|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
United States19573 Posts
On February 21 2016 14:44 Seuss wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2016 13:21 cLutZ wrote:Updated 2nd choice stats: NBCFrom the 3 primarys we should assume "Don't know" means "Not Trump" But its not nearly as bad for Trump as it was in the poll I saw earlier, but disappeared into twitter. Edit: Which is why we should use automatic runoff for general elections. And probably the 2nd half of primary states. Those numbers should actually scare the Republican establishment. + Show Spoiler [boring, flawed math] +The results in SC were: - Trump: 32.5
- Rubio: 22.5
- Cruz: 22.3
- Jeb: 7.8
- Kasich: 7.6
- Carson: 7.2
Jeb is out, so if we split his voters between the other five according to your source we get this: - Trump: 33.4
- Rubio: 24.0
- Cruz: 23.2
- Kasich: 8.9
- Carson: 7.9
Now let's assume Kasich drops out and follow the same procedure, splitting the 21% that would have got to Jeb proportionally. - Trump: 35.1
- Rubio: 26.7
- Cruz: 24.3
- Carson: 8.6
And let's do the same for Carson. - Trump: 37.2
- Rubio: 28.3
- Cruz: 26.6
The problem facing Rubio and Cruz is that no matter how many other candidates drop out, none of the support is unified enough to significantly close the gap with Trump. So what happens if we kick out one of the remaining three? Now to be fair my methodology here isn't great, that's based heavily on SC's numbers, there's a large chunk of "Don't know"s unaccounted for and no accounting for Trump's potential ceiling or impacts from favorability ratings, but you can see how unless a lot of these voters break far harder for Rubio or Cruz than polls suggest Trump is in a pretty good position, especially if the race boils down to Trump vs Rubio vs Cruz.
The problem with your math is (particularly in the 2/3 man) is that you are missing such a huge % of the electorate.
Cruz kills Trump https://twitter.com/meetthepress/status/687757615590277120/
I do think its plausible that Trump could have beaten Rubio 1v1 if Cruz had gotten out of the race pre-Trump going on the birther/liar brigade as in this old WSJ poll:
https://twitter.com/meetthepress/status/687757345498087424/
But Trump has alienated most of the Cruz supporters since that time with his remarks.
|
On February 21 2016 14:56 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2016 14:44 Seuss wrote:On February 21 2016 13:21 cLutZ wrote:Updated 2nd choice stats: NBCFrom the 3 primarys we should assume "Don't know" means "Not Trump" But its not nearly as bad for Trump as it was in the poll I saw earlier, but disappeared into twitter. Edit: Which is why we should use automatic runoff for general elections. And probably the 2nd half of primary states. Those numbers should actually scare the Republican establishment. + Show Spoiler [boring, flawed math] +The results in SC were: - Trump: 32.5
- Rubio: 22.5
- Cruz: 22.3
- Jeb: 7.8
- Kasich: 7.6
- Carson: 7.2
Jeb is out, so if we split his voters between the other five according to your source we get this: - Trump: 33.4
- Rubio: 24.0
- Cruz: 23.2
- Kasich: 8.9
- Carson: 7.9
Now let's assume Kasich drops out and follow the same procedure, splitting the 21% that would have got to Jeb proportionally. - Trump: 35.1
- Rubio: 26.7
- Cruz: 24.3
- Carson: 8.6
And let's do the same for Carson. - Trump: 37.2
- Rubio: 28.3
- Cruz: 26.6
The problem facing Rubio and Cruz is that no matter how many other candidates drop out, none of the support is unified enough to significantly close the gap with Trump. So what happens if we kick out one of the remaining three? Now to be fair my methodology here isn't great, that's based heavily on SC's numbers, there's a large chunk of "Don't know"s unaccounted for and no accounting for Trump's potential ceiling or impacts from favorability ratings, but you can see how unless a lot of these voters break far harder for Rubio or Cruz than polls suggest Trump is in a pretty good position, especially if the race boils down to Trump vs Rubio vs Cruz. The problem with your math is (particularly in the 2/3 man) is that you are missing such a huge % of the electorate. Cruz kills Trump https://twitter.com/meetthepress/status/687757615590277120/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc^tfwI do think its plausible that Trump could have beaten Rubio 1v1 if Cruz had gotten out of the race pre-Trump going on the birther/liar brigade as in this old WSJ poll: https://twitter.com/meetthepress/status/687757345498087424/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc^tfwBut Trump has alienated most of the Cruz supporters since that time with his remarks.
