**** Elections thread *****

[Poopadoop]

I thought he got stomped in every debate before, but the results are showing that he keeps coming out on top.

Really? I never watched the other ones, only saw clips. But he looked pretty dominant to me in those.

[Savy]

I thought he got stomped in every debate before, but the results are showing that he keeps coming out on top.

I think you got the whole strong attack at the start and calm down the wrong way round. Pushing out feelers, getting all his shit aired early on is probably a good thing. Surely it won't be three debates asking him the same questions. Hillary was pushing a bit too hard with some of those closing blows. Repeating them is only going to be bad.

Which he then denied vehemently lol, even stuff that's on the record. "Nope, never happened."

How is that not a good tactic though? You think most people give a fuck. Deny deny deny. None of the things are particularly bad for what's happening.

edit

I'll confirm I saw tiny snippets of it and I've never paid attention to a presidential election anywhere near as much as this (of which 95% of my viewing is reading ftr).

[boost]

Wuf, I apologize, your explanation of your prediction was informative and thorough. I've got a birds eye fascination with this election cycle, but I've never dived into what makes for accurate predictions, so when you give two predictions that are off by a point, stating one is where your gut is, it reads as absurd.

My gut (keep in mind my admitted shallow understanding of election predictions) is that Hilary will win, but if there were to be a landslide upset, this would certainly be the cycle for it. It has all the hallmarks of the shy Tory effect/rise of the silent majority. If I had a choice, I wouldn't chose to live in interesting times, but I don't, so

[Poopadoop]

How is that not a good tactic though? You think most people give a fuck. Deny deny deny. None of the things are particularly bad for what's happening.

It's good if someone watches who doesn't give a shit.

It's not good if someone knows the facts and sees him saying 'nonono' like a teenager.

[Savy]

The 2010 UK general election debates if you go and look at how well Nick Clegg comes across compared to both of these people it's pretty staggering.

It's good if someone watches who doesn't give a shit.

It's not good if someone knows the facts and sees him saying 'nonono' like a teenager.

It's 2016, facts and experts are bad. Echo chambers and all that just reinforce that the people pushing these facts come from the opposite side so can get taken as bias rather than actual facts which they are.

It's obviously less good than it not having have happened but I think it's pretty optimal way of dealing with it. What would your suggestions be?

[JKDS]

Hillary looked healthy, right?

Heres my take. All her shit in the last 2 weeks was because shes a work-aholic, and was overpreparing for this debate. You can tell she memorized a shit ton of facts so that she could just crush every little thing he said. I think she just wore herself out, + a cold or something.

[wufwugy]

The "who won" thing probably misses who wins. The people who discuss who won are people whose minds have an affinity for debate and intellectual stuff. Trump doesn't target this that much. It isn't that he targets dumb (he targets dumb and smart equally), but that he targets in such a way that the normal scoring metrics don't catch.

Even though most will probably say Clinton won, it is probably Trump who won merely by showing the general electorate that he's normal and not the monster they had been led to believe. This subconscious element will pay hard to quantify dividends.

[boost]

I think you're under valuing the effect of the experts declaring a winner's effect on uninformed. Like, if the headlines all read "Clinton Won" for the next week, then that's what matters-- or at least has a heavy impact on who gets the most advantage out of the debate.

[JKDS]

Ah thats what it was.

Donald rarely said "make america great again", i only remember once near the end, and he was pretty Jeb Bushy throughout. Thats why she crushed him. She got him off message, and focused on the facts and issues instead.

[JKDS]

Oh theres a VP debate. I forgot about that, just like I forgot who they picked for their VP.

[wufwugy]

I think you're under valuing the effect of the experts declaring a winner's effect on uninformed. Like, if the headlines all read "Clinton Won" for the next week, then that's what matters-- or at least has a heavy impact on who gets the most advantage out of the debate.

That's for sure. Expect the MSM to come out guns blazing tomorrow with how Clinton dominated and Trump weaseled.

Traditionally, this would help persuade people to Clinton's side, but it is possible that this stuff doesn't work this cycle on account of so much delegitimization of the media in the minds of consumers (I suspect that won't be the case by net, but just that it's possible).

[JKDS]

You know, we were thinking about Trump needing to shift from his style to something else. Shifting more moderate to get more votes. Be "not-hitler", essentially.

HIllary had to do a similar thing, and succeeded. She needed to be "not-dying", and she was.

[wufwugy]

Ah thats what it was.

Donald rarely said "make america great again", i only remember once near the end, and he was pretty Jeb Bushy throughout. Thats why she crushed him. She got him off message, and focused on the facts and issues instead.

Sounds like she went off message then. Ever since Godzilla (Robert Cialdini) started his book tour, her persuasion has gone down the tubes. Talking about the issues doesn't help her, she already has credibility on that in peoples' minds. What helps her is painting Trump as somebody so scary he's gonna nuke Mexico.

Facts don't matter. Especially for her. Trump is in a position where acting substantive helps him since the perception is that he's not, but she's already thought to be substantive.

[wufwugy]

HIllary had to do a similar thing, and succeeded. She needed to be "not-dying", and she was.

