Will Trump be re-elected? - Page 7

theprestige · 2nd November 2020, 12:05 PM

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

which is the sensible approach: it is just not likely that millions of voters suddenly changed their mind or managed to hide their true voting intentions.

There would need to be a very credibly, utterly transparent explanation how Trump won.

Which brings us back around to the question. Why bother with ballots, if opinion polls and statistical modeling get us closer to the truth? Serious question: If opinion polls really are all that, why not amend the constitution to base the EC vote on opinion polls?

The Great Zaganza · 2nd November 2020, 12:06 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

Which brings us back around to the question. Why bother with ballots, if opinion polls and statistical modeling get us closer to the truth?

hyperbole much?

the best way to get close to the truth is from multiple directions at once.
the 2000 mess is the obvious example that ballots alone won't get us there.

Tero · 2nd November 2020, 01:57 PM

The guy Norpoth that predicted all them elections going backwards to 1900 (wonder who is going to win this one?) and a few since Bill Clinton says Trump will win in a landslide because Biden got 8% in the New Hampshire primary. The Democrats and Republicans (in the case of Bill Clinton second term) in that state have decided all the elections for a hundred years.

JoeMorgue · 2nd November 2020, 02:09 PM

Originally Posted by Tero

The guy Norpoth that predicted all them elections going backwards to 1900 (wonder who is going to win this one?) and a few since Bill Clinton says Trump will win in a landslide because Biden got 8% in the New Hampshire primary. The Democrats and Republicans (in the case of Bill Clinton second term) in that state have decided all the elections for a hundred years.

Like I said in another thread, be wary of stuff like this. It's one step removed from political themed horoscopes.

Listen everything about this election is either a canary in a coal mine or a red herring and we won't know which until after the wave form collapses. People are just hedging their bets by pointing out as many "X factors" as they can hoping they'll be able to claim they predicted the outcome after the fact.

Because people don't want to be right as much as they want to be the "See! See! I knew that Kanye West was going to make an out of nowhere surprise victory. I said (in a sea of contradictory predictions but never mind those...) that a candidate with a 5 letter last name had never won in a year that ends in zero....." guy.

Obligatory XKCD: https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/electoral_precedent_2x.png

Tero · 2nd November 2020, 03:01 PM

Good meme. We are stuck with memes to entertain us. It's like waiting for Santa or Krampus.

Mader Levap · 2nd November 2020, 03:17 PM

Originally Posted by Tero

The guy Norpoth that predicted all them elections going backwards to 1900 (wonder who is going to win this one?) and a few since Bill Clinton says Trump will win in a landslide because Biden got 8% in the New Hampshire primary. The Democrats and Republicans (in the case of Bill Clinton second term) in that state have decided all the elections for a hundred years.

Obligatory XKCD:

theprestige · 2nd November 2020, 04:40 PM

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

hyperbole much?

the best way to get close to the truth is from multiple directions at once.
the 2000 mess is the obvious example that ballots alone won't get us there.

Okay, so what are you proposing? Ballots plus polls? The EC votes the ballot count, plus or minus a margin of error from the opinion polls?

wareyin · 2nd November 2020, 05:10 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

Okay, so what are you proposing? Ballots plus polls? The EC votes the ballot count, plus or minus a margin of error from the opinion polls?

I can't say I've ever seen someone working so hard to invalidate both polls and ballots and even voting in general. I wonder if this has anything to do with how well your preferred candidate is doing in the polls, and hopefully will be doing in the final ballot counts?

xjx388 · 2nd November 2020, 05:11 PM

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

hyperbole much?

the best way to get close to the truth is from multiple directions at once.
the 2000 mess is the obvious example that ballots alone won't get us there.

Aren't ballots the ultimate "truth" when it comes to elections?

thaiboxerken · 2nd November 2020, 05:16 PM

Originally Posted by xjx388

Aren't ballots the ultimate "truth" when it comes to elections?