Your links are broken for me at least. Can you double check them?
|
United States19573 Posts
On February 21 2016 14:57 TheLordofAwesome wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2016 14:56 cLutZ wrote:On February 21 2016 14:44 Seuss wrote:On February 21 2016 13:21 cLutZ wrote:Updated 2nd choice stats: NBCFrom the 3 primarys we should assume "Don't know" means "Not Trump" But its not nearly as bad for Trump as it was in the poll I saw earlier, but disappeared into twitter. Edit: Which is why we should use automatic runoff for general elections. And probably the 2nd half of primary states. Those numbers should actually scare the Republican establishment. + Show Spoiler [boring, flawed math] +The results in SC were: - Trump: 32.5
- Rubio: 22.5
- Cruz: 22.3
- Jeb: 7.8
- Kasich: 7.6
- Carson: 7.2
Jeb is out, so if we split his voters between the other five according to your source we get this: - Trump: 33.4
- Rubio: 24.0
- Cruz: 23.2
- Kasich: 8.9
- Carson: 7.9
Now let's assume Kasich drops out and follow the same procedure, splitting the 21% that would have got to Jeb proportionally. - Trump: 35.1
- Rubio: 26.7
- Cruz: 24.3
- Carson: 8.6
And let's do the same for Carson. - Trump: 37.2
- Rubio: 28.3
- Cruz: 26.6
The problem facing Rubio and Cruz is that no matter how many other candidates drop out, none of the support is unified enough to significantly close the gap with Trump. So what happens if we kick out one of the remaining three? Now to be fair my methodology here isn't great, that's based heavily on SC's numbers, there's a large chunk of "Don't know"s unaccounted for and no accounting for Trump's potential ceiling or impacts from favorability ratings, but you can see how unless a lot of these voters break far harder for Rubio or Cruz than polls suggest Trump is in a pretty good position, especially if the race boils down to Trump vs Rubio vs Cruz. The problem with your math is (particularly in the 2/3 man) is that you are missing such a huge % of the electorate. Cruz kills Trump https://twitter.com/meetthepress/status/687757615590277120/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc^tfwI do think its plausible that Trump could have beaten Rubio 1v1 if Cruz had gotten out of the race pre-Trump going on the birther/liar brigade as in this old WSJ poll: https://twitter.com/meetthepress/status/687757345498087424/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc^tfwBut Trump has alienated most of the Cruz supporters since that time with his remarks. Your links are broken for me at least. Can you double check them?
Fixed should work.
|
The superdelegates aren't going to decide the primary if Sanders wins a clear majority of normal delegates. The democrats, whatever other flaws they have, aren't dumb enough to overturn what people voted for. When Clinton brought up that possibility in 2008 she got lambasted for it.
It's hard to define what an "unclear" majority would be though, but I don't expect we'll end up in that position. Even if the race remains close at some point either Clinton or Sanders will start losing the economic battle and the end result will favor whoever can keep the money train rolling.
|
On February 21 2016 14:34 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2016 13:08 oBlade wrote:On February 21 2016 12:45 trulojucreathrma.com wrote:
Cruz and Rubio will stay in. Trump will win, even though he loses head to head vs everyone.
Nice system. What's wrong with that? There's supposed to be a pool of candidates for the people to choose from, not just 2 (looking at Democrats right now), with no consideration given to people conducting unofficial surveys. And yet "the people" inevitably get to vote for exactly 2 people in the end, with their choices decided by two democratic minorities. Or, if they're lucky, get a third choice in rich billionaires who can afford to run a presidential race on their own steam.
