Friam

Hope?

Classic

List

Threaded

18 messages Options

gepr

Hope?

Election Update: The Craziest End To The 2016 Campaign Runs Through New Mexico
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-the-craziest-end-to-the-2016-campaign-runs-through-new-mexico/

"In 20,000 simulations of our polls-only model this morning, cases in which neither Clinton nor Trump received a majority of electoral votes and Johnson received at least one came up just 30 times, putting the chances at 0.15 percent."

I _wish_ I could run 20k simulations in one morning! 8^) I just optimized our code so that drug moving from the heterogeneous lobule into the well-mixed body compartment are converted from objects to integer counts. That cut execution time by several orders of magnitude... but each experiment still takes ~10-12 hours.

--
☣ glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Robert Wall

Re: Hope?

Thanks, Glen. Quite interesting.

This simulation ensemble conducted by FiveThirtyEight gives some plausibility to New Mexico becoming the new Florida with Gary Johnson--not Jill Stein--playing the part of Ralph Nader. It also gives some non-zero plausibility to Gary Johnson becoming the next POTUS. So why isn't Johnson in the debates? Isn't plausibility the real criterion? We need to find out more about this potential next POTUS. Yes? 🤔😁

On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 1:23 PM, glen ☣ <[hidden email]> wrote:

Election Update: The Craziest End To The 2016 Campaign Runs Through New Mexico
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-the-craziest-end-to-the-2016-campaign-runs-through-new-mexico/

"In 20,000 simulations of our polls-only model this morning, cases in which neither Clinton nor Trump received a majority of electoral votes and Johnson received at least one came up just 30 times, putting the chances at 0.15 percent."

I _wish_ I could run 20k simulations in one morning! 8^) I just optimized our code so that drug moving from the heterogeneous lobule into the well-mixed body compartment are converted from objects to integer counts. That cut execution time by several orders of magnitude... but each experiment still takes ~10-12 hours.

--
glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Frank Wimberly-2

Re: Hope?

Gary Johnson is not plausible. Didn't 538 say his odds were 2 in 100?

Frank

Frank Wimberly
Phone (505) 670-9918

On Oct 3, 2016 5:05 PM, "Robert Wall" <[hidden email]> wrote:

Thanks, Glen. Quite interesting.

This simulation ensemble conducted by FiveThirtyEight gives some plausibility to New Mexico becoming the new Florida with Gary Johnson--not Jill Stein--playing the part of Ralph Nader. It also gives some non-zero plausibility to Gary Johnson becoming the next POTUS. So why isn't Johnson in the debates? Isn't plausibility the real criterion? We need to find out more about this potential next POTUS. Yes? 🤔😁

On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 1:23 PM, glen ☣ <[hidden email]> wrote:
Election Update: The Craziest End To The 2016 Campaign Runs Through New Mexico
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-the-craziest-end-to-the-2016-campaign-runs-through-new-mexico/

"In 20,000 simulations of our polls-only model this morning, cases in which neither Clinton nor Trump received a majority of electoral votes and Johnson received at least one came up just 30 times, putting the chances at 0.15 percent."

I _wish_ I could run 20k simulations in one morning! 8^) I just optimized our code so that drug moving from the heterogeneous lobule into the well-mixed body compartment are converted from objects to integer counts. That cut execution time by several orders of magnitude... but each experiment still takes ~10-12 hours.

--
☣ glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

gepr

Re: Hope?

I liked the point as made by this post:

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/09/28/debate-nights-biggest-lie-was-told-by-lester-holt/

But even if we admit that the only purpose for the peripheral candidates is to influence the actual candidates, we still have an argument for allowing them to debate. So, the answer to the question of why they're not in the debate really is because it's _bipartisan_ not nonpartisan. It's just another example of how the expressivity of your language biases what you do/can understand.

On 10/03/2016 04:21 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote:

> Gary Johnson is not plausible. Didn't 538 say his odds were 2 in 100?
>
> On Oct 3, 2016 5:05 PM, "Robert Wall" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>>
>> This simulation ensemble conducted by *FiveThirtyEight *gives some
>> plausibility to New Mexico becoming the new Florida with Gary Johnson--not
>> Jill Stein--playing the part of Ralph Nader. It also gives some non-zero
>> plausibility to Gary Johnson becoming the next POTUS. So why isn't Johnson
>> in the debates? Isn't plausibility the real criterion? We need to find
>> out more about this potential next POTUS. Yes? 🤔😁
>>

--
☣ glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Robert Wall

Re: Hope?

