Polls, Predictions and the 2008 Election

On Thursday ACS was pleased to have Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight.com speak on his work during the 2008 election cycle, the methodology of poll analysis, and his own plans for the future. Silver, who recently signed a two-book deal with Penguin Group USA, outlined the necessary considerations in political forecasting and how to account for the natural bias exhibited by polls.

FiveThirtyEight.com was created out of frustration with the unsophisticated treatment of polls in the national media, and as an attempt to offer a context that would distinguish different polls and hold polsters accountable for their results. Citing the bad apple effect, where outlier polls garner attention due to their sensationalist results, Silver showed how a flawed polling methodology, such as out-of-date likely voter models or narrow data collection practices, could lead to skewed reporting.

Using various statistical models, including trend adjustment, simulations, and tipping point states, Silver accurately predicted the winner of 49 of 50 states in the 2008 presidential election. But in keeping with his mission is to uncover the hidden agenda of numbers, Silver did not gloat in these results. Instead, he showed that most polls did a good job in this election cycle, and there was only a point of difference between the major poll aggregators. However, while there might not be a significant difference in forecasting, it is in the details that Silver believes there is the most to learn about electoral predictions.

Silver frankly acknowledged that there may be no necessary social purpose for polling, and that he does it for the fun of the numbers. He is turning his attention to new forecasting exploits, and has two upcoming books, treating the art of prediction, including weather forecasting and the science of fashion trends, and the nitty-gritty mechanics of electoral politics. We eagerly look forward to both.

Proposition 8

Today ACS, along with the Federalist Society, CALSOC, CLS ACLU, and BLSA, welcomed Maggie Gallagher, the President of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, and Jennifer Vanasco, the Editor in Chief of 365gay.com, for a discussion about the policy issues surrounding California's Proposition 8 and the issue of gay marriage generally. The two spoke about the moral and philosophical background that animates the discussion between the pro- and anti-gay marriage communities, and urged that those invested in the debate seriously take account of reasons the other side has for its position.

Speaking first, Ms. Vanasco related the many forms that marriage has taken from a world-historical perspective. Stressing that while there is no universality to marriage in its current form, a union between two willing and loving heterosexual partners of similar age, there are certain norms and benefits that contemporary marriage conveys, and that these norms hold equally true for committed gay and lesbian couples. Studies have shown that people in committed relationships, gay or straight, are generally happier, healthier, live longer, and have more support in times of crisis than their single peers.

What the current debate often overlooks, in Ms. Vanasco's view, is that the gay community is not simply seeking legal rights, rights that the civil union experiment has not always afforded, but also seeking recognition of the responsibilities that gay partners have assumed for one another and their children. Pointing to the continual hurdles that even those with all the proper legal documentation have in gaining recognition of their relationship, Ms. Vanasco questioned what harm to the institution of marriage was enough to nullify the negative ramifications of not recognizing in law the commitments and responsibilities of gay and lesbian couples.

Noting that many in the room were in agreement with Ms. Vanasco's position, as was typical in her tours of elite universities throughout the country, Mrs. Gallagher urged that the audience attempt to understand the viewpoint of many in the country who believe that changing the definition of marriage to something other than between a man and a woman would alter the cultural understanding of marriage and potentially weaken the bond that keeps families intact.

Mrs. Gallagher also urged that those on the pro-gay marriage side look at the effects of a legal change in definition to the other side. Citing Bob Jones University v. United States, she claimed that expanding the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples would force upon private citizens and organizations legal obligations that would violate their privately held religious beliefs. It would stigmatize as bigotry opposition that arises from worries for the welfare of children born into situations where the bond of the family was less than in the past.

Blogging Politics: How Nate Silver Called the '08 Election

Blogging Politics: How Nate Silver Called the '08 Election

Thursday, Feb. 26, 12:10 p.m.
JG 103

Those who were addicted to political blogs during the '08 campaign could not overlook FiveThirtyEight.com, Nate Silver's contribution to political discourse. Using his unique method of statistical analysis and insightful commentary, Nate kept us up-to-date on daily fluctuations in polling and projections, finally making predictions that were eerily close to the outcome on election night. In addition to his political expertise, Nate offers predictions for sports and, most recently, the Oscars. Come listen to Nate chat about his methods, his experiences on the campaign trail, and what he's up to until 2010.