Yeah very much. Her passing this test will provide her campaign another hour of life support.

[BankItDrew]

A few things:

1) The debates matter to undecided voters.

2) Trump has a successful debate if he appears to not be insane and offensive. He was only a 3 or 4/10 on the wacko scale.

2) Hillary wins the debate if she hammers Trump non-stop for why he's a terrible candidate. She did this for the majority of the debate.

4) Trump crushed the first 30 minutes. Hillary won the final 60. Trump was great in the primary debates in small part because he didn't have to do half of the talking. Here, he seemed to fizzle out and talked more with his hands in the final hour because that's what he does when Trump is stumped.

5) Hillary needs to stay on the attack. She can't let Trump dictate the debate because his strong suit is verbal aggression. Don't let up.

6) Same strategy for Trump. He needs to bring up over and over and over again regarding her near 30 years of political service that has been terrible in many eyes of the undecided voters.

[CoccoBill]

I'm finding it difficult to understand how anyone would see Trump winning the debate. Then again, half the people are dumber than average.

[CoccoBill]

Some people claim it's just the flu, but many respected medical experts (me) say that it's most likely either brain cancer or acute cephaloanal confusion.

[Poopadoop]

It's obviously less good than it not having have happened but I think it's pretty optimal way of dealing with it. What would your suggestions be?

If you say something really dumb then yeah, denying it is probably best. Still doesn't change the fact that it's funny to watch someone denying something that is clearly true.

[Poopadoop]

Hillary looked healthy, right?

Yup, they had her rested and if she's on any meds, they had those just right.

Heres my take. All her shit in the last 2 weeks was because shes a work-aholic, and was overpreparing for this debate. You can tell she memorized a shit ton of facts so that she could just crush every little thing he said. I think she just wore herself out, + a cold or something.

It's not just the last two weeks though when she's looked sick...

[Poopadoop]

[video=youtube;5BJjUv_TD2E]
Some people claim it's just the flu, but many respected medical experts (me) say that it's most likely either brain cancer or acute cephaloanal confusion.

Either that or he's been getting all his stamina from Colombia.

[OngBonga]

Oh theres a VP debate. I forgot about that, just like I forgot who they picked for their VP.

You should probably pay more attention to this if you intend to vote for the dying woman.

[OngBonga]

I lvoe how you're all talking about who won. It's a debate, who gives a fuck who "won"? Define "won" in this context. What's the prize?

I think you people should save the talk about who won until November.

[Poopadoop]

I lvoe how you're all talking about who won. It's a debate, who gives a fuck who "won"? Define "won" in this context. What's the prize?

Winner usually gets a boost in the polls, but you're right it's only a battle not the war.

[OngBonga]

I realise that if in these debates, one of the candidates has a disaster, then it will affect their chances. But for the most part these debates are a waste of time, simply there to create advertising revenue. You can see from this thread alone that Clinton supporters think she won, while Trump supporters will argue that he's playing the long game, or some shit. Basically, Hillary supporters will still vote for Hillary, while Trump supporters will still vote Trump.

Those who are yet undecided, well they're morons for not having their mind made up already. It's not like the two candidates represent similar views. And these people, while they may be influenced by this debate, they could be further influenced by completely random shit yet to happen.

I would have thought that most people already know who they're voting for, thus, these debates are just there for the voyeurs.

[OngBonga]

Like, honestly, how many people watched it to see if Hillary could handle 90 minutes without flipping? I was tempted but I was tired so went to bed.

[CoccoBill]

^I think you give too much credit to many of the voters. A lot of them couldn't care less about politics in general, don't know or understand what policies each of the candidates represent nor understand the policies or their effects in any meaningful way. Basic human behavior also comes into play, for a lot of people it's important to just be "in the winning team", whichever that is. If it starts to look like the person you are voting for seems to be losing, that alone may be enough to sway some votes. I bet an unhealthy percentage of voters make their final decision in the voting booth.

[boost]

That's for sure. Expect the MSM to come out guns blazing tomorrow with how Clinton dominated and Trump weaseled.

Traditionally, this would help persuade people to Clinton's side, but it is possible that this stuff doesn't work this cycle on account of so much delegitimization of the media in the minds of consumers (I suspect that won't be the case by net, but just that it's possible).

No, yeah, that's a great point. This cycle really is amazing, it's like everything you say needs the caveat, "but, you know, anything could happen this time around!" Haha.. interesting times..






... I'm going to go build a bunker.

[boost]

Also, I think Hilary needs to bring her own brand of WWF Smackdown. She's still playing with the gloves on, even though she doesn't think she is. He's calling her crooked and the best she has is to call him racist. Racist is a harsh thing to be called, but it's not novel. She needs a phrase that will burn into the electorates mind. As Scott Adams points out, the reason "low energy" was the best kill shot of all is that it's a phrase that is both new to the political arena and even novel as a insult. It may not be new as an insult, but if she hit him with something like "petulant child" and repeated it enough to attach it to his brand, I think she could out Trump him with that alone.

