|
On November 04 2020 23:51 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2020 23:45 Stratos_speAr wrote:
Another interesting side story here is that many people (like Wegandi) tried to dunk hard on pollsters and modelers like 538, whereas every model had the current projected outcome within the realm of their "likely" outcomes.
There will be a lot of talk about how polling of individual states was off (like FL), but the actual models did a pretty damn good job. What? The polls had Biden beating Trump by 1% in Florida (that's a huge error), had Biden winning WI by 7%, MI by 4-5%, etc. It is across the board the polls are off by 4%+ in one direction. The polls sucked and weren't close. Look how bad this is lol https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_biden-6247.html
I'll give you a chance to read my post again.
More slowly this time, please.
|
Northern Ireland27464 Posts
On November 04 2020 23:47 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2020 23:42 WombaT wrote:On November 04 2020 23:39 Wegandi wrote:On November 04 2020 23:27 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
In other news Oregon has decriminalized hard drugs so we will have a Portugal experiment going on in the west coast.
The DSA won 26 out of the 30 races they were in.
Florida voted to raise the minimum wage to $15. Florida is going to hugely regret that vote. Passed by 1% so disappointed. I do think voting for $$$$ should be prohibited on ballots. These things almost always pass no matter what via direct democracy referendums. It's the equivalent of Vote Yes if you want free 5000$ Vote No if you don't. Legal graft imho. By the way I've never understood how people believe you can create wealth by edict then low-ball themselves. Why 15$? Why not 18$? 22$? It's so arbitrary. (Why will 15$ Min Wage improve the economy more than a 20$ min wage? At what point do Min Wage advocates believe the wage creates massive unemployment?) Do other tax policies appear on such ballots for direct voting or is tax policy ringfenced for the legislatures themselves to dictated Generally tax issues will be on the ballot but not specific #'s. Eg. We had 2 tax issues on the ballot this year, but it was for extending benefits to veteran widows and increasing one benefit from 2 years to 3. (Both being basically a decrease in property tax revenue, but not adjusting the actual millage rates) Likewise I think tax # and policy should not be on the ballot as well.
Cheers for the info man.
|
Question for those with better understanding of the US electoral system: I understand the argument for smaller population states to have proportionally more "votes" (even if I don't agree). That said, is there an argument for the electoral votes being winner-take-all and not some proportional split?
|
On November 04 2020 23:53 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2020 23:51 GreenHorizons wrote:
I feel like there's still another big shoe to drop soon. Like a bunch of votes materialize or disappear/get destroyed inexplicably for either candidate or something. Maybe I've just been up too long and am hallucinating. Pretty sure regardless of what actually happens people will claim that's happening-the idea that early votes are counted first in some states and last in others appears to be too much for the American public.
We know Trump supporters (at least 30 million+ people) are never going to accept that Trump lost even if the evidence is abundantly clear. It really feels like it is going to boil down to who blinks first in a game of chicken with the stability of our government (to the degree it exists) on the line.
|
|
|
On November 04 2020 23:53 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2020 23:51 Wegandi wrote:On November 04 2020 23:45 Stratos_speAr wrote:
Another interesting side story here is that many people (like Wegandi) tried to dunk hard on pollsters and modelers like 538, whereas every model had the current projected outcome within the realm of their "likely" outcomes.
There will be a lot of talk about how polling of individual states was off (like FL), but the actual models did a pretty damn good job. What? The polls had Biden beating Trump by 1% in Florida (that's a huge error), had Biden winning WI by 7%, MI by 4-5%, etc. It is across the board the polls are off by 4%+ in one direction. The polls sucked and weren't close. Look how bad this is lol https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_biden-6247.html I'll give you a chance to read my post again. More slowly this time, please.
If you think the pollsters did a good job at accurately forecasting this election you're not going to convince me. The fact that 538 had Biden at 80%+ and he barely won is not a good look (coupled with the polls).
|
There is no argument per se for that. At the very begining of US history most states were awarding electors proportionally to votes. But since some states decided to use winner-takes-all it turned out that votes in those states mattered more and decided elections. So other states fallowed this suit.
|
On November 04 2020 23:45 Stratos_speAr wrote:
Another interesting side story here is that many people (like Wegandi) tried to dunk hard on pollsters and modelers like 538, whereas every model had the current projected outcome within the realm of their "likely" outcomes.
There will be a lot of talk about how polling of individual states was off (like FL), but the actual models did a pretty damn good job.