Lunch will be served

The Debate on 8: A Discussion on California's Gay Marriage Ban

TODAY!
Tuesday, February 24, 12:00 PM
JG 101
Lunch will be served

Maggie Gallagher, President of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, and Jennifer Vanasco, Editor in Chief of 365gay.com will discuss the policy issues surrounding California's Proposition 8, which amended the California state constitution to restrict the definition of marriage to opposite-sex couples.

Co-sponsored by the Federalist Society, the American Constitution Society, CALSOC, CLS ACLU, and BLSA

Fifth Annual ACS National Student Writing Competition

The deadline for submissions to the Fifth Annual ACS National Student Writing Competition is coming SOON - Friday, February 20! So, pull out your seminar papers, brush them up and submit them!

This competition is an exciting opportunity for students to gain national recognition for their scholarship and to earn substantial prizes. The student authors of the top three papers will also receive special acknowledgment at the 2009 ACS National Convention to be held June18-21, 2009 in Washington, DC.

The author of the Winning Paper will receive:

• an offer of publication in the University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law

and


• a $3,000 check.

The two leading Runners-Up will earn $1,000 each.

So, What Should You Submit?

The American Constitution Society welcomes all papers furthering and promoting a progressive vision of the Constitution, law, and public policy. Subject matters include: Access to the Courts; Civil Liberties; Consumer Rights; Criminal Justice; Disability Rights; Freedom of Speech; GLBT Rights; Human Rights; Immigration; Labor Law; the Political Process; Privacy; Protection of Health,Safety and the Environment; Racial Equality; Religion; Separation of Powers and Federalism; and Women's Rights and Reproductive Freedom.

So, How Will The Paper Be Judged?

Papers will be judged on their effective use, analysis, and/or expansion of progressive legal scholarship. The judging committee will include federal judges and leading academics. The 2009 submission form and information about competition rules, eligibility and format are available online.

Questions?

Please direct questions to LadyStacie Rimes at lrimes[at]acslaw.org or to Rachel Zuraw atzuraw[at]law.upenn.edu. Competition updates will be posted online at ACSLaw.org and the University of Pennsylvania student chapter's website. Participants must be active members of the national ACS. For a mere $10 donation, you can join or renew your ACS national membership here: http://www.acslaw.org/join.

Overturning Ledbetter with Legislation

Overturning "Ledbetter" with Legislation: The Ledbetter Fair Pay Act

Tuesday, February 17, 2009
12:00 - 1:00 PM; JG 101

Professor Olati Johnson will discuss the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, recently signed by President Obama in response to the Supreme Court's ruling in Ledbetter v. Goodyear, and the implications of the Act. Contact: Taylor Kirklin, jtk2121@columbia.edu

Restoring America

Today ACS and the CLS ACLU welcomed Susan Herman, President of the ACLU, for a discussion of the ACLU's transition plan for the new administration. The ACLU has prepared Actions for Restoring America, an action plan for the Obama adminstration to folow in "reparing the damage to freedom in American after Bush." Ms. Herman spoke about the plan's short-term and long-term objectives, describing it as the ACLU's wish list.

The ACLU hoped that on his first day in officer, President Obama would stop torture, close Guantanamo, and end extraordinary rendition. Ms. Herman felt that progress has been made on all of these fronts, but that it is still unclear what their eventual outcome will be. Obama has issued an Executive Order that calls for Guantanamo to be closed, but it remains uncertain whether his administration will see a continued need to hold enemy combatants. It is also unclear as to what will happen with some of the detainees. While some can be released and some tried in federal courts, some detainees cannot be safely returned home due to the threat of harm upon their return. Still other detainees are legitimately dangerous and guilty of criminal acts, yet would prove impossible to prosecute in federal court (see the ACS Blog's recent coverage of this issue). So far the Obama administration has not made it clear that there will be no further preventative detention.

Furthermore, Obama's Executive Order limits interrogation techniques to be employed by government employees to those in the Army Field Manual, but it is yet unclear as to whether this will also prevent individuals who are not government employees from engaging in torture.

Ms. Herman also reviewed some of the ACLU's longer-range objectives for the new administration, including a revived DOJ Civil Rights Division, the end of the abortion gag rule, the end of discrimination against sexual minorities by the federal government and its contractors, and a moratorium on the federal death penalty under its racial disparities are addressed.

