tv Cato Institute Hosts Debate on the Libertarian Vote CSPAN November 3, 2016 12:42am-1:54am EDT
endorsement we do not take sides. and we will do our best to avoid that that is not what we're trying to tell you that will last questions of the panelists did not alternating order. they must speak questions to have a five minute closing statement hopefully we won't run too far over and do the best that we can't so we should turn it over to the affirmative side.
>> 8q for participating in those watching at home. maybe one or the other. there are three reasons to vote one is a direct influence on the outcome that in direct influence on other political actors that they will discuss mostly. so that people are arguing against voting because there is almost no way that your vote will affect the outcome so i want to assess briefly the cost benefit to go to the back of the envelope.
to start with cost this a take 1,000 hours to figure out how to vote do have to educate yourself every issue? not really if you are a libertarian you already know enough about the issues. maybe there is a line. and then to knock it down quite a bit. only that you are voting in the presidential to show that your chance to affect a presidential election is one in 60 million. and your conclusion would be that is not worth doing i am out of here. but another study assesses
the value to affect that is based on the $2 trillion with the iraq war. so that is worth $5,000 if you stop the vote from happening so maybe taking it down by a factor of 500. so you have to vote did in the senate. so then go $10 of value. that house raise $1.15. york governor maybe it can affect to be the deciding vote as your governor. dogcatcher?
so the initiative campaign is a pretty big deal with the $9 billion bond issue that could be quite valuable one in 1.3 million chance to say it is worth $5 you will spend a little more time pet chance to affect them are small but the value in is high. that it is more like 53. that is direct influence one of my favorites dollars, myself. [laughter] they are a dazzling roman candle of information the political parties and these
witnesses are incorporating that when moss margin that you create even if it doesn't prevent the election of a candidate. but that to be on inauguration day. talking about people who decide to run those a get behind candidates are not those that right based on all of this. of course, donors. and i have not quantified that also social influence and then tune continue with that topic. >> and the good news with the planet so whether
libertarians should vote and those that do not care that just wants to complain if you confirm the stereotypes if they were basement dwellers were then you should not only not cope with them back about it. you should log and insinuate those who do vote are irrational. if they want to make the rule that better place you should vote. talk about the benefits of voting the influence on policy in comes. so the benefits of voting on the policy outcomes are even greater than they suggest.
and that is primarily because people see that as an act of carrying. here is a thought experiment. so she fears for her son to stop the frisk nationwide so they already believe that libertarians will they care about preserving. if you tell her i agree but i don't vote let me tell you why the libertarians are your real friends. what will she think? will her mind me open to your ideas or the latina that asks you to vote for to help clean up the neighborhoods to fifth thoughts of the federal
government deporting her grandmother will she believed libertarians are her friend? would you believe that what. >> some people will think you are selfish some people don't open their minds and that not only applies to you every libertarian. they have thousands of obedient followers on twitter. if they broadcast voting is a good idea their followers will vote. give partake. if they broadcast smart people don't then they won't. so the decision to not making it your thing but what of all libertarians' made it their thing.
kennedy and johnson and a lot more twitter followers. fifth and it will not have then impact with their twitter followers. we will depress that libertarian voting even more. what if there were 2 million twitter followers what about the creators of "south park" or celebrities should they encourage their followers not to vote? pretty soon you talk a body significant number of votes not to show up at the general election or in the tallies in the primary elections that our more important arguably or even
in the of polls of voters because they screen if you voted or likely to vote in the next election that can skew how politicians view and their views will not show up in public opinion surveys to the ones that the politicians pay the most attention to. but they could if they play the cards right. glenn is not dead he is a right turn in hollywood now to say it is just a classic collective action problem libertarians they all voted. with a policy outcomes study individual libertarian has an incentive not to vote if i don't like to spend time
doing other things. that is not likely to affect the ultimate outcome but to follow that incentive we are all worse off. everyone else those believing in liberty or equal dignity creates a social norm that people should do the socially beneficial thing they benefit from adopting a social norm. the optimal strategy is to coordinate. there are principal reasons not to vote but i felt that libertarians who oppose now jim said we should close to even offer a picture of his seven wearing me i've voted sticker.