I agree. Too many people get hung up on the final, overall percentage of things like "Candidate X has an 80% chance of winning", where they interpret 80% to basically be a guarantee and/or a landslide. Then people start freaking out when Trump performs decently. This was my model (also on p.2), based on 538 and a bunch of other polling repositories, and the only key thing I did was give Trump almost every swing state (at the time of polling a few days ago, when I made this prediction), and it looks to be reasonably accurate so far. I just didn't have enough justification to flip the southeast to be blue, which also showed me that Biden could still win without the southeast at all. A lot of states (on both sides) had closer races than I thought though.
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/2JTilZw.jpg)
|
Why does Lindsey Graham get elected again... or Susan Collins?
|
We won't know the full vote totals for at least a week, so to say he barely won is stretching it for me. We just don't know. It's apparent that it wasn't a landslide, but it may have been a comfortable win with normal voting.
|
On November 04 2020 23:57 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2020 23:53 Stratos_speAr wrote:On November 04 2020 23:51 Wegandi wrote:On November 04 2020 23:45 Stratos_speAr wrote:
Another interesting side story here is that many people (like Wegandi) tried to dunk hard on pollsters and modelers like 538, whereas every model had the current projected outcome within the realm of their "likely" outcomes.
There will be a lot of talk about how polling of individual states was off (like FL), but the actual models did a pretty damn good job. What? The polls had Biden beating Trump by 1% in Florida (that's a huge error), had Biden winning WI by 7%, MI by 4-5%, etc. It is across the board the polls are off by 4%+ in one direction. The polls sucked and weren't close. Look how bad this is lol https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_biden-6247.html I'll give you a chance to read my post again. More slowly this time, please. If you think the pollsters did a good job at accurately forecasting this election you're not going to convince me. The fact that 538 had Biden at 80%+ and he barely won is not a good look (coupled with the polls).
Models.
We're talking models.
There was also plenty of education last night on what statistical probabilities mean and I know you were here.
If 538 gave Biden an 80% chance to win and he wins, do you know what that means?
They were right.
Not only this. But do you know what it means if Trump wins?
They were still right, because a 10% chance is a significant chance to win.
|
On November 04 2020 23:54 Sbrubbles wrote:
Question for those with better understanding of the US electoral system: I understand the argument for smaller population states to have proportionally more "votes" (even if I don't agree). That said, is there an argument for the electoral votes being winner-take-all and not some proportional split?
I don't remember this being in any of the Federalist papers or heavily debated at the ratifying conventions (I'd have to double check). There's nothing saying you can't except the Democrats would never go for it as they'd lose more than they gain. They disproportionately win the bigger electoral states. Last thing they want is to split up Cali, NY, IL, etc.
|
On November 04 2020 23:57 AsariCommando wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2020 23:54 Sbrubbles wrote:
Question for those with better understanding of the US electoral system: I understand the argument for smaller population states to have proportionally more "votes" (even if I don't agree). That said, is there an argument for the electoral votes being winner-take-all and not some proportional split? There really isn't an argument for the winner-take-all system. Nebraska and Maine have moved away from it and I hope other states do as well. It's really quite ridiculous.
It's a shit situation, because it's incredibly stupid to have rural farmers in California's votes be worth jack shit, but there's just so much institutional inertia.
For purple states, they'd much rather be winner take all from the perspective of having their opinions matter and be influential. Low population states also become functionally irrelevant in this context, even with the bonus electors from the Senate (unless you use fractional electors, and even then...).
For non-purple states that are still within +/- 10 points of the center of the nation, it's potentially catastrophic unless everyone signs on at once. If California became proportional, and Texas didn't, it would be disastrous for the chances of the Democratic party to ever win a national election. If the opposite happened, Republicans could never win again. Etc.
|
On November 04 2020 23:57 AsariCommando wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2020 23:54 Sbrubbles wrote:
Question for those with better understanding of the US electoral system: I understand the argument for smaller population states to have proportionally more "votes" (even if I don't agree). That said, is there an argument for the electoral votes being winner-take-all and not some proportional split? There really isn't an argument for the winner-take-all system. Nebraska and Maine have moved away from it and I hope other states do as well. It's really quite ridiculous.
That certainly is quite ridiculous. Considering California has 55 "votes". That is kinda big portion of 270 "votes" that is needed to win. Or Texas' 38 etc. Sure they are both big and populous, but it just makes that bigger cities dominate way too much. Makes that smaller towns become irrelevant in my eyes when e.g. one big city has more votes than rest of the state combined.
|
On November 04 2020 23:59 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2020 23:57 Wegandi wrote:On November 04 2020 23:53 Stratos_speAr wrote:On November 04 2020 23:51 Wegandi wrote:On November 04 2020 23:45 Stratos_speAr wrote:
Another interesting side story here is that many people (like Wegandi) tried to dunk hard on pollsters and modelers like 538, whereas every model had the current projected outcome within the realm of their "likely" outcomes.