In reply to this post by Frank Wimberly-2

Hi Frank,

I should have used scare quotes. Sorry. It is difficult to get your tongue in cheek to show enough in a forum post.

😁

On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 5:21 PM, Frank Wimberly <[hidden email]> wrote:

Gary Johnson is not plausible. Didn't 538 say his odds were 2 in 100?

Frank

Frank Wimberly
Phone <a href="tel:%28505%29%20670-9918" value="+15056709918" target="_blank">(505) 670-9918

On Oct 3, 2016 5:05 PM, "Robert Wall" <[hidden email]> wrote:
Thanks, Glen. Quite interesting.

This simulation ensemble conducted by FiveThirtyEight gives some plausibility to New Mexico becoming the new Florida with Gary Johnson--not Jill Stein--playing the part of Ralph Nader. It also gives some non-zero plausibility to Gary Johnson becoming the next POTUS. So why isn't Johnson in the debates? Isn't plausibility the real criterion? We need to find out more about this potential next POTUS. Yes?

On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 1:23 PM, glen <[hidden email]> wrote:
Election Update: The Craziest End To The 2016 Campaign Runs Through New Mexico
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-the-craziest-end-to-the-2016-campaign-runs-through-new-mexico/

"In 20,000 simulations of our polls-only model this morning, cases in which neither Clinton nor Trump received a majority of electoral votes and Johnson received at least one came up just 30 times, putting the chances at 0.15 percent."

I _wish_ I could run 20k simulations in one morning! 8^) I just optimized our code so that drug moving from the heterogeneous lobule into the well-mixed body compartment are converted from objects to integer counts. That cut execution time by several orders of magnitude... but each experiment still takes ~10-12 hours.

--
glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Robert Wall

Re: Hope?

In reply to this post by gepr

I often like Counterpunch for their opinion. And they make an excellent point here, as you say, Glen.

My contention for who should be in the presidential debates is that perhaps notwithstanding the FiveThirtyEight simulation results, any candidate on ballots in enough states--where it is possible for them to accrue 270 electoral votes--should be included in the presidential debates. So under this criterion, I would argue for the inclusion of both Gary Johnson and Jill Stein. If they are not in those debates, it is argued that it is near-impossible for them to win much in the Electoral College.

Now, Nate Silver makes a different argument for an event with non-zero probability, but one that would involve Congress making the final choice. I mean forget for a moment what success any third-party candidate may have in the Electoral College, this "not-getting-to-270-by-any-candidate" scenario is much more likely given the way the polls are showing an inexplicable near dead heat between the two major-party candidates. Of course, this would require a good showing by the third-party candidates in the Electoral College.

Now, under this "possible" scenario, any other third-party candidate would have to be considered if they win any state; that is if I understand the rules for this heretofore unprecedented event. So, if this is so, what if a third-party candidate can win at least one state? And, this possibility becomes more plausible for a third-party candidate, the more states that have them on their ballot. I am, of course, ruling out the effect of the corporate-controlled media bias for shirking their role of informing the electorate that there are more than two candidates for consideration and the strength of the two-party hegemony in this country. And, I won't get into the idea of developing an epistocracy to replace all of this, but it's a good discussion to be had ... 😎

According to Merriam-Webster, plausible means "appearing worthy of belief ." Maybe this year many things that didn't seem credible in the past could be worthy of our belief this cycle. I mean, how credible is it that Donald Trump would have become the GOP's champion candidate for POTUS? Everything seems upside-down this time. Yes?

On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 5:29 PM, glen ☣ <[hidden email]> wrote:

I liked the point as made by this post:

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/09/28/debate-nights-biggest-lie-was-told-by-lester-holt/

But even if we admit that the only purpose for the peripheral candidates is to influence the actual candidates, we still have an argument for allowing them to debate. So, the answer to the question of why they're not in the debate really is because it's _bipartisan_ not nonpartisan. It's just another example of how the expressivity of your language biases what you do/can understand.

On 10/03/2016 04:21 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote:

Gary Johnson is not plausible. Didn't 538 say his odds were 2 in 100?

On Oct 3, 2016 5:05 PM, "Robert Wall" <[hidden email]> wrote:

This simulation ensemble conducted by *FiveThirtyEight *gives some
plausibility to New Mexico becoming the new Florida with Gary Johnson--not
Jill Stein--playing the part of Ralph Nader. It also gives some non-zero
plausibility to Gary Johnson becoming the next POTUS. So why isn't Johnson
in the debates? Isn't plausibility the real criterion? We need to find
out more about this potential next POTUS. Yes?

--
glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Steve Smith

Re: Hope?