I don't think you're alone in this. The US democratic system is a pretty inferior democracy. There's measures built in at every level of the process to make the actual results of elections diverge from popular vote, including closed primaries (where only the most politically active - and therefore generally farthest away from center - people can vote) to gerrymandering and the electoral college. I'd much rather have a parliamentary system... or basically any other democratic system of government then the horrible mess we have now. Even just getting rid of the electoral college would be a huge step forward.
|
On February 21 2016 14:43 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2016 14:34 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 21 2016 13:08 oBlade wrote:On February 21 2016 12:45 trulojucreathrma.com wrote:
Cruz and Rubio will stay in. Trump will win, even though he loses head to head vs everyone.
Nice system. What's wrong with that? There's supposed to be a pool of candidates for the people to choose from, not just 2 (looking at Democrats right now), with no consideration given to people conducting unofficial surveys. And yet "the people" inevitably get to vote for exactly 2 people in the end, with their choices decided by two democratic minorities. Or, if they're lucky, get a third choice in rich billionaires who can afford to run a presidential race on their own steam. If you don't like the two-party (two-candidate) system, we can have that discussion, but I don't see that it makes sense to at the same time malign the primary system - which is where we actually get to choose from many candidates. In the pipe-dream 5 candidate general election on the last page, a minority would also be picking the winner because that's the nature of pluralism.
The problem isn't necessarily the 2 party system (okay, it is technically a problem, but no democratic system is going to be without it's flawed areas), it's that when you say "we...get to choose", you actually mean "two entirely separate minority groups get to choose".
It's a system that inherently (but, I suppose, unintentionally) makes sustaining the power of the two parties the top priority, rather than giving the full choice to the entire voter base.
|
United States19573 Posts
On February 21 2016 14:56 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2016 14:44 Seuss wrote:On February 21 2016 13:21 cLutZ wrote:Updated 2nd choice stats: NBCFrom the 3 primarys we should assume "Don't know" means "Not Trump" But its not nearly as bad for Trump as it was in the poll I saw earlier, but disappeared into twitter. Edit: Which is why we should use automatic runoff for general elections. And probably the 2nd half of primary states. Those numbers should actually scare the Republican establishment. + Show Spoiler [boring, flawed math] +The results in SC were: - Trump: 32.5
- Rubio: 22.5
- Cruz: 22.3
- Jeb: 7.8
- Kasich: 7.6
- Carson: 7.2
Jeb is out, so if we split his voters between the other five according to your source we get this: - Trump: 33.4
- Rubio: 24.0
- Cruz: 23.2
- Kasich: 8.9
- Carson: 7.9
Now let's assume Kasich drops out and follow the same procedure, splitting the 21% that would have got to Jeb proportionally. - Trump: 35.1
- Rubio: 26.7
- Cruz: 24.3
- Carson: 8.6
And let's do the same for Carson. - Trump: 37.2
- Rubio: 28.3
- Cruz: 26.6
The problem facing Rubio and Cruz is that no matter how many other candidates drop out, none of the support is unified enough to significantly close the gap with Trump. So what happens if we kick out one of the remaining three? Now to be fair my methodology here isn't great, that's based heavily on SC's numbers, there's a large chunk of "Don't know"s unaccounted for and no accounting for Trump's potential ceiling or impacts from favorability ratings, but you can see how unless a lot of these voters break far harder for Rubio or Cruz than polls suggest Trump is in a pretty good position, especially if the race boils down to Trump vs Rubio vs Cruz. The problem with your math is (particularly in the 2/3 man) is that you are missing such a huge % of the electorate. Cruz kills Trump https://twitter.com/meetthepress/status/687757615590277120/I do think its plausible that Trump could have beaten Rubio 1v1 if Cruz had gotten out of the race pre-Trump going on the birther/liar brigade as in this old WSJ poll: https://twitter.com/meetthepress/status/687757345498087424/But Trump has alienated most of the Cruz supporters since that time with his remarks.