Do you guys remember the bus fight with the bearded old guy? If not: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQJFv9SMSMQ -- The guy with the braids is Trump and his supporters are the chick behind the camera. Guy with braids stirs shit up, he's entertaining. But despite seemingly being friends with the guy, once the old man opens that can, she switches sides, or is at least even more amused. And it's win win, because people who don't typically enjoy Worldstar type of fight videos aren't appalled, because the old man is a sympathetic character who was being unfairly attacked by a douche.

tldr: People root for the bully, but they root much harder for the dweeb out of nowhere drops the Peoples Elbow on the bully's forehead.

[OngBonga]

^I think you give too much credit to many of the voters. A lot of them couldn't care less about politics in general, don't know or understand what policies each of the candidates represent nor understand the policies or their effects in any meaningful way. Basic human behavior also comes into play, for a lot of people it's important to just be "in the winning team", whichever that is. If it starts to look like the person you are voting for seems to be losing, that alone may be enough to sway some votes. I bet an unhealthy percentage of voters make their final decision in the voting booth.

Yeah those who are interested in being on the winning team, or those who think this is a personality contest, they're the morons. Quite how much of the electorate that is, I have no idea. Probably a scary amount.

[OngBonga]

haha no matter what, people will talk about what Trump said.

Are people disecting the politics of the candidates? Nope, they're asking if Trump said "bigly" or "big league".

People are morons. Who gives a fuck what he said? "Bigly" is actually a word, and isn't a million miles away from meaning the same as "big league", so shut the fuck up about what words he used, and focus on the context, you bunch of fucking droolers.

[Poopadoop]

haha no matter what, people will talk about what Trump said.

Are people disecting the politics of the candidates? Nope, they're asking if Trump said "bigly" or "big league".

People are morons. Who gives a fuck what he said? "Bigly" is actually a word, and isn't a million miles away from meaning the same as "big league", so shut the fuck up about what words he used, and focus on the context, you bunch of fucking droolers.

Lol ya like if he says 'bigly' it means he can't be trusted to be president. Wtf, get a life.

I think there can be some undecided voters out there that aren't necessarily morons though. You could just as easily argue that the dummies are the people who vote for the same party every time no matter what. Of course they can also just be adamantly left-or right-wing, but if someone is a horrible candidate and is running for your party, it might be worth considering switching teams.

Some undecided voters might also be middle of the road people who are actually putting some thought into who would make a better president, and waiting for all the evidence to come in before making a decision. I don't think all of them are just flipping a coin on the voting booth 'cause they're too stupid to make up their own mind.

[BankItDrew]

Can someone provide a reliable national average poll?

[BankItDrew]

I thought he may have been saying 'big-league', which makes more sense to use. If he was saying 'bigly', then lol.

[Poopadoop]

If he actually chose that moment to make up a new word, then it is pretty funny. If it's just a slip of the tongue then really who cares.

[Poopadoop]

Can someone provide a reliable national average poll?

The figure here is nice because it shows just how much the result varies in different polls. Every dot represents the result of one poll (blue for Clinton, red for Trump) and the lines are the averages.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...illary-8883803

So depending on who you are and what you want to believe, it's either close, or one or the other candidate is kicking ass. The average depicted by the solid lines is probably as near the truth as we're gonna get and suggests a very small lead for Clinton at last count.

[OngBonga]

If he actually chose that moment to make up a new word, then it is pretty funny. If it's just a slip of the tongue then really who cares.

But it's a word. I hope he did mean to say bigly, because all the people mocking him for "making up a word" are only making themselves look dumb. I would never dream of mocking someone for making up a word until I had bothered to google it, because I realise how much of a plonker I'll look if I'm wrong.

[Poopadoop]

But it's a word. I hope he did mean to say bigly, because all the people mocking him for "making up a word" are only making themselves look dumb. I would never dream of mocking someone for making up a word until I had bothered to google it, because I realise how much of a plonker I'll look if I'm wrong.

Wow. I'm going to have to expand my vocabulary bigly before I watch the next debate.

[Poopadoop]

Probably though I think he meant to say 'big league'. At least that's a phrase he's used before.

[wufwugy]

Those who are yet undecided, well they're morons for not having their mind made up already.

There's a theory (which I subscribe to) that most undecideds are actually decided.

[wufwugy]

I'm finding it difficult to understand how anyone would see Trump winning the debate. Then again, half the people are dumber than average.

The people tend to use different metrics. For example, if I were to score the debate, I would be using metrics more aligned with persuasion, but very few people who score debates do that. It may be good to note that the orthodox views have been getting this cycle wrong constantly.

[wufwugy]

A few things:

1) The debates matter to undecided voters.

2) Trump has a successful debate if he appears to not be insane and offensive. He was only a 3 or 4/10 on the wacko scale.

2) Hillary wins the debate if she hammers Trump non-stop for why he's a terrible candidate. She did this for the majority of the debate.

4) Trump crushed the first 30 minutes. Hillary won the final 60. Trump was great in the primary debates in small part because he didn't have to do half of the talking. Here, he seemed to fizzle out and talked more with his hands in the final hour because that's what he does when Trump is stumped.