In reply to this post by gepr

Glen -

I love the deep ambiguity and late binding of what you just said here!

- Steve

On 10/3/16 1:23 PM, glen ☣ wrote:
> I just optimized our code so that drug moving from the heterogeneous
> lobule into the well-mixed body compartment are converted from objects
> to integer counts. That cut execution time by several orders of
> magnitude... but each experiment still takes ~10-12 hours.

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Steve Smith

Re: Hope?

In reply to this post by gepr

no shit sherlock!

what a great phrase in an auspicious time?

On 10/3/16 5:29 PM, glen ☣ wrote:

> I liked the point as made by this post:
>
> http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/09/28/debate-nights-biggest-lie-was-told-by-lester-holt/
>
>
> But even if we admit that the only purpose for the peripheral
> candidates is to influence the actual candidates, we still have an
> argument for allowing them to debate. So, the answer to the question
> of why they're not in the debate really is because it's _bipartisan_
> not nonpartisan. It's just another example of how the expressivity of
> your language biases what you do/can understand.
>
> On 10/03/2016 04:21 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
>> Gary Johnson is not plausible. Didn't 538 say his odds were 2 in 100?
>>
>> On Oct 3, 2016 5:05 PM, "Robert Wall" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> This simulation ensemble conducted by *FiveThirtyEight *gives some
>>> plausibility to New Mexico becoming the new Florida with Gary
>>> Johnson--not
>>> Jill Stein--playing the part of Ralph Nader. It also gives some
>>> non-zero
>>> plausibility to Gary Johnson becoming the next POTUS. So why isn't
>>> Johnson
>>> in the debates? Isn't plausibility the real criterion? We need to
>>> find
>>> out more about this potential next POTUS. Yes? 🤔😁
>>>
>
>

cody dooderson

Re: Hope?

If Glen is talking about what I think he is. It takes me roughly 14 hours, after eating an enchilada, to get a homogeneous result from my simulation of this year's election, but I have a particularly slow moving large intestine.

Cody Smith

On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 8:38 PM, Steven A Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

no shit sherlock!

what a great phrase in an auspicious time?

On 10/3/16 5:29 PM, glen ☣ wrote:

I liked the point as made by this post:

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/09/28/debate-nights-biggest-lie-was-told-by-lester-holt/

But even if we admit that the only purpose for the peripheral candidates is to influence the actual candidates, we still have an argument for allowing them to debate. So, the answer to the question of why they're not in the debate really is because it's _bipartisan_ not nonpartisan. It's just another example of how the expressivity of your language biases what you do/can understand.

On 10/03/2016 04:21 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote:

Gary Johnson is not plausible. Didn't 538 say his odds were 2 in 100?

On Oct 3, 2016 5:05 PM, "Robert Wall" <[hidden email]> wrote:

This simulation ensemble conducted by *FiveThirtyEight *gives some
plausibility to New Mexico becoming the new Florida with Gary Johnson--not
Jill Stein--playing the part of Ralph Nader. It also gives some non-zero
plausibility to Gary Johnson becoming the next POTUS. So why isn't Johnson
in the debates? Isn't plausibility the real criterion? We need to find
out more about this potential next POTUS. Yes? 🤔😁

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Gillian Densmore

Re: Hope?

hey man I can down a beer get to level 10 in pokemon, and (eventually) make it to wedtech :P

Plus the wedtech rants and raves are at least interesting

Choosing between a dysfunctional robot or neurotic robot is a little less so

On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 10:22 AM, cody dooderson <[hidden email]> wrote:

If Glen is talking about what I think he is. It takes me roughly 14 hours, after eating an enchilada, to get a homogeneous result from my simulation of this year's election, but I have a particularly slow moving large intestine.

Cody Smith

On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 8:38 PM, Steven A Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:
no shit sherlock!

what a great phrase in an auspicious time?

On 10/3/16 5:29 PM, glen ☣ wrote:

I liked the point as made by this post:

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/09/28/debate-nights-biggest-lie-was-told-by-lester-holt/

But even if we admit that the only purpose for the peripheral candidates is to influence the actual candidates, we still have an argument for allowing them to debate. So, the answer to the question of why they're not in the debate really is because it's _bipartisan_ not nonpartisan. It's just another example of how the expressivity of your language biases what you do/can understand.

On 10/03/2016 04:21 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote:

Gary Johnson is not plausible. Didn't 538 say his odds were 2 in 100?