[applause] >> in fairness the other side has adorable voters to i will now allow them 10 minutes. >> thanks for coming also agenda for coming up with this event and for letting me join on. that jim went over this already but your vote does not matter to be very clear in most situations. the article that he cited that is the gold standard one added 60 million that is general if he were in california voting republican it could be one at a billion with the respective value it is a different question one of a billion chance with the ability something would get past of have to run those numbers and then come up
with a two-point 5 million to thousand 353rd power to make a difference. those are relatively close elections like a runaway victories like reagan or roosevelt no single blow has ever decided to presidential election. despite the argument about margins with turnout is the same problem he did not contribute to that no politician has ever said i 1.4.o '07 and then i would have had one but that is never happen once in history in 2001 looking at a 56,000 contested elections end of those 40,000 they found seven decided biasing will vote there was one congressional election
decided by a single vote in buffalo 41,000 votes cast but upon the recounting the single vote disappeared which leads me to bush viborg making the single vote matters but actually that proves it never comes down to the 500 votes it will be decided by courts and lawyers not by the actual voters. it is not up for debate you have not mattered in any election ever have voted it is not a wonderful life situation to take you back to say look at the world that have been when you did not to vote in would be the exact same world except to have more time because you did not vote we should rephrase and the question why should they do that ineffective activity with the outcome concern? think about it that way there's a lot of reasons actually anything effective
is a good reason if they say why don't you rain dance they would say it isn't effective if you ask people why don't you vote because it is an effective that seems weird. you all know it doesn't matter so it is weird most of you are on the other side and we are the weirdos in the room so what matters is what michael pointed out yes it doesn't matter but voting in the aggregate does that is a true statement we will not be addressing today voting in mass matters. . .
and me began when i wrote an essay laying out the aspects i thought people would rarely recognized. he responded with the title don't not vote. a vegetariaif vegetarians abstam eating meat because they believe there are troubling aspects against the benefits and they do this knowing full well that any individual decision to not eat meat won't save the life of a single animal. we don't take this as evidence that they are behaving irrationally. what about jehovah's witnesses clashing with their principles
do we condemn them for not fulfilling their civic duty, are their principles stronger or better than ours? dc voting to some extent like the quakers had jehovah's witnesses do. your vote has no impact on the direction of the country and even still it doesn't take much time or effort, but that doesn't mean it's without cost. it has a deep symbolic meaning in our culture and that is both overplayed and wrongheaded. trevor and i are geared as are many of our colleagues here because we have a fundamentally different view of the state than most people. we believe the authority has limits and there's a private choice that's not allowed to penetrate. doing everything we vote on, nearly everything the presidential candidates have said they would do falls outside the bounds of libertarian principle. it's symbolically signing on to what those people will do in
your name and given that the outcome will likely be profoundly on libertarian that isn't something i'm willing to do. like eating meat to a vegetarian come even though i know abstaining won't influence the government and it different direction i also know it won't make it worse and at the same time allows me to maintain my principles and with my sense of justice, which is important because i got into the world to make it better and i can do that by pushing back against the history on an incoherent view most americans have about the voting. that makes me weird, i admit that i' i am happy to embrace ad it's a beard and if i wish more people would as well. it's not just a positive good, it can be dangerous. this might sound weird but people have been talking about the dangers of voting and it seems madison was terrified of voters. the progressives were terrified
so they started creating the administrative state. all the while the government has grown to be the most powerful organization in the history of humankind controlling daily lives to an almost unimaginable and unacceptable degree making us hate each other in the progresprocess. process. the fetishization of voting buttresses the idea that it's a check on the government and the justification for whatever government does. but many are beyond the legitimate powers of government. we need to step back and accurately characterize voting as a weak and inadequate form of choice that cannot effectively support the weight of the government that claim legitima legitimacy. they can have a real cost of people raise voting to the pinnacle of the engagement which many do and they ignore other types of engagement. when president obama intraoffice it was like a messiah.