5) Hillary needs to stay on the attack. She can't let Trump dictate the debate because his strong suit is verbal aggression. Don't let up.

6) Same strategy for Trump. He needs to bring up over and over and over again regarding her near 30 years of political service that has been terrible in many eyes of the undecided voters.

Quality take, actually.

[wufwugy]

Also, I think Hilary needs to bring her own brand of WWF Smackdown. She's still playing with the gloves on, even though she doesn't think she is. He's calling her crooked and the best she has is to call him racist. Racist is a harsh thing to be called, but it's not novel. She needs a phrase that will burn into the electorates mind. As Scott Adams points out, the reason "low energy" was the best kill shot of all is that it's a phrase that is both new to the political arena and even novel as a insult. It may not be new as an insult, but if she hit him with something like "petulant child" and repeated it enough to attach it to his brand, I think she could out Trump him with that alone.

Do you guys remember the bus fight with the bearded old guy? If not: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQJFv9SMSMQ -- The guy with the braids is Trump and his supporters are the chick behind the camera. Guy with braids stirs shit up, he's entertaining. But despite seemingly being friends with the guy, once the old man opens that can, she switches sides, or is at least even more amused. And it's win win, because people who don't typically enjoy Worldstar type of fight videos aren't appalled, because the old man is a sympathetic character who was being unfairly attacked by a douche.

tldr: People root for the bully, but they root much harder for the dweeb out of nowhere drops the Peoples Elbow on the bully's forehead.

This is definitely the right path. Your assessment of what she needs to do in general is same as mine. As to the specific, I suspect "petulant child" would make her look like a hissy mother/grandmother, which is probably not that persuasive to voters. Regarding this, the Democrats are in a tough spot since Clinton's persona is by nature not a persuasive one. Being a woman, she can't be boisterous since it would turn off most (like men would think of her as a nagging wife), but boisterousness works well for Trump since dominant men sells better than submissive men.

I suspect one of the better examples of what works for women persuasiveness is what Ivanka does. She's very sweet, doesn't interrupt, smiles a lot. This is the kind of woman people listen to and think positive thoughts about.

It's funny (or more like informative) in how Trump's kids act/appear. All the men have unique hair styles (probably trying to stand out) and always have closed mouth hard tough expressions (it's the dominance). The women all have very traditional beauty looks and smile all the time (makes them pleasant and submissive). Persuasion game on point.

[wufwugy]

^^ I forgot to add that the "dark" route that Cialdini constructed for No Stamina Hillary is probably best.

[wufwugy]

As for my assessment of who won:

Hillary lost by letting Trump set the style. This wasn't a "presidential debate"; it was a "Trump debate." She gave up the important points by responding to his accusations as "there he goes again..." That shit does not work. Christie tried it and failed. Kasich tried it and failed. It always fails.

These debates are not about showing people policy or facts; they're about planting into peoples' minds who the next President is going to be.

[MadMojoMonkey]

lolol

The debates don't matter, 'cause your votes don't matter. I actually think you guys are smart, so why are you caught up in this fabricated issue. Electoral college... look into it. Citizens do not vote for POTUS... it's not even a lie, it's so well known... yet, even intelligent people pretend their vote on this issue is worth... well anything... news flash... it's not.

Why do otherwise intelligent people (namely, you all) get so involved in this gossip contest? There is literally no vote that matters less than your vote for president, yet it's likely the only vote you'll cast in the next 4 years.

What's up with that?

Don't you feel that the media storm around this fabricated vote is offensive?
Don't you feel like you're being treated like a fool to be given all these data about a vote that will not be decided by you?
Do you realize that by voting for POTUS you perpetuate this system which is predicated on a lie?

Inb4, "but if you no vote, then the bad guy will win!"
Please re-read up on electoral college and remind yourself that your vote is a lie, and you are placating those who lie to you by voting.
Do you even know what other issues will be on your ballot this November, or how directly your vote will impact the outcome of those issues?

In Missouri, there's a bill which is sneaky as all get out to "release barriers to creating stricter voter laws." This because the state legislature passed a bill requiring voters to purchase a voter ID from the state in order to vote. MO supreme court says, "Unconstitutional 'cause Missourians have a 'right to vote' and imposing a monetary hurdle is not allowed." Rather than have the state issue the voter ID's for free to all registered voters, they want to change the constitution so they can mandate a sale price, effectively putting a barrier to vote which only affects low-income voters. It's this kind of politics which my vote can actually affect.

What issues will be on your ballots this November to which your vote will actually matter?

[wufwugy]

It's not the only vote I cast and presidential votes matter very very very much.

Without making this long, the fundamental is that votes reflect as well as drive a cultural zeitgeist. This is the difference between communism and freedom.

[Poopadoop]

I'm not going to vote in this election for two reasons:

1. I'm not a US citizen.

2. The chances of my one vote actually making the difference out of millions is astronomically small, as in I'm more likely to get simultaneously hit by lightning and run over by an emo kid on a segue while being attacked by a swarm of killer bees on my way to the polls... than to have my vote make a difference to the outcome.