On Oct 3, 2016 5:05 PM, "Robert Wall" <[hidden email]> wrote:

This simulation ensemble conducted by *FiveThirtyEight *gives some
plausibility to New Mexico becoming the new Florida with Gary Johnson--not
Jill Stein--playing the part of Ralph Nader. It also gives some non-zero
plausibility to Gary Johnson becoming the next POTUS. So why isn't Johnson
in the debates? Isn't plausibility the real criterion? We need to find
out more about this potential next POTUS. Yes? 🤔😁

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

gepr

Re: Hope?

In reply to this post by Robert Wall

On 10/03/2016 05:18 PM, Robert Wall wrote:
> If they are not in those debates, it is argued that it is near-impossible for them to win much in the Electoral College.

Of course, all this assumes that the debates have any real impact. I think most of the evidence shows the 1st debate mattered in the poll results (even if only 1-2 % points). But the map between polls and votes is complex, too. It's reasonable to think that only people who pay attention to politics at all care about the debates. And those are also the people who respond to polls. So, there's a leap of faith that the debates matter at all.

Barring any serious gaffes, my guess is the effect from advertisements swamps that from the debates.

> Now, under this "possible" scenario, any other third-party candidate would have to be considered if they win any state; that is if I understand the rules for this heretofore unprecedented event. So, if this is so, what if a third-party candidate can win at least one state?

I suppose because Trump is so despised by so many Republicans, it's reasonable to think Johnson would have a chance in the House election. But the populist backlash would be yuuuge. Such a scenario would lend more credence to the worries about riots and domestic terrorism after the election. So, my guess would be that if the House has to vote, they'll vote for Trump or Clinton. Since Clinton is basically a neocon right along the lines of Bush'43, respectable House Republicans will be able to justify a vote for her over Johnson.

> According to /Merriam-Webster/, plausible means "appearing worthy of belief ." Maybe this year many things that didn't seem credible in the past could be worthy of our belief this cycle. I mean, how credible is it that Donald Trump would have become the GOP's champion candidate for POTUS? Everything seems upside-down this time. Yes?

Heh, well some of us believe in things like virgin births, chiropracty, transubstantiation, telekinesis, chemtrails, and acupuncture ... So, it's plausible that the word "plausible" is a completely useless word. 8^)

--
☣ glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Eric Charles-2

Re: Hope?

"all this assumes that the debates have any real impact."

Well, yes... but not in the same way one would assume it would work for the "major" party candidates. I suspect the opportunity offered to a third party candidate (for good or ill) by being on the debate stage is much more than for the candidates who already have neigh-ubiquitous media saturation.

"what if a third-party candidate can win at least one state?"

As an odd quirk of the system, they don't necessarily even have to win a state. Though it is extremely rare, some states do not bind their electoral college delegates, and it is thus possible for some delegates to cast votes for anyone they choose. In 1972, a year after it was founded, the Libertarian Party received a vote from one of the Virginia delegates (making their VP candidate, Tonie Nathan, the first woman and the first Jew to ever receive an electoral vote). My understanding is that such an action would qualify the recipient for consideration. Well at least, the top three electoral vote getters would qualify for consideration by the House of Representatives, even if the top three vote getters had not all run public campaigns up to that point.

-----------
Eric P. Charles, Ph.D.
Supervisory Survey Statistician

U.S. Marine Corps

[hidden email]

On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 3:15 PM, glen ☣ <[hidden email]> wrote:

On 10/03/2016 05:18 PM, Robert Wall wrote:

If they are not in those debates, it is argued that it is near-impossible for them to win much in the Electoral College.

Of course, all this assumes that the debates have any real impact. I think most of the evidence shows the 1st debate mattered in the poll results (even if only 1-2 % points). But the map between polls and votes is complex, too. It's reasonable to think that only people who pay attention to politics at all care about the debates. And those are also the people who respond to polls. So, there's a leap of faith that the debates matter at all.

Barring any serious gaffes, my guess is the effect from advertisements swamps that from the debates.

Now, under this "possible" scenario, any other third-party candidate would have to be considered if they win any state; that is if I understand the rules for this heretofore unprecedented event. So, if this is so, what if a third-party candidate can win at least one state?

I suppose because Trump is so despised by so many Republicans, it's reasonable to think Johnson would have a chance in the House election. But the populist backlash would be yuuuge. Such a scenario would lend more credence to the worries about riots and domestic terrorism after the election. So, my guess would be that if the House has to vote, they'll vote for Trump or Clinton. Since Clinton is basically a neocon right along the lines of Bush'43, respectable House Republicans will be able to justify a vote for her over Johnson.

According to /Merriam-Webster/, plausible means "appearing worthy of belief ." Maybe this year many things that didn't seem credible in the past could be worthy of our belief this cycle. I mean, how credible is it that Donald Trump would have become the GOP's champion candidate for POTUS? Everything seems upside-down this time. Yes?