Where they exist, yes. Many states don't have actual ballots, just electronic tabulations in a digital form that can't be verified or audited. Recounts are very, very difficult in the U.S.A. and most, if not all, states make it very hard to get one.

The Great Zaganza · 3rd November 2020, 12:28 AM

Originally Posted by xjx388

Aren't ballots the ultimate "truth" when it comes to elections?

as has been amply demonstrated, initial voter counts are often not the truth when it comes to elections: mistakes happen, as do unforeseen problems.
Some of these problems can be cured, others can't when there are voting machines don't leave a paper trail, for example.

Polls come in when there is reason to doubt the votes because of reported problems - and so far, we had many, many reports of problems, from torched drop-off boxes to Postal Office deliberate slowly of mail and many more.

We have one data point when it comes to ballots.
We have many, many data points when it comes to polls.

If there is a large discrepancy, we need to find out why, not just assume that the votes were counted completely and accurately.

Abooga · 3rd November 2020, 12:51 AM

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

Where they exist, yes. Many states don't have actual ballots, just electronic tabulations in a digital form that can't be verified or audited. Recounts are very, very difficult in the U.S.A. and most, if not all, states make it very hard to get one.

I find this quite shocking. All that hassle about democracy, primaries, polls etc. and then the voting system is opaque and prone to manipulation? I would be making quite a fuss about this if I lived there...

PhantomWolf · 3rd November 2020, 01:02 AM

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

If there is a large discrepancy, we need to find out why, not just assume that the votes were counted completely and accurately.

However, we shouldn't believe that the issue is automatically with the ballots.

Polls have a lot of issues with them, least of all that they are merely snapshots of a population with an assumption that the rest of that population is analogous to that sample. This leads to the fact that most polls have at least a 3.5 point error associated with them. Not only that we have to assume that the pollster is actually playing the ball with a straight bat and isn't biasing the results, consider Rasmensan for example there.

On top of that, polling is a kind of statistical magic that relies as much on the analyst of the poll data as it does on the questions asked and the sample population. Consider 2016 where the analysts were pretty much ignoring the polling data that was screaming that Clinton had a mid-west problem.

At the end of the day, polls are not a lot more than really educated guesses and they tend to be off, so unless the ballot results are well off from the polling (like 7+ points) then the more likely issue is that the polls were wrong.

For instance in this election, if Trump were to take PA and end up winning, it'd be surprising, but it certainly out of the realm of possibility. Then neither is it impossible for things to go the other way and Biden ends up turning Texas blue. Now maybe neither of those things will happen, but the point is that the polling doesn't exclude them from doing so.

3point14 · 3rd November 2020, 03:48 AM

Originally Posted by theprestige

Which brings us back around to the question. Why bother with ballots, if opinion polls and statistical modeling get us closer to the truth? Serious question: If opinion polls really are all that, why not amend the constitution to base the EC vote on opinion polls?

In 1955 Asimov published 'Franchise'.

"In the future, the United States has converted to an "electronic democracy" where the computer Multivac selects a single person to answer a number of questions. Multivac will then use the answers and other data to determine what the results of an election would be, avoiding the need for an actual election to be held."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franchise_(short_story)

The Great Zaganza · 3rd November 2020, 04:31 AM

Originally Posted by 3point14

In 1955 Asimov published 'Franchise'.

"In the future, the United States has converted to an "electronic democracy" where the computer Multivac selects a single person to answer a number of questions. Multivac will then use the answers and other data to determine what the results of an election would be, avoiding the need for an actual election to be held."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franchise_(short_story)

can't wait.

theprestige · 3rd November 2020, 06:59 AM

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

If there is a large discrepancy, we need to find out why, not just assume that the votes were counted completely and accurately.

If there is a large discrepancy between what and what?

If there's a large discrepancy between two opinion polls, do we stop everything and figure out which poll is wrong and which one will be the standard by which the ballot count is measured?

theprestige · 3rd November 2020, 07:01 AM

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

can't wait.

A A similar system could be used to predict collateral damage in a major war.