Edit: Actually, I miscalculated. The emo kid would also have to be also wearing an eyepatch.

[BankItDrew]

If I was a US citizen, I would vote. Not because my vote on its own will decide the election but because of strength in numbers.

MMM, do you support friendly protests against moral injustice? If you do, why? Adding one person to that group won't change the outcome.

[MadMojoMonkey]

presidential votes matter very very very much.

Those cast by the electoral college do.
Yours and mine and the millions of other citizens' votes do not count.
Surely you know this. Why even argue otherwise?

... but your argument is so compelling. Maybe one more "very" and you'd have convinced me.

Without making this long, the fundamental is that votes reflect as well as drive a cultural zeitgeist. This is the difference between communism and freedom.

I agree wholeheartedly if we're talking about any other vote than POTUS vote. When it comes to POTUS vote, it's all theater. What I don't get is why intelligent people play this childish game.

Your argument is that engaging in the discussion matters. Again... if we're talking about any other issue, then it matters a great deal. However, since your vote can't elect POTUS, then discussing these issues in terms of what POTUS can do about the issues is, frankly, juvenile. The votes you cast on literally every other issue hold more sway on your life.

Why do you let the gov't tell you your vote matters (freedom), but then let them ignore your vote (communism)?
Why do you play this game that only placates your words, but not their meaning?

[MadMojoMonkey]

2. The chances of my one vote actually making the difference out of millions is astronomically small, as in I'm more likely to get simultaneously hit by lightning and run over by an emo kid on a segue while being attacked by a swarm of killer bees on my way to the polls... than to have my vote make a difference to the outcome.

Edit: Actually, I miscalculated. The emo kid would also have to be also wearing an eyepatch.

You've dramatically overestimated the impact of votes for POTUS.

Only electoral college votes count.

[Savy]

I agree wholeheartedly if we're talking about any other vote than POTUS vote. When it comes to POTUS vote, it's all theater. What I don't get is why intelligent people play this childish game.

It's entertainment. No different (or better) than watching football.

[MadMojoMonkey]

If I was a US citizen, I would vote. Not because my vote on its own will decide the election but because of strength in numbers.

When it comes to votes for POTUS, unless you're in the electoral college, then the number 0 is as strong as you can ever get.

MMM, do you support friendly protests against moral injustice? If you do, why? Adding one person to that group won't change the outcome.

Support? Yes. In the sense that I wouldn't think ill of anyone participating in a peaceful protest.

Participate? No.
I don't have the time or the inclination to affect moral guidance on a public scale.

By support, I mean... I'm all in favor of people standing together as a group to make their case. I don't know which person joining the crowd pushes it over the edge from an inconsequential nuisance to an un-ignorable public mandate. The Intermediate Value Theorem states that since 1 is not enough, but 3 million is plenty enough, then there is some intermediate value which is just enough.

The fallacy that one vote doesn't matter is not what I'm suggesting. Most votes do matter. Just not POTUS votes.
I'm suggesting that, when it comes to electing POTUS, no votes matter except electoral college votes.

[wufwugy]

Those cast by the electoral college do.

Where do you think the electors get their decisions from?

When it comes to POTUS vote, it's all theater. What I don't get is why intelligent people play this childish game.

POTUS is the most important one. Keep this in mind over the next 8 years of Trump and you see vast changes in our culture.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Where do you think the electors get their decisions from?

Depends on the elector, I suppose. All but 2 states have laws that the electoral college must all vote for the same candidate. I.e. they are not allowed to split their votes to reflect the state's divided vote.

In no case can anyone on the electoral college be forced to place their vote in a certain way. They can only (maybe) be punished afterward.

Your implication that the electors follow the popular vote is belied by the simple fact that in many states, the electoral college casts their votes before the public polling is closed.

I found this. Not sure if still reliable since it says it was last updated in 2009. Also, looks like it may be some bleeding heart liberal org., so unknown bias.
http://archive.fairvote.org/?page=967

these [electoral college] violators [of state laws governing how they must vote] often only face being charged with a misdemeanor or a small fine, usually $1,000. Many constitutional scholars agree that electors remain free agents despite state laws and that, if challenged, such laws would be ruled unconstitutional. Therefore, electors can decline to cast their vote for a specific candidate (the one that wins the popular vote of their state), either voting for an alternative candidate, or abstaining completely. In fact, in the 2000 election, Barbara Lett-Simmons, an elector for the District of Columbia, cast a blank ballot for president and vice president in protest of the District’s unfair voting rights. Indeed, when it comes down to it, electors are ultimately free to vote for whom they personally prefer, despite the general public's desire.

POTUS is the most important one. Keep this in mind over the next 8 years of Trump and you see vast changes in our culture.

Lol

You pretend that your vote will have any affect on whether Hillary or Donald will be POTUS.

You know well better, but you persist in believing the lie, even when you know it's a lie.

lol.

People are confusing.

[wufwugy]

Depends on the elector, I suppose. All but 2 states have laws that the electoral college must all vote for the same candidate. I.e. they are not allowed to split their votes to reflect the state's divided vote.