Heh, well some of us believe in things like virgin births, chiropracty, transubstantiation, telekinesis, chemtrails, and acupuncture ... So, it's plausible that the word "plausible" is a completely useless word. 8^)

--
☣ glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

John Dobson

Re: Hope?

I assume you guys all know about the only time the election has been thrown into the House. It was 1824 when there were four candidates who won electoral votes, although Andrew Jackson had a pretty large plurality of the popular vote. John Quincy Adams bitterly hated Jackson and assumed (Clinton/Bush dynasty-like) that he should be the president because his dad had done such a dynamite job as Washington's successor in 1797.

So, anyway, it was up to the House to select the winner, each state delegation casting one vote. Adams benefitted because the underpopulated New England States all went to him and he made what Jacksonians claimed was a "corrupt bargain" with Henry Clay of Kentucky to basically drop out of the race and swing his delegation to Adams. It worked. Adams won by a single vote. Then he named Clay his secretary of state, the very job he was relinquishing and the cabinet office that was most likely to insure that its incumbent would have the inside track for the succeeding presidential election.

Of course, Jackson came back strong in 1828 winning the first of two terms outright. Henry Clay continued to run for President as a Whig into the 1840s but never managed to cash in the corrupt bargain for the top spot. Given this year's candidates, I think any one of the three---Adams, Jackson, or Clay---would be preferable.

Even if Gary Johnson managed to "win" New Mexico, it's not clear what the result in the House would be if each state's delegation had a single vote. I suppose the Republicans; gerrymandering would work in their favor though as there are more "red" states than blue at this point.

Having a Ph.D. in American history doesn't help me much in doping out current affairs.

John Dobson

On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 3:36 PM, Eric Charles <[hidden email]> wrote:

"all this assumes that the debates have any real impact."

Well, yes... but not in the same way one would assume it would work for the "major" party candidates. I suspect the opportunity offered to a third party candidate (for good or ill) by being on the debate stage is much more than for the candidates who already have neigh-ubiquitous media saturation.

"what if a third-party candidate can win at least one state?"

As an odd quirk of the system, they don't necessarily even have to win a state. Though it is extremely rare, some states do not bind their electoral college delegates, and it is thus possible for some delegates to cast votes for anyone they choose. In 1972, a year after it was founded, the Libertarian Party received a vote from one of the Virginia delegates (making their VP candidate, Tonie Nathan, the first woman and the first Jew to ever receive an electoral vote). My understanding is that such an action would qualify the recipient for consideration. Well at least, the top three electoral vote getters would qualify for consideration by the House of Representatives, even if the top three vote getters had not all run public campaigns up to that point.

-----------
Eric P. Charles, Ph.D.
Supervisory Survey Statistician
U.S. Marine Corps
[hidden email]

On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 3:15 PM, glen ☣ <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 10/03/2016 05:18 PM, Robert Wall wrote:

If they are not in those debates, it is argued that it is near-impossible for them to win much in the Electoral College.

Of course, all this assumes that the debates have any real impact. I think most of the evidence shows the 1st debate mattered in the poll results (even if only 1-2 % points). But the map between polls and votes is complex, too. It's reasonable to think that only people who pay attention to politics at all care about the debates. And those are also the people who respond to polls. So, there's a leap of faith that the debates matter at all.

Barring any serious gaffes, my guess is the effect from advertisements swamps that from the debates.

Now, under this "possible" scenario, any other third-party candidate would have to be considered if they win any state; that is if I understand the rules for this heretofore unprecedented event. So, if this is so, what if a third-party candidate can win at least one state?

I suppose because Trump is so despised by so many Republicans, it's reasonable to think Johnson would have a chance in the House election. But the populist backlash would be yuuuge. Such a scenario would lend more credence to the worries about riots and domestic terrorism after the election. So, my guess would be that if the House has to vote, they'll vote for Trump or Clinton. Since Clinton is basically a neocon right along the lines of Bush'43, respectable House Republicans will be able to justify a vote for her over Johnson.

According to /Merriam-Webster/, plausible means "appearing worthy of belief ." Maybe this year many things that didn't seem credible in the past could be worthy of our belief this cycle. I mean, how credible is it that Donald Trump would have become the GOP's champion candidate for POTUS? Everything seems upside-down this time. Yes?

Heh, well some of us believe in things like virgin births, chiropracty, transubstantiation, telekinesis, chemtrails, and acupuncture ... So, it's plausible that the word "plausible" is a completely useless word. 8^)

--
☣ glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

gepr

Re: Hope?