The Great Zaganza · 3rd November 2020, 07:03 AM

Originally Posted by theprestige

If there is a large discrepancy between what and what?

If there's a large discrepancy between two opinion polls, do we stop everything and figure out which poll is wrong and which one will be the standard by which the ballot count is measured?

you seem determined to misunderstand.

Polls this year have been remarkably stable and similar to each other.
If the results differ beyond the margin of error, either the polls were wrong, or something went wrong with the counting or both.

If there is a discrepancy, more investigation is warranted.

this is not complicated, and it shouldn't be contentious, either.

thaiboxerken · 3rd November 2020, 07:34 AM

Originally Posted by Abooga

I find this quite shocking. All that hassle about democracy, primaries, polls etc. and then the voting system is opaque and prone to manipulation? I would be making quite a fuss about this if I lived there...

It's strange, but no political party here actually makes a fuss about it.

Yes	28	14.51%
No	80	41.45%
Don't know, but I hope not	82	42.49%
Don't know, but I hope he does	3	1.55%
Voters: 193. You may not vote on this poll

2nd November 2020, 12:05 PM	#241
theprestige Penultimate Amazing FLA Winner 12/20 Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 50,701	Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza which is the sensible approach: it is just not likely that millions of voters suddenly changed their mind or managed to hide their true voting intentions. There would need to be a very credibly, utterly transparent explanation how Trump won. Which brings us back around to the question. Why bother with ballots, if opinion polls and statistical modeling get us closer to the truth? Serious question: If opinion polls really are all that, why not amend the constitution to base the EC vote on opinion polls?
	Last edited by theprestige; 2nd November 2020 at 12:06 PM.

2nd November 2020, 12:06 PM	#242
The Great Zaganza Maledictorian Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 14,891	Originally Posted by theprestige Which brings us back around to the question. Why bother with ballots, if opinion polls and statistical modeling get us closer to the truth? hyperbole much? the best way to get close to the truth is from multiple directions at once. the 2000 mess is the obvious example that ballots alone won't get us there.
	__________________ The things that you're liable To read in the Bible It ain't necessarily so Last edited by The Great Zaganza; 2nd November 2020 at 12:09 PM.

2nd November 2020, 01:57 PM	#243
Tero Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: North American prairie Posts: 2,218	The guy Norpoth that predicted all them elections going backwards to 1900 (wonder who is going to win this one?) and a few since Bill Clinton says Trump will win in a landslide because Biden got 8% in the New Hampshire primary. The Democrats and Republicans (in the case of Bill Clinton second term) in that state have decided all the elections for a hundred years.
	__________________ I've deleted the one blog link. You can find the humor blog by searching "the kari report blogspot." Politics blog: https://esapolitics.blogspot.com/

2nd November 2020, 02:09 PM	#244
JoeMorgue Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 31,716	Originally Posted by Tero The guy Norpoth that predicted all them elections going backwards to 1900 (wonder who is going to win this one?) and a few since Bill Clinton says Trump will win in a landslide because Biden got 8% in the New Hampshire primary. The Democrats and Republicans (in the case of Bill Clinton second term) in that state have decided all the elections for a hundred years. Like I said in another thread, be wary of stuff like this. It's one step removed from political themed horoscopes. Listen everything about this election is either a canary in a coal mine or a red herring and we won't know which until after the wave form collapses. People are just hedging their bets by pointing out as many "X factors" as they can hoping they'll be able to claim they predicted the outcome after the fact. Because people don't want to be right as much as they want to be the "See! See! I knew that Kanye West was going to make an out of nowhere surprise victory. I said (in a sea of contradictory predictions but never mind those...) that a candidate with a 5 letter last name had never won in a year that ends in zero....." guy. Obligatory XKCD: https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/electoral_precedent_2x.png
	__________________ Yahtzee: "You're doing that thing again where when asked a question you just discuss the philosophy of the question instead of answering the bloody question." Gabriel: "Well yeah, you see..." Yahtzee: "No. When you are asked a Yes or No question the first word out of your mouth needs to be Yes or No. Only after that have you earned the right to elaborate."