In no case can anyone on the electoral college be forced to place their vote in a certain way. They can only (maybe) be punished afterward.

Your implication that the electors follow the popular vote is belied by the simple fact that in many states, the electoral college casts their votes before the public polling is closed.

The electors vote the way the popular vote goes.

You pretend that your vote will have any affect on whether Hillary or Donald will be POTUS.

That isn't my argument.

The line that because of scale POTUS votes don't matter doesn't stack up. One example for why is that for every bit one loses by the votes scaling up, one gains by the outcome being more impactful.

Viewing it in the frame that the individual vote doesn't matter because it is never the decider is misleading. The body would never fight off a sickness if each cell felt that way.

I'm never going to have a correct view of reality. What matters is what I believe.

[Poopadoop]

Is there any recorded instance of the electoral college going against the popular vote? There's a lot of things that are legal, doesn't mean people will do them...

[Poopadoop]

Viewing it in the frame that the individual vote doesn't matter because it is never the decider is misleading.

It's perfectly logical and mathematically indisputable (except you need to replace 'never' with 'practically never').

The body would never fight off a sickness if each cell felt that way.

We're not cells cooperating to keep our host alive so we live too. We're people faced with our limitations in personal power.

If you really want to have a realistic chance of influencing an election you need to influence a large number of voters.

[MadMojoMonkey]

The electors vote the way the popular vote goes.

They cast their votes before the polls are closed in many states.
I cited a reference to a case where an elector did not vote in favor of their constituency.

How can you make this assertion in good conscience?

That isn't my argument.

Your argument is that engaging in the hubbub that surrounds a presidential election is of great benefit to society.

My point is that it is a (nearly complete) waste of your time and attention to engage in that one political conversation when literally every other political conversation you can engage in has more opportunity for you to incite a change which directly affects your life.

You think I'm saying the matter of who is the president doesn't matter. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that the matter of who is president is only affected by the general citizenry in fractions of a percent at best. Whereas, your letters to your congressmen will directly affect their policies, your vote for president has only indirect affect at best. Sometimes it blatantly has none.

I'm saying that if "America needs a fixin'," it's the political apathy and the sense of being entitled to good governance. Good governance requires an active citizenry. When the citizens only wake up to chatter about politics once every four years over the single most trivial thing they could affect change in... WTF, man?

And what to do about it?

The line that because of scale POTUS votes don't matter doesn't stack up. One example for why is that for every bit one loses by the votes scaling up, one gains by the outcome being more impactful.

I never took a line of scale. I'm not saying your vote doesn't count 'cause there's so many other voters. That's BS.

I'm saying that your vote doesn't count because it literally doesn't count.

Viewing it in the frame that the individual vote doesn't matter because it is never the decider is misleading.

Man, if anyone was making that point, you'd have nailed 'em good, there, huh?

The body would never fight off a sickness if each cell felt that way.

Does the body have an electoral college to elect the president of sickness fighting?
No?

What are you even talking about?
Is the presidency a disease?
Are people mindless cells in a biomechanical machine?

I'm never going to have a correct view of reality. What matters is what I believe.

I bet you're not so cavalier about your belief in gravity when you're deciding whether to exit your home through the upstairs window or the ground-level door, though.

FFS, I'm not telling you not to vote for the president. I'm telling you you are spending 1,000x more brain power than is cost effective given the resulting advantage you gain. It's literally economics. Take most of this time and attention you're spending on the presidential race and devote it literally any other political issue, and BAM! +EV.

[wufwugy]

It's perfectly logical and mathematically indisputable (except you need to replace 'never' with 'practically never').

I'm talking about something else. According to his logic, one's vote only matters in elections where the outcome was decided by one vote. Given that this is exceedingly rare and that votes change outcomes, the frame is poor

We're not cells cooperating to keep our host alive so we live too. We're people faced with our limitations in personal power.

The principle remains intact. One man doesn't win a war. The logic behind the claim that voting doesn't matter is the same as that man in the war not fighting because one man doesn't win a war. Clearly there are extra levels, and the simplistic frame misses them.

If you really want to have a realistic chance of influencing an election you need to influence a large number of voters.

If we use the simple frame, even this is mostly useless. Elections are movements. The most powerful group of people in the world could have done everything they could to stop Brexit legally and they would have failed.

This anti-voting zeitgeist is no different than a person who believed everything MLK stood for yet didn't want to march because his presence or absence wouldn't tip the scales.

[wufwugy]

Is there any recorded instance of the electoral college going against the popular vote? There's a lot of things that are legal, doesn't mean people will do them...

If there was (I assume there probably is), it would change the math behind the idea of voting in an unnoticeably small way.

[wufwugy]

They cast their votes before the polls are closed in many states.
I cited a reference to a case where an elector did not vote in favor of their constituency.

How can you make this assertion in good conscience?

Regarding that which is relevant for your argument that our votes dont elect because of electors, this doesn't matter, because the correlation of electors voting the way the popular vote goes is virtually indistinguishable from 1 to 1.