Thanks for the story! I was aware, but only barely, in the context free way that's so common these days.

On 10/05/2016 04:18 PM, John Dobson wrote:
> I assume you guys all know about the only time the election has been thrown into the House. It was 1824 when there were four candidates who won electoral votes, although Andrew Jackson had a pretty large plurality of the popular vote. John Quincy Adams bitterly hated Jackson and assumed (Clinton/Bush dynasty-like) that he should be the president because his dad had done such a dynamite job as Washington's successor in 1797.
>
> So, anyway, it was up to the House to select the winner, each state delegation casting one vote. Adams benefitted because the underpopulated New England States all went to him and he made what Jacksonians claimed was a "corrupt bargain" with Henry Clay of Kentucky to basically drop out of the race and swing his delegation to Adams. It worked. Adams won by a single vote. Then he named Clay his secretary of state, the very job he was relinquishing and the cabinet office that was most likely to insure that its incumbent would have the inside track for the succeeding presidential election.
>
> Of course, Jackson came back strong in 1828 winning the first of two terms outright. Henry Clay continued to run for President as a Whig into the 1840s but never managed to cash in the corrupt bargain for the top spot. Given this year's candidates, I think any one of the three---Adams, Jackson, or Clay---would be preferable.
>
> Even if Gary Johnson managed to "win" New Mexico, it's not clear what the result in the House would be if each state's delegation had a single vote. I suppose the Republicans; gerrymandering would work in their favor though as there are more "red" states than blue at this point.
>
> Having a Ph.D. in American history doesn't help me much in doping out current affairs.

--
␦glen?

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Nick Thompson

Re: Hope?

Hi,

I am just catching up with this debate, so forgive me if I am annoyingly irrelevant.

I confess I am not much of a fan for privatizing Social Security and medicate, which I understand Johnson to be. I am not a libertarian, but more a communitarian, which is why the charter school issue is such tough one for me. One the one hand, I believe that intentional education by any neighborhood is probably better than education that as seen as inflicted the families of the neighborhood, if only because of the placebo effect. On the other hand, all the effort by parents of one school to serve the kids in their school, makes the schools uneven in just the way that we cannot tolerate, and is destructive of the higher order community. Does that make me a hierarchical communitarian. Geez. Some of the best outcomes are produced when the entire meta-community pulls together, but unfortunately that seems to require a war. Anyway, you Johnson fans can take comfort in the fact that Professor Dave will box my ears soundly when I turn up at Friam in a week.

On a historical matter, I was confused by:

So, anyway, it was up to the House to select the winner, each state delegation casting one vote. Adams benefitted because the underpopulated New England States all went to him

I would have thought that in 1824, the population of new England states was high compared to much larger states such as Ohio, Kentucky, etc. So, I would have thought that they would be UNDER-represented in a state by state poll of the House delegations. John can box my ears on that one.

Looking forward to meeting with the Mother Church next Friday at St. Johns.

NIck

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of ?glen?
Sent: Friday, October 07, 2016 12:04 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Hope?

Thanks for the story! I was aware, but only barely, in the context free way that's so common these days.

On 10/05/2016 04:18 PM, John Dobson wrote:

> I assume you guys all know about the only time the election has been thrown into the House. It was 1824 when there were four candidates who won electoral votes, although Andrew Jackson had a pretty large plurality of the popular vote. John Quincy Adams bitterly hated Jackson and assumed (Clinton/Bush dynasty-like) that he should be the president because his dad had done such a dynamite job as Washington's successor in 1797.

> So, anyway, it was up to the House to select the winner, each state delegation casting one vote. Adams benefitted because the underpopulated New England States all went to him and he made what Jacksonians claimed was a "corrupt bargain" with Henry Clay of Kentucky to basically drop out of the race and swing his delegation to Adams. It worked. Adams won by a single vote. Then he named Clay his secretary of state, the very job he was relinquishing and the cabinet office that was most likely to insure that its incumbent would have the inside track for the succeeding presidential election.

> Of course, Jackson came back strong in 1828 winning the first of two terms outright. Henry Clay continued to run for President as a Whig into the 1840s but never managed to cash in the corrupt bargain for the top spot. Given this year's candidates, I think any one of the three---Adams, Jackson, or Clay---would be preferable.

> Even if Gary Johnson managed to "win" New Mexico, it's not clear what the result in the House would be if each state's delegation had a single vote. I suppose the Republicans; gerrymandering would work in their favor though as there are more "red" states than blue at this point.