2nd November 2020, 03:01 PM	#245
Tero Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: North American prairie Posts: 2,218	Good meme. We are stuck with memes to entertain us. It's like waiting for Santa or Krampus.
	__________________ I've deleted the one blog link. You can find the humor blog by searching "the kari report blogspot." Politics blog: https://esapolitics.blogspot.com/

2nd November 2020, 03:17 PM	#246
Mader Levap Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 1,576	Originally Posted by Tero The guy Norpoth that predicted all them elections going backwards to 1900 (wonder who is going to win this one?) and a few since Bill Clinton says Trump will win in a landslide because Biden got 8% in the New Hampshire primary. The Democrats and Republicans (in the case of Bill Clinton second term) in that state have decided all the elections for a hundred years. Obligatory XKCD:
	__________________ Sanity is overrated. / Voting for Republicans is morally equivalent to voting for Nazis in early 30's.

2nd November 2020, 04:40 PM	#247
theprestige Penultimate Amazing FLA Winner 12/20 Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 50,701	Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza hyperbole much? the best way to get close to the truth is from multiple directions at once. the 2000 mess is the obvious example that ballots alone won't get us there. Okay, so what are you proposing? Ballots plus polls? The EC votes the ballot count, plus or minus a margin of error from the opinion polls?

2nd November 2020, 05:10 PM	#248
wareyin Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2013 Location: Georgia, USA Posts: 8,561	Originally Posted by theprestige Okay, so what are you proposing? Ballots plus polls? The EC votes the ballot count, plus or minus a margin of error from the opinion polls? I can't say I've ever seen someone working so hard to invalidate both polls and ballots and even voting in general. I wonder if this has anything to do with how well your preferred candidate is doing in the polls, and hopefully will be doing in the final ballot counts?

2nd November 2020, 05:11 PM	#249
xjx388 Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 9,328	Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza hyperbole much? the best way to get close to the truth is from multiple directions at once. the 2000 mess is the obvious example that ballots alone won't get us there. Aren't ballots the ultimate "truth" when it comes to elections?
xjx388 Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 9,328	__________________ Hello.

2nd November 2020, 05:16 PM	#250
thaiboxerken Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 31,717	Originally Posted by xjx388 Aren't ballots the ultimate "truth" when it comes to elections? Where they exist, yes. Many states don't have actual ballots, just electronic tabulations in a digital form that can't be verified or audited. Recounts are very, very difficult in the U.S.A. and most, if not all, states make it very hard to get one.
	__________________ 1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it.

3rd November 2020, 12:28 AM	#251
The Great Zaganza Maledictorian Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 14,891	Originally Posted by xjx388 Aren't ballots the ultimate "truth" when it comes to elections? as has been amply demonstrated, initial voter counts are often not the truth when it comes to elections: mistakes happen, as do unforeseen problems. Some of these problems can be cured, others can't when there are voting machines don't leave a paper trail, for example. Polls come in when there is reason to doubt the votes because of reported problems - and so far, we had many, many reports of problems, from torched drop-off boxes to Postal Office deliberate slowly of mail and many more. We have one data point when it comes to ballots. We have many, many data points when it comes to polls. If there is a large discrepancy, we need to find out why, not just assume that the votes were counted completely and accurately.
	__________________ The things that you're liable To read in the Bible It ain't necessarily so

3rd November 2020, 12:51 AM	#252
Abooga Muse Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 825	Originally Posted by thaiboxerken Where they exist, yes. Many states don't have actual ballots, just electronic tabulations in a digital form that can't be verified or audited. Recounts are very, very difficult in the U.S.A. and most, if not all, states make it very hard to get one. I find this quite shocking. All that hassle about democracy, primaries, polls etc. and then the voting system is opaque and prone to manipulation? I would be making quite a fuss about this if I lived there...
Abooga Muse Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 825