Your argument is that engaging in the hubbub that surrounds a presidential election is of great benefit to society.

I'm not arguing that.

My point is that it is a (nearly complete) waste of your time and attention to engage in that one political conversation when literally every other political conversation you can engage in has more opportunity for you to incite a change which directly affects your life.

You think I'm saying the matter of who is the president doesn't matter. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that the matter of who is president is only affected by the general citizenry in fractions of a percent at best. Whereas, your letters to your congressmen will directly affect their policies, your vote for president has only indirect affect at best. Sometimes it blatantly has none.

I'm saying that if "America needs a fixin'," it's the political apathy and the sense of being entitled to good governance. Good governance requires an active citizenry. When the citizens only wake up to chatter about politics once every four years over the single most trivial thing they could affect change in... WTF, man?

And what to do about it?

This is where I perceive the line on scale is. This lesson is in poker. Local elections are like when the pot is small but you have big enough odds to win to continue; national elections are like when the pot is enormous but you have tiny odds to win (yet still enough to continue).

Sure, the smaller the scale, the more one person can change it, but also, at least in this context, the less the change matters. The importance of the President on people as individuals is vastly underrated BTW. A good President can stop a depression. A bad one can create one.

I'm saying that your vote doesn't count because it literally doesn't count.

Color me confused.

I bet you're not so cavalier about your belief in gravity when you're deciding whether to exit your home through the upstairs window or the ground-level door, though.

My statement is relevant when it is not a situation like this.

It is clearly the case that voting matters. Some claim otherwise using tools that don't tell much of the story.

FFS, I'm not telling you not to vote for the president. I'm telling you you are spending 1,000x more brain power than is cost effective given the resulting advantage you gain. It's literally economics. Take most of this time and attention you're spending on the presidential race and devote it literally any other political issue, and BAM! +EV.

Since you're going the route of economics: utility. I get far more utility from presidential elections than others.

If we're thinking in terms of hypothetical optimization of benefits and costs, your line of logic here is reasonable in that I would get way more out things if instead of caring about politics I would instead only focus on my tiny world of my personal life. That's a different issue than the one I've addressed, though.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Since you're going the route of economics: utility. I get far more utility from presidential elections than others.

Yes, absolutely. No one is saying otherwise.
The utility you gain is not in question, it's the utility you enact which is in question.

Plus, you're doing actual harm by ignoring every other political issue worth discussing at this time.
Like the uncivilized way the MO legislature is trying to screw poor people out of their votes, for instance.
I'm sure there are plenty of meaningful issues on the ballot besides the presidency you will cast a vote on.

What are they?

What is going on in the political world besides the presidency?
Specifically anything you care about and/or will be voting on.

If we're thinking in terms of hypothetical optimization of benefits and costs, your line of logic here is reasonable in that I would get way more out things if instead of caring about politics I would instead only focus on my tiny world of my personal life. That's a different issue than the one I've addressed, though.

That's literally the opposite of what I'm saying.

I'm saying you'll get way more out of life if you participate in politics.
Not once every 4 years, but on a regular basis.
Not one political decision, but many.
Not merely the top of the pyramid, but every layer.

Do you think it's by chance that our choices for presidential candidates are spiraling?
No one is caring about the entire rest of the process except the beauty show (ugly show) at the end.

What else in politics will you be voting on?
What are the nuances of the issue?
What motivates your position?

[wufwugy]

I vote in every ballot measure we have. I'll learn more about them when my ballot comes in the mail. I spend most of my politics time on national politics because that's where I learn (and have fun).

[wufwugy]

Results from one poll: undecideds who moved to decided split for Trump by 87%.

[JKDS]

I'll be voting to prevent legalization of marijuana, as well as increasing the minimum wage. I think I'll vote against McCain too.

[Poopadoop]

votes change outcomes

The important word here is 'votes'. Note how it is different that 'a vote'. You're conflating the two.

The principle remains intact. One man doesn't win a war. The logic behind the claim that voting doesn't matter is the same as that man in the war not fighting because one man doesn't win a war. Clearly there are extra levels, and the simplistic frame misses them.

Sure, whatever. Go ahead and vote if you want. I'm just telling you why I can't be bothered.

The most powerful group of people in the world could have done everything they could to stop Brexit legally and they would have failed.

How you do you know that? They could have dumped ten billion dollars into ads, hired people to go door to door, used all kinds of tricks, and changed the vote decisively. But not because they influenced one person, because they influenced thousands or hundreds of thousands or millions.

This anti-voting zeitgeist is no different than a person who believed everything MLK stood for yet didn't want to march because his presence or absence wouldn't tip the scales.

A person could march for other reasons, just like you can vote for other reasons. Maybe because it asserts your belief in democracy, maybe because it gives you a sense of belonging and being part of something bigger, maybe because it's your idea of a fun time. But if you think it's because you've got a good chance of making a difference with your one vote, you're just deluded and nothing more.

[Poopadoop]

If there was (I assume there probably is), it would change the math behind the idea of voting in an unnoticeably small way.