> Having a Ph.D. in American history doesn't help me much in doping out current affairs.

␦glen?

============================================================

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

John Dobson

Re: Hope?

Nick,

You inquired about the relative populations of states in 1824. Actually, Ohio's population was larger than any New England State including Massachusetts. Collectively, New England's six states controlled 51 electoral votes or 19 percent of the national total of 261. Adams only had to round up those six and seven more loyal to Clay including Kentucky, Ohio, Missouri and Louisiana to defeat Jackson when the House voted.

The other monkey wrench in the proceedings was the candidacy of William Crawford of Georgia. Even though he suffered a paralytic stroke in 1823, he racked up more popular votes than Clay and retained the support of four state delegations when the vote went to the House in early 1825. Thus Crawford's support basically kept his electoral and state votes off the table for either Jackson or Adams.

Four popular candidates, each representing a different region of the country made for a very contentious ending to the "Era of Good Feelings" during which there was almost no opposition to electing and re-electing James Monroe as the Democratic-Republican heir to the Jefferson-Madison dynasty.

Jackson and his remarkably able campaign chairman, Martin Van Buren, organized the first truly national party, held the first national party convention in 1828, and ensured that this sort of foolishness would not recur.

Fun, fun, fun!

On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 7:37 PM, Nick Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi,

I am just catching up with this debate, so forgive me if I am annoyingly irrelevant.

I confess I am not much of a fan for privatizing Social Security and medicate, which I understand Johnson to be. I am not a libertarian, but more a communitarian, which is why the charter school issue is such tough one for me. One the one hand, I believe that intentional education by any neighborhood is probably better than education that as seen as inflicted the families of the neighborhood, if only because of the placebo effect. On the other hand, all the effort by parents of one school to serve the kids in their school, makes the schools uneven in just the way that we cannot tolerate, and is destructive of the higher order community. Does that make me a hierarchical communitarian. Geez. Some of the best outcomes are produced when the entire meta-community pulls together, but unfortunately that seems to require a war. Anyway, you Johnson fans can take comfort in the fact that Professor Dave will box my ears soundly when I turn up at Friam in a week.

On a historical matter, I was confused by:

So, anyway, it was up to the House to select the winner, each state delegation casting one vote. Adams benefitted because the underpopulated New England States all went to him

I would have thought that in 1824, the population of new England states was high compared to much larger states such as Ohio, Kentucky, etc. So, I would have thought that they would be UNDER-represented in a state by state poll of the House delegations. John can box my ears on that one.

Looking forward to meeting with the Mother Church next Friday at St. Johns.

NIck

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of ?glen?
Sent: Friday, October 07, 2016 12:04 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Hope?

Thanks for the story! I was aware, but only barely, in the context free way that's so common these days.

On 10/05/2016 04:18 PM, John Dobson wrote:
> I assume you guys all know about the only time the election has been thrown into the House. It was 1824 when there were four candidates who won electoral votes, although Andrew Jackson had a pretty large plurality of the popular vote. John Quincy Adams bitterly hated Jackson and assumed (Clinton/Bush dynasty-like) that he should be the president because his dad had done such a dynamite job as Washington's successor in 1797.
>
> So, anyway, it was up to the House to select the winner, each state delegation casting one vote. Adams benefitted because the underpopulated New England States all went to him and he made what Jacksonians claimed was a "corrupt bargain" with Henry Clay of Kentucky to basically drop out of the race and swing his delegation to Adams. It worked. Adams won by a single vote. Then he named Clay his secretary of state, the very job he was relinquishing and the cabinet office that was most likely to insure that its incumbent would have the inside track for the succeeding presidential election.
>
> Of course, Jackson came back strong in 1828 winning the first of two terms outright. Henry Clay continued to run for President as a Whig into the 1840s but never managed to cash in the corrupt bargain for the top spot. Given this year's candidates, I think any one of the three---Adams, Jackson, or Clay---would be preferable.
>
> Even if Gary Johnson managed to "win" New Mexico, it's not clear what the result in the House would be if each state's delegation had a single vote. I suppose the Republicans; gerrymandering would work in their favor though as there are more "red" states than blue at this point.
>
> Having a Ph.D. in American history doesn't help me much in doping out current affairs.

--
␦glen?

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Nick Thompson

Re: Hope?

Thanks, John, for straightening me out.

Nick

Nicholas S. Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology

Clark University

http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of John Dobson
Sent: Sunday, October 09, 2016 12:11 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Hope?

Nick,

Fun, fun, fun!

On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 7:37 PM, Nick Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi,

I am just catching up with this debate, so forgive me if I am annoyingly irrelevant.