Actually, an update from WSJ (Paywalled)
Mr. Trump would lose to Mr. Cruz by 56% to 40%, the poll found. Mr. Rubio would beat Mr. Trump by 57% to 41%, a reversal from last month, when the poll found Mr. Trump winning that matchup by a 6-point margin.
|
On February 21 2016 14:56 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2016 14:44 Seuss wrote:On February 21 2016 13:21 cLutZ wrote:Updated 2nd choice stats: NBCFrom the 3 primarys we should assume "Don't know" means "Not Trump" But its not nearly as bad for Trump as it was in the poll I saw earlier, but disappeared into twitter. Edit: Which is why we should use automatic runoff for general elections. And probably the 2nd half of primary states. Those numbers should actually scare the Republican establishment. + Show Spoiler [boring, flawed math] +The results in SC were: - Trump: 32.5
- Rubio: 22.5
- Cruz: 22.3
- Jeb: 7.8
- Kasich: 7.6
- Carson: 7.2
Jeb is out, so if we split his voters between the other five according to your source we get this: - Trump: 33.4
- Rubio: 24.0
- Cruz: 23.2
- Kasich: 8.9
- Carson: 7.9
Now let's assume Kasich drops out and follow the same procedure, splitting the 21% that would have got to Jeb proportionally. - Trump: 35.1
- Rubio: 26.7
- Cruz: 24.3
- Carson: 8.6
And let's do the same for Carson. - Trump: 37.2
- Rubio: 28.3
- Cruz: 26.6
The problem facing Rubio and Cruz is that no matter how many other candidates drop out, none of the support is unified enough to significantly close the gap with Trump. So what happens if we kick out one of the remaining three? Now to be fair my methodology here isn't great, that's based heavily on SC's numbers, there's a large chunk of "Don't know"s unaccounted for and no accounting for Trump's potential ceiling or impacts from favorability ratings, but you can see how unless a lot of these voters break far harder for Rubio or Cruz than polls suggest Trump is in a pretty good position, especially if the race boils down to Trump vs Rubio vs Cruz. The problem with your math is (particularly in the 2/3 man) is that you are missing such a huge % of the electorate. Cruz kills Trump https://twitter.com/meetthepress/status/687757615590277120/I do think its plausible that Trump could have beaten Rubio 1v1 if Cruz had gotten out of the race pre-Trump going on the birther/liar brigade as in this old WSJ poll: https://twitter.com/meetthepress/status/687757345498087424/But Trump has alienated most of the Cruz supporters since that time with his remarks.
I don't have much confidence in head to head polls conducted over a month ago (half a month before the Iowa caucuses even). Not saying my numbers are right, they're most certainly deeply flawed, but I won't be willing to concede that polls show Trump would lose 1v1 until there post-SC polls showing that.
|
Have the people complaining about the flaws in democracy heard of Arrow's Impossibility Theorem?
In short, the theorem states that no rank-order voting system can be designed that always satisfies these three "fairness" criteria:
If every voter prefers alternative X over alternative Y, then the group prefers X over Y.
If every voter's preference between X and Y remains unchanged, then the group's preference between X and Y will also remain unchanged (even if voters' preferences between other pairs like X and Z, Y and Z, or Z and W change).
There is no "dictator": no single voter possesses the power to always determine the group's preference.
EDIT: I put very little faith in hypothetical h2h polls.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On February 21 2016 14:42 TheLordofAwesome wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2016 13:09 The_Templar wrote:On February 21 2016 12:11 Toadesstern wrote:PICK A CARD, ANY CARD
Hillary Clinton won one delegate in a tie precinct in Pahrump because her precinct captain won a card draw against Bernie Sanders’s.