I agree. It's hard to go down much from 'practically zero'.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I'll be voting to prevent legalization of marijuana, as well as increasing the minimum wage. I think I'll vote against McCain too.

Are there any nuances to the bills, or are they single-issue / straight-forward bills?

What motivates your positions on legalization and min wage?

Who will you be voting for in order to vote against McCain?
Why are they more qualified to the job?

[MadMojoMonkey]

For the record, I agree with wuf - re. the notion that lots of people are voting so no single vote changes anything - that's a thin argument.

Every vote is a data point. When determining an experimental value, the more data points the better. The math treats the data points on equal footing unless you specify otherwise.
I.e. every data point contributes to the mean, variance, etc. of the data set.

Voting isn't really about the variance, but the mean. The average of many results which are either 0 or 1 is essentially the same as the result of a 2-choice voting ballot.

[boost]

MMM, isn't your argument simply that the Electoral College is a form of gerrymandering which renders essentially everyone's vote meaningless aside from a handful of counties in a handful of states?

Wuf, do you believe the Electoral College is a good institution? What purpose does it serve and what are it's downsides?

[MadMojoMonkey]

MMM, isn't your argument simply that the Electoral College is a form of gerrymandering which renders essentially everyone's vote meaningless aside from a handful of counties in a handful of states?

No.
That's yet another problem with the electoral college, though.

My point is that we accept a shit-water version of democracy when it comes to the presidency. It strips the popular vote of consequential meaning, and belies our stated faith in democratic governance. It's not as if the electoral college is an elected body, which would at least mitigate my squid rage.

[Poopadoop]

the notion that lots of people are voting so no single vote changes anything - that's a thin argument.

I didn't say that a single vote changes nothing, I said that a single vote in an election with a large number of people voting has a very small chance of deciding the winner of that vote. It's not an argument of any width, it's an indisputable mathematical fact.

Every vote is a data point. When determining an experimental value, the more data points the better. The math treats the data points on equal footing unless you specify otherwise.
I.e. every data point contributes to the mean, variance, etc. of the data set.

Again, not relevant since my argument wasn't about whether an individual vote contributes to the overall mean, variance, etc., or whether increasing your sample size decreases your measurement error - of course both those things are true.

My argument was regarding the probability of a single vote being decisive in an election with a large number of voters.

Voting isn't really about the variance, but the mean. The average of many results which are either 0 or 1 is essentially the same as the result of a 2-choice voting ballot.

Correct. Now if you do an experiment where there's a binary, 0 or 1, yes or no, Hillary or Donald, outcome on every trial, the effect of each individual data point on the accumulated mean of the group falls at a decreasing rate for every data point collected. By the time you reach a million data points, each observation contributes only one millionth of it's value (0 or 1 in this case) to the overall mean.

Further, if your experiment is to determine a binary outcome as in a voting situation (i.e., you want to know who got the higher proportion of votes), the chance of that outcome being altered by removing one data point decreases even more with each data point collected, since now your experiment involves a binary, either/or outcome.

I can go further with this if you really want to know more about the properties of the binomial distribution, but it's pretty dry stuff. It's also not worth disputing because it's entirely fact - i'm not saying anything mathematically controversial here.

[Poopadoop]

No.
That's yet another problem with the electoral college, though.

My point is that we accept a shit-water version of democracy when it comes to the presidency. It strips the popular vote of consequential meaning, and belies our stated faith in democratic governance. It's not as if the electoral college is an elected body, which would at least mitigate my squid rage.

I can see how the electoral college system is flawed inasmuch as it doesn't necessarily reflect the overall popular vote, and instead amounts to essentially 50 separate winner-take-all votes (with a more proportional system in 2 or 3 of the states) that are weighted in some less-than-equitable way by each state's population.

But you seem to also think the EC is corrupt and that it can decide who to cast its votes for independent of the popular vote in that state. I'm not sure that's an outcome that ever happens though, or at least one that would ever happen in this day and age. So still not sure where all the squid rage is coming from.

[Poopadoop]

I was mistaken. Wow.

http://www.fairvote.org/faithless_electors

Some of these people are real turds too lol.

[JKDS]

Are there any nuances to the bills, or are they single-issue / straight-forward bills?

What motivates your positions on legalization and min wage?

Who will you be voting for in order to vote against McCain?
Why are they more qualified to the job?

I read the full text of prop 205 for arizona (pot). Reading the ballot measure for those against, it seems like they are just whining and saying "think of the children!!!". But that's the fault of shity presentation. The fact is that if you legalize even small amounts of pot, youll see the same effects of legalized alcohol. More children in oossession, more idiots under the influence, and more addicts and useless folk.

I'm also not convinced marijuana is safe or nonaddictive, as most studies about its safety are before the new highly concentrated strains were produced.

But I don't have any legal/technicality opposition to it...though some claim it unfairly benefits "big marijauana", whatever that means.

For min wage, I'm generally in favor of it. The proposal seems reasonable, and I feel it's worked in Seattle.

And I just don't like Mccain. I want az to be more purple so I'd prefer Ann to take over. I met her once too, I liked her.