I confess I am not much of a fan for privatizing Social Security and medicate, which I understand Johnson to be. I am not a libertarian, but more a communitarian, which is why the charter school issue is such tough one for me. One the one hand, I believe that intentional education by any neighborhood is probably better than education that as seen as inflicted the families of the neighborhood, if only because of the placebo effect. On the other hand, all the effort by parents of one school to serve the kids in their school, makes the schools uneven in just the way that we cannot tolerate, and is destructive of the higher order community. Does that make me a hierarchical communitarian. Geez. Some of the best outcomes are produced when the entire meta-community pulls together, but unfortunately that seems to require a war. Anyway, you Johnson fans can take comfort in the fact that Professor Dave will box my ears soundly when I turn up at Friam in a week.

On a historical matter, I was confused by:

So, anyway, it was up to the House to select the winner, each state delegation casting one vote. Adams benefitted because the underpopulated New England States all went to him

I would have thought that in 1824, the population of new England states was high compared to much larger states such as Ohio, Kentucky, etc. So, I would have thought that they would be UNDER-represented in a state by state poll of the House delegations. John can box my ears on that one.

Looking forward to meeting with the Mother Church next Friday at St. Johns.

NIck

Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of ?glen?
Sent: Friday, October 07, 2016 12:04 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Hope?

Thanks for the story! I was aware, but only barely, in the context free way that's so common these days.

On 10/05/2016 04:18 PM, John Dobson wrote:
> I assume you guys all know about the only time the election has been thrown into the House. It was 1824 when there were four candidates who won electoral votes, although Andrew Jackson had a pretty large plurality of the popular vote. John Quincy Adams bitterly hated Jackson and assumed (Clinton/Bush dynasty-like) that he should be the president because his dad had done such a dynamite job as Washington's successor in 1797.
>
> So, anyway, it was up to the House to select the winner, each state delegation casting one vote. Adams benefitted because the underpopulated New England States all went to him and he made what Jacksonians claimed was a "corrupt bargain" with Henry Clay of Kentucky to basically drop out of the race and swing his delegation to Adams. It worked. Adams won by a single vote. Then he named Clay his secretary of state, the very job he was relinquishing and the cabinet office that was most likely to insure that its incumbent would have the inside track for the succeeding presidential election.
>
> Of course, Jackson came back strong in 1828 winning the first of two terms outright. Henry Clay continued to run for President as a Whig into the 1840s but never managed to cash in the corrupt bargain for the top spot. Given this year's candidates, I think any one of the three---Adams, Jackson, or Clay---would be preferable.
>
> Even if Gary Johnson managed to "win" New Mexico, it's not clear what the result in the House would be if each state's delegation had a single vote. I suppose the Republicans; gerrymandering would work in their favor though as there are more "red" states than blue at this point.
>
> Having a Ph.D. in American history doesn't help me much in doping out current affairs.

--
␦glen?

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

glen ropella

Re: Hope?

In reply to this post by Nick Thompson

On 10/07/2016 05:37 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
> One the one hand, I believe that intentional education by any neighborhood is probably better than education that as seen as inflicted the families of the neighborhood, if only because of the placebo effect. On the other hand, all the effort by parents of one school to serve the kids in their school, makes the schools uneven in just the way that we cannot tolerate, and is destructive of the higher order community. Does that make me a hierarchical communitarian. Geez. Some of the best outcomes are produced when the entire meta-community pulls together, but unfortunately that seems to require a war.

At a monthly extra-curricular activity at the local college, a discussion came up about which students were (and were not) likely to attend such a thing. (In this meeting, we discussed this paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/1608.08225) I tried to goad the professors and students (who obviously believe in the power of formal education) into discussing categories of students, e.g. those who will simply complete the program but be fairly lackluster vs. those who attack the domain with zest. 8^) I failed. Everyone remained polite. Of course, I do this precisely because I'm _not_ a fan of formal education.

In any case, as a result, I began to think about the degradation of our society's overall decency through the advent and stabilization of social media like Twitter. Such has given the disenfrachised a louder bullhorn to blast their opinions and positions. In some cases, that's good. But for the most part, it's given voice to things like radicalization, "alt-right", "men's rights", the psychological diagnosis of us trolls from a distance, etc.

But in the context of Nick's frame, perhaps such disruption is an example of breaking out of a local optimum, going through a less optimal state, in order to arrive at a higher (though still local) optimum elsewhere in the space? I admit I've had (probably stolen) this same thought about MOOCs. Do we have to suffer a period of sub-standard education in order to come out the other side onto a super-standard?

--
∃glenE

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com