There will be a lot of talk about how polling of individual states was off (like FL), but the actual models did a pretty damn good job. What? The polls had Biden beating Trump by 1% in Florida (that's a huge error), had Biden winning WI by 7%, MI by 4-5%, etc. It is across the board the polls are off by 4%+ in one direction. The polls sucked and weren't close. Look how bad this is lol https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_biden-6247.html I'll give you a chance to read my post again. More slowly this time, please. If you think the pollsters did a good job at accurately forecasting this election you're not going to convince me. The fact that 538 had Biden at 80%+ and he barely won is not a good look (coupled with the polls). Models. We're talking models. There was also plenty of education last night on what statistical probabilities mean and I know you were here. If 538 gave Biden an 80% chance to win and he wins, do you know what that means? They were right.Not only this. But do you know what it means if Trump wins? They were still right, because a 10% chance is a significant chance to win.
How could they ever be wrong then? The margins do matter. The polling matters. Biden winning WI by 12% or .3% is very different for instance.
|
On November 05 2020 00:00 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2020 23:54 Sbrubbles wrote:
Question for those with better understanding of the US electoral system: I understand the argument for smaller population states to have proportionally more "votes" (even if I don't agree). That said, is there an argument for the electoral votes being winner-take-all and not some proportional split? I don't remember this being in any of the Federalist papers or heavily debated at the ratifying conventions (I'd have to double check). There's nothing saying you can't except the Democrats would never go for it as they'd lose more than they gain. They disproportionately win the bigger electoral states. Last thing they want is to split up Cali, NY, IL, etc.
Aaah that's why democrats only complain about the system when they lose an election and never when they win...
|
On November 04 2020 23:45 Stratos_speAr wrote:
Another interesting side story here is that many people (like Wegandi) tried to dunk hard on pollsters and modelers like 538, whereas every model had the current projected outcome within the realm of their "likely" outcomes.
There will be a lot of talk about how polling of individual states was off (like FL), but the actual models did a pretty damn good job.
I think its difficult for most people (myself included) to grasp mathematical models. Especially when used in everyday life context.
The concerning thing to me is that people with little knowledge or understanding on complex topics have such strong opinions on them. And how unwilling they are to just accept that they don't know.
It was not clear to me just how much this problem is widespread before the COVID crisis. I'm an MD who worked in a virology lab for over a year and specialize in molecular biology. And yet I have no pertinent opinion on epidemiology, public health and pandemic strategies... So how the fuck are so many people with absolutely no medical background talking with such authority on these subjects?
|
On November 05 2020 00:00 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2020 23:54 Sbrubbles wrote:
Question for those with better understanding of the US electoral system: I understand the argument for smaller population states to have proportionally more "votes" (even if I don't agree). That said, is there an argument for the electoral votes being winner-take-all and not some proportional split? I don't remember this being in any of the Federalist papers or heavily debated at the ratifying conventions (I'd have to double check). There's nothing saying you can't except the Democrats would never go for it as they'd lose more than they gain. They disproportionately win the bigger electoral states. Last thing they want is to split up Cali, NY, IL, etc.
There's pretty much no way for anyone to say what would happen with a fractional electoral college setup. The incentive to vote and where politicians campaigned would change so completely and utterly that trying to take it into account is as much a game of make believe as thinking about how Sanders or Buttigieg would have done this year.
|
|
|
On November 05 2020 00:06 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2020 00:00 Wegandi wrote:On November 04 2020 23:54 Sbrubbles wrote:
Question for those with better understanding of the US electoral system: I understand the argument for smaller population states to have proportionally more "votes" (even if I don't agree). That said, is there an argument for the electoral votes being winner-take-all and not some proportional split? I don't remember this being in any of the Federalist papers or heavily debated at the ratifying conventions (I'd have to double check). There's nothing saying you can't except the Democrats would never go for it as they'd lose more than they gain. They disproportionately win the bigger electoral states. Last thing they want is to split up Cali, NY, IL, etc. There's pretty much no way for anyone to say what would happen with a fractional electoral college setup. The incentive to vote and where politicians campaigned would change so completely and utterly that trying to take it into account is as much a game of make believe as thinking about how Sanders or Buttigieg would have done this year.
Was gonna say the same thing, the idea that Dems are necessarily disadvantaged by changing the winner-take-all electoral vote setup is nonsense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