The 30 voters in Precinct 10 at Morse Elementary School split even, 15 to 15. Per state Democratic Party rules, the precinct chairwoman, Peggy Rhoades, produced the sealed deck of cards she was provided to break the tie and award the fifth available delegate to the candidate with the high card.
Ms. Rhoades, a member of the Nye County Democratic Party’s central committee, removed the jokers from the deck. Representatives from the Clinton and Sanders campaign asked her to shuffle the cards three times, which she did, before spreading the 52 cards out across a table.
Mrs. Clinton’s representative went first: She pulled the ace. Mr. Sanders’s precinct captain couldn’t top that with his six of hearts. N THE CARDS: You may have seen an earlier card draw used to break a tie, reported by Reid Epstein in Pahrump.
Over in Carson City, Chris Lawhead, a precinct captain for Bernie Sanders, tweeted video of a card draw used to break a tie in his precinct. Hillary Clinton won this one too, her side pulling a nine of clubs, beating the 7 of diamonds pulled by the Sanders side.[...] hehe This never stops to amuse me God damn it... the 7 of diamonds is my nemesis in cards and this is just making it worse. I didn't know about the card draws. That's pretty funny. Wasn't it 6 or so coin tosses all for Clinton in Iowa and now these card draws as well? heart of the cardsss
|
United States19573 Posts
On February 21 2016 15:07 TheLordofAwesome wrote:Have the people complaining about the flaws in democracy heard of Arrow's Impossibility Theorem? Show nested quote +
In short, the theorem states that no rank-order voting system can be designed that always satisfies these three "fairness" criteria:
If every voter prefers alternative X over alternative Y, then the group prefers X over Y.
If every voter's preference between X and Y remains unchanged, then the group's preference between X and Y will also remain unchanged (even if voters' preferences between other pairs like X and Z, Y and Z, or Z and W change).
There is no "dictator": no single voter possesses the power to always determine the group's preference.
EDIT: I put very little faith in hypothetical h2h polls.
I don't think its very applicable in this case. The best way to explain it is that for it to be applicable there would have to be a significant proportion that prefer Cruz to Rubio, Trump to Cruz, and Rubio to Trump so there is not actually a possible equilibrium point.
Although, I may be misreading what the article is saying.
Edit. No I'm not. The Arrow's theorem makes no sense to apply here, in that it gets upset with the so called "dictator" which really should just be called the "Marginal Voter", think of this person as Anthony Kennedy on SCOTUS. Or the 5th person in a group who vacillates between choosing Pizza or Chinese food.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
it is certainly a curious way of referring to arrow theorem. guy thinks it is a defense of democratic voting or something? i hope you dont take the reference to a dictator in that blurb literally it is a rather tragic use of terminology
|
Some data to consider. ~1 year ago, 75% of Rep voters said couldn't vote for Trump. That number is down to ~35% now. This whole "consolidate against Trump" assertion is sorely lacking in data.
![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cbto08BWIAAh1Ny.jpg)
|
On February 21 2016 15:22 oneofthem wrote:
it is certainly a curious way of referring to arrow theorem. guy thinks it is a defense of democratic voting or something? i hope you dont take the reference to a dictator in that blurb literally it is a rather tragic use of terminology
I just wanted to point out that though one can find flaws in the American voting system, so he can also find flaws in pretty much every other conceivable voting system as well. I'm sure we could still improve the US voting system though. One obvious good choice would be to get rid of all caucuses for example, or standardize the way delegates are allocated across different states. (By that I mean make all states winner take all or proportionally allocate delegates, but the current split in methods is truly retarded.)
Also, dictator is indeed a terrible choice of word in that article.
|
maybe get rid of all these cointosses. Is there a reason it's not something like "well okay, we have 7 ties across the state. So let's just split them 3-3 and cointoss for the last one?"
|
On February 21 2016 15:35 Toadesstern wrote:
maybe get rid of all these cointosses. Is there a reason it's not something like "well okay, we have 7 ties across the state. So let's just split them 3-3 and cointoss for the last one?"