he would solve things and make it better. the antiwar movement of the left mostly disappeared because of the partisanship and also because obama was going to take care of it. because it is perceived it can be dangerous as we see in every people's republic of in the world. what if they held the election and nobody came. whoever tha that would be betwen hitler and stalin they are only giving the ability to say however many people voted they claim legitimacy. my vote doesn't matter and your vote or not vote doesn't matter. let's agree both are symbolic. you can vote for the candidate you enjoy and feel like you are doing your duty and i don't buy not voting but it's important for me to stand up and remind people what's wrong with voting on the things we do. if there was a referendum on a national haircut and we started
having a discussion about whether or not you're going to get the hippie or the marine and people started coming out and saying make your voice heard, don't you believe in democracy, somebody has to stand up and say we do not vote about these things loudly and without shame and honestly. thank you. [applause] thank you to both sides. i will now be asking each side questions. i will alternate from one side to the other. however i will tolerate some impromptu cross-examination and back and forth because i think that's healthy, and i trust my colleagues hear me sufficiently to respect my authority. first question is on the negative side. i can imagine your arguments making the opponents very, very
happy. if you don't vote, the median voters that much less libertarian. as a median voter always carries the election what do you say to that? >> if i personally do not vote but there is an unofficial but can figure out how much the changed because it would be a small amount. if all libertarians don't vote and they try t they'd try to cot into a question about voting en masse battering which we are resisting and point it isn't wrong for libertarians to not vote and there's other ways of trying to do social change but i think changing peoples minds about whapeople's mindsabout whn terms of how much it can check the government is beneficial and can change the median voter. >> -also argue the question about the median voter is related to jim's arguments about giving a cost to how much or
both might benefit us or other people. they assume the candidate we would be voting for stands some chance of winning. if those arguments work they would seem to push in the direction of being obligated as a libertarian not just to vote for someone in the major two-party candidates who can win as opposed to throwing their vote away for someone like gary johnson or another independent candidate who stands no chance of winning unless your vote stands no chance of influencing one direction or another. >> if it is germane. >> the argument throwing your vote away is irrelevant. what do you think about throwing your vote away? >> does effectively.
a vote of conscience isn't thrown away. a vote for a third-party candidate isn't a throwaway vote if what you're trying to do is build support for that perspective over time. the way you do that is by having more votes in that column this year than you did last year or the year before. you can't just assume other people don't exist. trevor actually influences more people more then he mayb than he thinks. we can't just assume you're making all of these decisions in a vacuum and other people don't exist. a vote for a third-party candidate is only thrown away if you think the only thing that matters is whether your vote will be the deciding vote on who gets to be president or wins
this or that. >> i can also imagine your argument because if all libertarians voted it is still conceivable we wouldn't win but the decision would be perhaps to have more of a popular mandate. this is the collective decision in which you have participated what do you say to that? >> voting symbolically legitimizes or makes us responsible. it's like to olds in a sheet voting on what you have for lunch. if the sheep screams i both know that doesn't legitimize the process. you can vote for whoever you want if for whatever reason you want.
you are registering your opinion about how the government is going to use its power and if you say i don't want it to use its power come if you want to send that message you can do that. there's nothing about voting for -- you could vote for john anarchy if you wanted to or boatie mc boatface. >> in brief before i get to my answer, i want to discuss some points of agreement. they each said that they were weird and that is one point of agreement but i do think the example of the national haircut was a bar thrown in the direction. [laughter]
>> i am inclined to believe there is a minor signal in participating the vote and maybe someone somewhere, look at all the voting participation that there is and therefore the outcome is valid that is a minor and are rarely used to signal as compared to the margins of the victory in the electoral races themselves used by congressional staff and the signal that is given off as much more powerful in many different instances than the so-called ratification in the democratic process. >> on the sheep it seems perfectly reasonable and saying i don't know to say you don't
get to vote on this. this isn't the kind of thing we vote about. also, they don't use coercive force and that seems like an argument about the ballot initiative should we make it illegal, yes or no, and that wouldn't seem to violate the libertarian principles but it certainly doesn't seem to apply to candidates or anyone who has a reasonable chance of winning because they have some things that are libertarian but lots of things that are not. it's not an application of use of force. and for the signaling perspective, my sense is that people take voting on seriously. so writing mickey mouse or a pretend candidate is at least as offensive and offputting as abstaining from voting.