3rd November 2020, 01:02 AM	#253
PhantomWolf Penultimate Amazing FLA February 2021 Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 20,404	Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza If there is a large discrepancy, we need to find out why, not just assume that the votes were counted completely and accurately. However, we shouldn't believe that the issue is automatically with the ballots. Polls have a lot of issues with them, least of all that they are merely snapshots of a population with an assumption that the rest of that population is analogous to that sample. This leads to the fact that most polls have at least a 3.5 point error associated with them. Not only that we have to assume that the pollster is actually playing the ball with a straight bat and isn't biasing the results, consider Rasmensan for example there. On top of that, polling is a kind of statistical magic that relies as much on the analyst of the poll data as it does on the questions asked and the sample population. Consider 2016 where the analysts were pretty much ignoring the polling data that was screaming that Clinton had a mid-west problem. At the end of the day, polls are not a lot more than really educated guesses and they tend to be off, so unless the ballot results are well off from the polling (like 7+ points) then the more likely issue is that the polls were wrong. For instance in this election, if Trump were to take PA and end up winning, it'd be surprising, but it certainly out of the realm of possibility. Then neither is it impossible for things to go the other way and Biden ends up turning Texas blue. Now maybe neither of those things will happen, but the point is that the polling doesn't exclude them from doing so.
	__________________ It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

3rd November 2020, 03:48 AM	#254
3point14 Pi Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 20,663	Originally Posted by theprestige Which brings us back around to the question. Why bother with ballots, if opinion polls and statistical modeling get us closer to the truth? Serious question: If opinion polls really are all that, why not amend the constitution to base the EC vote on opinion polls? In 1955 Asimov published 'Franchise'. "In the future, the United States has converted to an "electronic democracy" where the computer Multivac selects a single person to answer a number of questions. Multivac will then use the answers and other data to determine what the results of an election would be, avoiding the need for an actual election to be held." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franchise_(short_story)
3point14 Pi Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 20,663	__________________ Up the River! Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted]

3rd November 2020, 04:31 AM	#255
The Great Zaganza Maledictorian Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 14,891	Originally Posted by 3point14 In 1955 Asimov published 'Franchise'. "In the future, the United States has converted to an "electronic democracy" where the computer Multivac selects a single person to answer a number of questions. Multivac will then use the answers and other data to determine what the results of an election would be, avoiding the need for an actual election to be held." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franchise_(short_story) can't wait.
	__________________ The things that you're liable To read in the Bible It ain't necessarily so

3rd November 2020, 06:59 AM	#256
theprestige Penultimate Amazing FLA Winner 12/20 Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 50,701	Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza If there is a large discrepancy, we need to find out why, not just assume that the votes were counted completely and accurately. If there is a large discrepancy between what and what? If there's a large discrepancy between two opinion polls, do we stop everything and figure out which poll is wrong and which one will be the standard by which the ballot count is measured?

3rd November 2020, 07:01 AM	#257
theprestige Penultimate Amazing FLA Winner 12/20 Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 50,701	Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza can't wait. A A similar system could be used to predict collateral damage in a major war.

3rd November 2020, 07:03 AM	#258
The Great Zaganza Maledictorian Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 14,891	Originally Posted by theprestige If there is a large discrepancy between what and what? If there's a large discrepancy between two opinion polls, do we stop everything and figure out which poll is wrong and which one will be the standard by which the ballot count is measured? you seem determined to misunderstand. Polls this year have been remarkably stable and similar to each other. If the results differ beyond the margin of error, either the polls were wrong, or something went wrong with the counting or both. If there is a discrepancy, more investigation is warranted. this is not complicated, and it shouldn't be contentious, either.
	__________________ The things that you're liable To read in the Bible It ain't necessarily so

3rd November 2020, 07:34 AM	#259
thaiboxerken Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 31,717	Originally Posted by Abooga I find this quite shocking. All that hassle about democracy, primaries, polls etc. and then the voting system is opaque and prone to manipulation? I would be making quite a fuss about this if I lived there... It's strange, but no political party here actually makes a fuss about it.
	__________________ 1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it.