you the FRREDOM to think and consider for your self
July 24, 2010 at 1:06 PM Report abuse
JWR said...
henryelm,--I'd like to believe we could, but case in point, how does Maine re-elect a Collins over Tom Allen ? Who if he ever ran against Obama I would have had a very hard time making a choice. Maybe sub- consciously we want clean politics, effective representation which plays not to the business as usual in DC. It will never happen in our life times, because we have never had it in America. The great myth is we can.
July 24, 2010 at 1:27 PM Report abuse
lotekguy said...
Henryelm,if you enjoyed Firing Line as much as I did,the major reason had to be the show's creator and interviewer/moderator,Bill Buckley. I doubt Mr.Buckley would share your view that talk radio should be silenced. The"fairness"doctrine would do precisely that,and I'm sure you know it. I don't assume that you and other liberals take everything you hear on MSNBC,or read in mags like THE NATION,as gospel. Why do you all seem to think those of us on the right are empty-headed"Rushbots"who can't determine truth from Bulls**t. All programming is totally ratings-driven. There's a reason"hate"radio is overwhelmingly libertarian/conservative,and Air America and liberal talk radio don't last. And Fox News Channel,especially in prime time,kicks butt over all other cable outlets combined. It's a direct reflection of the national conversation occuring there, and here online. We all seek the truth,and wish to share it with each other. We need more free speech,not less.
July 24, 2010 at 2:07 PM Report abuse
lotekguy said...
As far as"clean"political discourse,heaven forbid!!! If that's what you want,move to North Korea,Cuba,or Venezuela,and let the dictators and"Dear Leaders"clean it up for you. Or you may prefer Saudi Arabia,or some other theocratic regime. How about the Taliban? They'd certainly enforce their version of"clean". I want my politics down-and-dirty. Don't give me that"non-partisan"crap. Our politics should reflect the culture war being fought here in the real world. I don't need anyone to filter my news,or tell me what the truth is. And I don't suppose you do either. Free people will figure it out for themselves,but only with unlimited access to ALL sources of information. I refuse to be kept ignorant by limited choices,and I insist you have the same right. As Americans,we're guaranteed that.
July 24, 2010 at 2:22 PM Report abuse
TiredMainer said...
Matt Duffy. If you add 4.5% to LePage and subtract 4.5% from Mitchell it would be 43.5% LePage and 26.5 for Mitchell. Thus a 17 point spread favoring LePage using your same logic.
July 25, 2010 at 8:14 AM Report abuse
X207 said...
I'm not sure what Mr. Duffy has a Ph.D. in, but it's obviously not statistics. If the margin of error on a poll is 4.5%, you can only take that total away once. In other words, you can only take away (or add) 4.5% to one of the candidates at one time - or you can take away 2.25% from both. According to Mr. Duffy's math, the margin of error would be 9%. In any case, 4.5% is NOT a high margin of error for a poll. Anywhere from 3% - 5% margin of error is fairly typical.
July 26, 2010 at 8:29 AM Report abuse
taxationland said...
Matt Duffy, Rasmussen is one of the premier pollsters, amassing an amazing record of accuracy over the years. Please remember that instead of polling "adults" or "registered voters" Rasmussen polls "likely voters" and therein lies the difference.
July 29, 2010 at 7:26 AM Report abuse