>> is going to the booth all that you require or just leave it blank is that better? >> i will start with that yes or no. go to the ballot box and cast a blank ballot and satisfy the requirements. >> of the degree of signaling improves if you voted for one of the candidates as opposed to writing mickey mouse but if you write a legitimate person and say this was my choice, and you're telling the person you're trying to bring to your side i care about the community. we are together on that. now come my way on the substantive issues. >> i don't think that it only
applies to the ballot initiatives. when you are voting for candidates for office, we are selecting between different people and deciding who will get all these pre-existing covers that exist in the apparatus of this particular office. i don't think it's legitimizing or that it validates the candidate i did vote for. if what i'm trying to do is cast a vote for the candidate i think will do the least bad stuff >> do you say that two jehovah's witnesses clacks >> that they should vote for the least bad -- it depends on think the non- libertarians shouldn't vote svotes with depends how
libertarian. [laughter] i'm going to move on. i have a question. quite a few people are unhappy that we are even having this debate. we've been told we risk making ourselves look to the general public. our point in the rain dances may be true that they are an effective at generating rain. but anthropologists have pointed out they serve an additional function which is social cohesion. in times of crisis and periodically even without, communities perform rituals to bind themselves together as a community. what do you say about the function of voting? >> some are child sacrifice. i believe in social cohesion but i actually think that voting pulls us apart in a very specific way. politics makes us worse because
of the things we are voting about. if a hillary in a trump supporter lived next door to each other, they can live next door to each other because they are not in a world of property rights to control each other's lives. but as soon as you have been voting about what children are going to learn about and what kind of health care plan they are going to have, they start hating each other and i think the hatred that exists is proportional to the size of the government. preparing for this debate, i was looking for texts. the ones i found were all christian tech us to. they were all jehovah's witnesses and quakers writing about why they don't vote and one of the most common is it makes me hate my fellow man and i do not follow the commandment
to love thy enemy when i am involved in the political system to control one's life so in civic engagement and how much we care about people we have a better argument. >> what divides us isn't the act of voting or the fact that we have different preferences when we go to the ballot box about this haircut or that or creationism versus evolution. it's that the government is trying to impose one answer on everybody. it's not the act of voting itself. if the government for not coming up with a one-size-fits-all rule for everybody i could teach creationism, you could teach evolution, we could shave our heads, you could not -- [laughter] and we would get along just fine. we would be neighbors, we would be different if we wouldn't have
a reason to fight because to each his own. when you say the problem is voting, as libertarians we are not going to vote and you were making it harder to get rid of the things that divide us so for the reasons we stated, libertarians should vote to reduce the influence over all these questions. >> one quick response. >> you are sliding back to voting in the aggregate versus individually. my vote won't move in a more libertarian direction and on the signaling thing, our argument is that all this weight people have been placed on voting voting and they think it is how we participate and we ought to participate. so i signaling that it is okay, we are reinforcing these false
beliefs about the scope of government. it would be one thing if we say i'm nosaidi'm not going to votee i'm lazy. responding with the principled argument for why i am abstaining from this particular system seems arguably as persuasive in the right direction or at least as a ray of hope where people don't think this is a legitimate way to choose how we run our lives. >> i have a question now from this side. surveys have shown they know who their senators are. only half of the voters know the states get two of them and often cannot name more than one candidate in the district and they can't say what the first amendment does. they are routinely grossly ignorant about the fact of the public policy. these are embarrassing and not
limited to the political mainstream. how do you recommend any one votanyone votein light of the pr ignorance clacks >> the non- libertarians should not vote. if you know enough about yourself to be libertarian you know the structure of the government, you probably know there is one representative in your district and two for the state and you probably know how you come out on most issues so that doesn't affect the thesis that most should vote. i want to be clear about what we are for, connecting all three of the questions. what was said about the intrusiveness of the government it is the kind of thing the government is doing that we think are outside of the government and the people that are voting that is point number one. second, for the question we know why there are ignorant voters because your vote doesn't matter. we have an entire system that
explains why when you run the benefits were cost of the decision you'll make better decisions than because voting is a matter there's ignorant voters. it is true however and i think maybe jim would endorse this it is true that if you are very turned on this stuff jason talked about, it is probably your duty not to vote because the plaintiff voting is the coercive power of government and if you do it from the position you don't know how many representatives you have or who is running for office, you have no idea and your ignorance could do a bad thing to peopl people h you for a deciding vote. >> this is a reason to advance the principled objection because one of the reasons lots of ignorant people vote is because
we as a culture convinced ourselves voting is this enormously important thing everyone ought to do and just the way you vote is the way that you discharged or civic duty if you get out there every four years or two years than you've done what you need to do as a citizen and you're done. if we push back and say it's one of the more minor things you can do to advance your civic duty, that would cut out some of the ignorant voters. real movements to rise t that re parties put a good deal of effort into activating their own and tea activating the other side so making the other side feel demoralized. [inaudible] this week a poll was conducted of the institute's policy staff.