This Week @ ACS

1. QUIZZO
Tuesday, February 10th
7:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m.
Lenfest Cafe

Come join us for some good ol' fashioned trivia, pizza, and drinks! The winning team takes home a prize! There is limited space, so sign-ups will be done on a first-come,first-served basis! RSVP your team of 6-8 people (including every teammembers' name and a team name) to Bryant Lee (bpl2108@columbia.edu ).

2. Restoring America
The ACLU's Transition Plan for the New Administration
with Susan Herman, President, American Civil Liberties Union
Monday, February 9, 2009
12:10 pm
JGH 105
Come learn about actions the ACLU thinks President Obama should take during his first year in office. ACLU President Susan Herman will be speaking about the organization's transition plan, which encourages the new administration to repair the damage done to our fundamental rights by working to stop torture and abuse, to recognize the executive's obligation to comply with FISA and other statutes, to order renewedcivil rights enforcement at the DOJ, suspend the regulations for the Real ID Act, implement a federal death penalty moratorium, and to take many other actions. You can read about the transition plan at www.aclu.org/transition.

The New Emperor's Closing Gitmo: The Closing of the Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility and Its Aftermath

On Monday, ACS welcomed Jon Hafetz and Matthew Waxman for a discussion on the legal ramifications of the Obama administration's closure of the Guantánamo Bay detention center. Mr. Waxman is Associate Professor of Law at Columbia Law School, where he specializes in international law and national security law. Mr. Hafetz is an attorney with the ACLU's National Security Project and has represented several Guantánamo detainees and helped coordinate the challenge to establish the right to habeas corpus at Guantánamo.

Mr. Hafetz began by remarking on how critical the next year will be, as the Obama administration will move away from a number of policies of the Bush administration on issues like Guantanamo and interrogation techniques. However, it is unclear how courts will respond.

Last June, the Supreme Court held that detainees have a constitutional right to habeas corpus, invalidating a congressional pronouncement otherwise. Hearings in their cases have begun, and so far a number of detainees have been ordered released, while other continue to be held as enemy combatants. In these cases, one critical issue, Mr. Hafetz argued, is how “enemy combatant” is defined. The defense department has employed a very broad definition, which would see many more detainees remain held. There is also litigation for individuals being held in Afghanistan and it’s currently unclear whether the Court will find habeas corpus rights extend to them.

So far the Obama administration has ordered Guantanamo be closed within a year, cases of individuals held as enemy combatants be reviewed, extraordinary rendition be abolished, and interrogation restricted to the techniques in the Army Field Manual. However, the President has not yet said whether he will continue holding people as enemy combatants. Overall, Mr. Hafetz stated, Progress has been made under the new administration, but there are many question that remain to be answered in terms of the direction of US detention policy in the coming years.

Mr. Waxman agreed that closing Guantanamo was the right thing to do. However, he suggested that it was not that simple to deal with the detainees. He thought that some that posed no risk and could return home safely should definitely be released. Furthermore, those who have committed crimes should be prosecuted in federal court. Mr. Waxman argued that there is an in-between group of detainees who are dangerous or who will be harmed if sent home, but cannot be prosecuted in federal court. Difficulties with such prosecutions stem from the need to maintain secrecy of US intelligence operations, as well as some cases that are now tainted by past US conduct in collecting evidence and performing interrogations. However, it is unclear how many detainees fit in this category and what the Obama administration should do with them.

One solution, Mr. Waxman said, would be to argue that such detainees fall into the category of enemy combatants in an on-going war. This creates the need for a detention system moving forward. He agreed that the risks of creating new detention laws are too great to justify doing so for just a few past cases, but that there might be a lot of cases in the future that can’t be handled in the existing criminal justice system.

The Closing of the Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility and Its Aftermath

The New Emperor's Closing Gitmo: The Closing of the Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility and Its Aftermath

ACS and the ACLU are hosting a discussion on the legal ramifications of the Obama Administration's closure of the Guantanamo Bay detention center. Speaking will be Jon Hafetz of the ACLU and counsel in several leading post-9/11 detention cases, and Matthew Waxman, Associate professor at Columbia University and an expert in the domestic and international legal aspects of fighting terrorism.

Monday, Febuary 2nd, JGH 105 12:00 - 1:00. Lunch will be served.

Sponsored by the American Constitutional Society and the American Civil Liberties Union.