That would be the logical solution. Of course, if we used primaries instead of caucuses, we wouldn't even have this issue at all...
|
On February 21 2016 15:29 TheLordofAwesome wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2016 15:22 oneofthem wrote:
it is certainly a curious way of referring to arrow theorem. guy thinks it is a defense of democratic voting or something? i hope you dont take the reference to a dictator in that blurb literally it is a rather tragic use of terminology I just wanted to point out that though one can find flaws in the American voting system, so he can also find flaws in pretty much every other conceivable voting system as well. I'm sure we could still improve the US voting system though. One obvious good choice would be to get rid of all caucuses for example, or standardize the way delegates are allocated across different states. (By that I mean make all states winner take all or proportionally allocate delegates, but the current split in methods is truly retarded.) Also, dictator is indeed a terrible choice of word in that article.
Of course perfect democratic system would be impossible. I even said as much.
But a system where the preferred choice(s) of the majority can be removed through the opinion of a minority before they can even cast a vote is beyond flawed.
|
On February 21 2016 14:52 xDaunt wrote:
We'll see how things progress, but democrats should be worried by the record turnouts on the republican side versus the mediocre turnouts on the democratic side.
yup.
though I bet a trump/cruz nomination would be quite the uniting force among DEMs. and trump is still winning...
that's why I think and said from the start rubio is the only way to go forward for the GOP. he could make a real contest of the presidency.
people around and in the middle would rather vote for a furuncle in a tie than trump/cruz.
|
On February 21 2016 15:44 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2016 15:29 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On February 21 2016 15:22 oneofthem wrote:
it is certainly a curious way of referring to arrow theorem. guy thinks it is a defense of democratic voting or something? i hope you dont take the reference to a dictator in that blurb literally it is a rather tragic use of terminology I just wanted to point out that though one can find flaws in the American voting system, so he can also find flaws in pretty much every other conceivable voting system as well. I'm sure we could still improve the US voting system though. One obvious good choice would be to get rid of all caucuses for example, or standardize the way delegates are allocated across different states. (By that I mean make all states winner take all or proportionally allocate delegates, but the current split in methods is truly retarded.) Also, dictator is indeed a terrible choice of word in that article. Of course perfect democratic system would be impossible. I even said as much. But a system where the preferred choice(s) of the majority can be removed through the opinion of a minority before they can even cast a vote is beyond flawed.
I don't get it.
If you have 4 candidates, at 40%, 20%, 20%, and 20%, there is no majority opinion. Just because hypothetically if only the first two candidates were running, they might be at 40% and 60%, that doesn't mean the majority was beaten out... If a majority really wanted it, they would have voted for the second candidate - I don't think alternate realities count. What am I missing?
|
On February 21 2016 16:17 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2016 15:44 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 21 2016 15:29 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On February 21 2016 15:22 oneofthem wrote:
it is certainly a curious way of referring to arrow theorem. guy thinks it is a defense of democratic voting or something? i hope you dont take the reference to a dictator in that blurb literally it is a rather tragic use of terminology I just wanted to point out that though one can find flaws in the American voting system, so he can also find flaws in pretty much every other conceivable voting system as well. I'm sure we could still improve the US voting system though. One obvious good choice would be to get rid of all caucuses for example, or standardize the way delegates are allocated across different states. (By that I mean make all states winner take all or proportionally allocate delegates, but the current split in methods is truly retarded.) Also, dictator is indeed a terrible choice of word in that article. Of course perfect democratic system would be impossible. I even said as much. But a system where the preferred choice(s) of the majority can be removed through the opinion of a minority before they can even cast a vote is beyond flawed. I don't get it. If you have 4 candidates, at 40%, 20%, 20%, and 20%, there is no majority opinion. Just because hypothetically if only the first two candidates were running, they might be at 40% and 60%, that doesn't mean the majority was beaten out... If a majority really wanted it, they would have voted for the second candidate - I don't think alternate realities count. What am I missing?
people are bad at game theory i think is the answer to your question
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