it showed some 70% of respondents described themselves as regular voters and another were okay shall. these figures are comparable to those for all americans that have a college degree or higher. i asked why are the libertarians not taking your advice. >> i would start by saying if we are going to have lots of people disagree as a sign we are perhaps wrong. [laughter] >> that is how voting works. >> my colleagues haven't listened to us enough. >> we don't have a problem with libertarians voting. the best reason is it feels good and because it doesn't matter is the reason we don't have a problem with it but if you have an important duty, you should
vote. we are not arguing for the principled non- duty to vote and wgod andwe have in the military community sensible people who understand these dynamics very well. we also have some folk that enjoy signaling how much they dislike democracy. by publicly expressing its self-defeating to talk about not voting. >> i gave a thought experiment and you could imagine any individual that faces a threat from the outcome that is personalized from them coming to
you and saying well you vote for the candidate in this election, what would you say to that person that includes i don't vote into the cause of liberty. >> what you are signaling is caring and they are signaling i don't care about your problem. if you argue that we should turn healthcare to free markets a lot of people that say i'm going to
vote for a wall that will help you that forces someone to give you medical care is signaling not caring so the objection is to show people this is a signal of not caring so by turning the health care over to market we are doing it out of a sense of caring. >> the objective of turning health care over doesn't reverse coercion. it reduces the coercion coerciot is a principle of the inaccurate belief. but it's not something we have to take up.
even if it is false it does not involve coercion so instead of dodging the question what did you say to that voter that's afraid of the outcome. i asked about voting on initiatives because there are times i could imagine myself voting under certain circumstances where things are small. we are not against democracy we are against overpowering with
libertarians are against. >> it's a different question if we are voting on a limited government. it's a different question for the libertarian in the same way if we are voting on courts and stoplights and whether there's going to be a road here with a broad overlap that is a different question. i want to get to mike's question. first of all i say i don't vote ignorantly if i'm going to vote i will research what you're talking about and make a decision whether i'm going to vote on it. i didn't call this debate. if people ask me i will tell
>> i would like to open the floor to questions from the audience. >> wheat free microphone, identify yourself and make sure that your question is in the form of a question. >> i am working with the fee gerry johnson campaign. i'm probably in the camp of why are you even having this debate. but i'm glad i came because i want people to ask a question of those that are not in favor of voting themselves personally and i want to preface by saying i didn't go to the first time i was eligible and they had an existential crisis thinking i
can't believe i threw away that opportunity. i think that you've made good points like we've probably over emphasized the importance of voting but by and large. the reason the question is the form of the rights. if i may be leader then buying rights need to be compatible with the rights of all other people. you act in a way such that everyone engaging in the same behavior as you wanted if you've are giving not voting results in the system system that there wan fact no legitimacy to the states
of the question is can you believe in a limited state and still abstained from voting or i guess i should ask in the reverse is it the case that only holds value if you believe the government as a whole is illegitimate >> voting is the way that we legitimize government and there are those that save voting doesn't legitimize government and we have to do with some it r way so i would question the premise of your objection. >> our argument to prove on this thing affecting what it's doing it is entirely dependent and
there are things the state and the drug war for example that is deeply amoral and i don't want to sign my name to anyone who is for the even if it is for political purposes. there's another noise in the system about politicians because we've oversold this is the expected value calculation we need to understand when they took the house and the senate it was styled as a huge referendum
and they showed massive interest and it was time for the government to rethink the iraq war. candidates are like mirrors they are nothing until you look at them and they will change when they get in office. i'm going to abstain because of the ignorance. >> when you're talking it seems like more of a presidential side. i'm from the small town in iowa at 800 so when you talk about the legitimate aspect of government, what would you say
to people that the votes mattered wermatterwere talking l board members they talk about making an impact and that seems to be the most important. >> there are multiple considerations in play. one of them is how likely your vote is to influence things to move the margins and then there are the considerations you need to weigh them against each other so the smaller of the more the chance your vote will matter and if you flip to the point where that outweighs our concerns.
there is the indignation for those that are not going to vote only comes up when we are talking about the presidential elections. we don't get mad when people say i didn't vote in the midterm even though they have a greater chance of affecting things so we are in a situation where rhetorically it is how much the vote matters. >> a lot of people come to this based on the model. the down ballot gives you lots of opportunity to affect things on the small margins by participating if it did when the
small-town. my mother used to rant against a variety of things but in the political sphere she turned that into action. she ran for a hospital board in california and purported to the hospital for no longer existed on a platform that she would do away with the board. she wasn't going to get elected but she said something to a lot of people and again whether the hospital board should exist. think about the down ballot and not just the model we are talking about. >> if you want to waive that in favor of questions i would be okay with that.
>> we will take one more question and then close. >> i would like to ask something in regards to not voting because of ignorance. why would you promote not voting instead of promoting being informed and educating yourself, how is that better? not just the presidential election but the down ballot stuff jim is big on is extraordinarily time-consuming. there's plenty of issues i don't have enough knowledge on to say
that i could vote one way or another and i spend 40 hours a week doing this so the cost is that it means a lot of things they wouldn't be doing otherwise so it's more important to them than the single vote. >> there are concerns i have in the local government but i don't know enough about it. those are the trade-offs that
matter. >> i think we should move to closing statements. i said i do not like the results of democracy. the list goes on and on and on but that isn't a reason not to vote. i think you've got to live in the world. persuasion is the name of the game. some professors came in and said in 20 years before regulation will be telephone, satellites.
useful to 5% of the problem. the other 95% of the problem is getting people to come along with you. we know a lot of the answers and think together 95% of the problem is getting people to come along with us. the people that have the power now. they solved the collective action problem. they are saying get out and vo vote. they will turn around and starts telling us something they want to do in another realm i'm not going to like so join me in solving this collective action problem and voting for the
candidate of your choice. >> there was a killer close. [applause] we have a little time for the closing statements. is voting wrong and i think the answer is no. voting badly is wrong but voting itself is not. i don't think it is so wrong that we should be publicly shaming people if they choose not to vote. not voting is wrong because you are reducing your ability to affect policy outcomes and i think the answer to my hypothetical answer illustrates
why because there was a cogent answer and i think it is actually correct that you are devoting your career to try to expand liberty. a simple yes or a vote an a vote about what you care about. >> this has been a lot of fun. mike's entire argument is whining about voting but not voting so combine the two of us together you can lie about voting and say you did. the idea of being a rational calculator, i asked how many
times in the last ten years have become to the local school board meeting, voted in the primary come in the local election if we are having this debate about the effectiveness is the whole voting thing comes up and we spend the whole debate on this. we are not talking about voting in mass. it's not wrong to abstain from voting and it's okay to vote. vote for someone or something.
it matters deeply to you and it showed that he wants principles that matter. stick it to the man and become a driver. having a mature conversation about th devices and limitationf the voting has always been official. the democracy voting isn't the same thing as liberty. yes, democracies look like they promote liberty more than the alternatives. they can also easily go astray and when they do, they cite the
people as justification and maybe by consciously not voting and explaining to others why we are not voting we can change the existing governance and belief about government and say there are more meaningful ways to achieve prosperity and justice. we don't need to resort to the state every time we see a problem and we can convince them that state is often the wrong way to solve those problems. people take it too seriously and invest with too much meaning. by making the choice not to participate in the spirit fitness we can take the air out of the bag governments that would just because everyone is praising the emperor's clothes
doesn't mean that you have to. thank you. [applause] i am not unaware of the irony of asking who won the debate and asking default to vote on that question. however if i have a show of hands for the affirmative. how many here changed their mind? which direction did you change your mind to words? i saw one and go this way, one go that way and one didn't move.
the race is tied between hillary clinton and donald trump according to the latest tracking poll scott clement has been looking at the numbers. walk us through the numbers. what are we looking at? >> this is the national preference that we were measuring and we found clinton and trump tied in the most recent way it's been stable and compassing the news of friday regarding the fbi, but it's shrunk from mid-last week. a few things we asked about in the survey was particularly whether people changed their
minds as well as the perception of clinton and trump being more honest and trustworthy. >> we found the eight percentage point edge and this is what we found in early september when they were tied on this question. clinton sometimes has an edge on this and no candidate has had a big lead. the other thing they found as the majority seemed each candidate is dishonest so this is a measure of relative honesty. >> host: explained the methodology and who are you serving? >> guest: it refers to the expected amount of the variation that we get when we draw the random sampling of the country. right now the margin of error
for this pool plus 2.5 percentage points so that means the best estimate is 2.5 above or below that of the sample for the survey came to the cellular and landline telephones and about two thirds were conducted over cell phones. we have about 400 or 450 of those each night. they have their intention to voting at which point we determined who is likely to vo vote. >> host: early voting is in place so how fluid is the electorate at this point you think? >> guest: what appears to be most fluid are the republican leaning segment who have been
resisting him earlier this month following the debate what we see in the recent surveys those groups have been talking about independent lead republican in particular as well as the rank-and-file partisans. one thing that is uncertain is how the early voting will play out and who will show up on election day. given that just about half are enthusiastic although they are paying an enormous amount of attention. >> host: do these numbers surprise you or are they typical of the closing days of a campaign?