Friam

The Presidential Election

Classic

List

Threaded

38 messages Options

Robert J. Cordingley

Re: The Presidential Election

BTW, I still like the idea moving the US to adopt the double-CEO model: a President (head of state) and a Prime Minister (head of the government with a cabinet). May be, as some have said, it really is too big a job for one person.

On 11/4/12 1:54 PM, Owen Densmore wrote:

More parties? I'm for it! :)

But seriously, one question on "fair voting": when you vote, can you vote for multiple candidates in priority order so that an "instant runoff" can be held?

-- Owen
On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Jochen Fromm <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Nick,

yes, it is similar where I live, although we have more parties in Germany (conservative, socialist, liberal and green parties). No, people usually do not change their mind in political discussions. They change their mind during the course of time, though. I changed my mind for example about our own chancellor, Angela Merkel: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angela_Merkel . In the beginning I had doubts. She looks a bit clumsy and grumpy sometimes, and there are certainly politicians who have more charisma. But over the years I learned to appreciate her honesty, her modesty, and her kindness. She said she wants to serve her country, and she really does. She would never lie intentionally. This may seems obvious, but how can you trust someone who lies?

What about you, do you vote for Romney, Obama or someone else, like Gary Johnson? From a psychological aspect, this election is interesting, isn't it?

-J.

Am 04.11.2012 03:39, schrieb Nicholas Thompson:
Jochen, 

At this week's FRIAM meeting, we talked briefly about politics and it was
clear that there was some disagreement around the table.  We were about to
let it go, on that ground, when I decided, spurred by my newly embraced
pragmatist ideology, to beg that they all put their minds for 5 minutes to
the question, "How do we go about having a conversation with people with
whom we disagree?  A conversation that would actually get somewhere."  

Our usual way of proceding is what I call "FogHorns on a Shrouded Bay."
Each individual sounds off while the others listen politely or check their
email on their cell phones.  That goes around the circle a couple of times,
and then people just drop the topic and go on to something else.  

On the whole, most people I know would rather be force fed castor oil than
be convinced to change their minds.

So, back to you, Jochen.  Is it truly different where you are?  Have you
ever sat in on a political discussion in which anybody ever changed his or
her mind?  How did that happen?  

Nick

 

From: Friam [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Jochen Fromm
Sent: Saturday, November 03, 2012 3:20 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The Presidential Election

 

Interesting read. Sometimes we wonder why other peoples voting decisions are
fundamentally different from ours even if all good reasons speak against it.
Are they backward or brainwashed? Jonathan Haidt has written a book named
"The Righteous Mind" where he argues that people don't really listen to
arguments or reasons. Guided by their emotions, they often come to a quick
conclusion what is good or bad, and this decision is in accordance with
their worldview and their moral system (regardless how skewed it may be). 
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/the-righteous-mind-by-jonatha
n-haidt.html?pagewanted=all
<http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/the-righteous-mind-by-jonath
an-haidt.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0> &_r=0

-J.

Am 03.11.2012 21:18, schrieb Roger Critchlow: 

Here's how backward the conservative heart of america beats:
 
  http://www.thebaffler.com/past/the_long_con
 
-- rec --
 






============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

 
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Robert Holmes-3

Re: The Presidential Election

In reply to this post by Douglas Roberts-2

Yeah, because that never backfires: Ralph Nader, Florida, 2000.

On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 2:46 PM, Douglas Roberts <[hidden email]> wrote:

<snip>

Also, and primarily, that vote was a statement against the two party system.

Douglas Roberts-2

Re: The Presidential Election

Well, ok, then. The PRIMARY primary objective in voting for Johnson was that I did not end up voting for a candidate who was so arrogant as to blow off the preparations for the first debate that his advisers were requesting, and who instead took a vacation day before that first debate. And then, to top it off, was so disconnected that he walked off the stage thinking he and *won* the debate.

Didn't end up voting for him. Nor for the Mormon dipshit.

--Doug

On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Robert Holmes <[hidden email]> wrote:

Yeah, because that never backfires: Ralph Nader, Florida, 2000.

On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 2:46 PM, Douglas Roberts <[hidden email]> wrote:

<snip>

Also, and primarily, that vote was a statement against the two party system.

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

--
Doug Roberts
[hidden email]
[hidden email]

http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell

Tom Johnson

Re: The Presidential Election

In reply to this post by Owen Densmore

And here's another thing that needs fixing: the graphic design of our ballots, which vary widely from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and sometimes election to election. This is an easily solvable problem if approached by good designers at a national level as is apparently the case in Canada.

Sometimes this states' rights thing goes too far.

-tj

On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 1:54 PM, Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote:

More parties? I'm for it! :)

But seriously, one question on "fair voting": when you vote, can you vote for multiple candidates in priority order so that an "instant runoff" can be held?

-- Owen
On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Jochen Fromm <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Nick,

yes, it is similar where I live, although we have more parties in Germany (conservative, socialist, liberal and green parties). No, people usually do not change their mind in political discussions. They change their mind during the course of time, though. I changed my mind for example about our own chancellor, Angela Merkel: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angela_Merkel . In the beginning I had doubts. She looks a bit clumsy and grumpy sometimes, and there are certainly politicians who have more charisma. But over the years I learned to appreciate her honesty, her modesty, and her kindness. She said she wants to serve her country, and she really does. She would never lie intentionally. This may seems obvious, but how can you trust someone who lies?

What about you, do you vote for Romney, Obama or someone else, like Gary Johnson? From a psychological aspect, this election is interesting, isn't it?

-J.

Am 04.11.2012 03:39, schrieb Nicholas Thompson:
Jochen, 

At this week's FRIAM meeting, we talked briefly about politics and it was
clear that there was some disagreement around the table.  We were about to
let it go, on that ground, when I decided, spurred by my newly embraced
pragmatist ideology, to beg that they all put their minds for 5 minutes to
the question, "How do we go about having a conversation with people with
whom we disagree?  A conversation that would actually get somewhere."  

Our usual way of proceding is what I call "FogHorns on a Shrouded Bay."
Each individual sounds off while the others listen politely or check their
email on their cell phones.  That goes around the circle a couple of times,
and then people just drop the topic and go on to something else.  

On the whole, most people I know would rather be force fed castor oil than
be convinced to change their minds.

So, back to you, Jochen.  Is it truly different where you are?  Have you
ever sat in on a political discussion in which anybody ever changed his or
her mind?  How did that happen?  

Nick

 

From: Friam [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Jochen Fromm
Sent: Saturday, November 03, 2012 3:20 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The Presidential Election

 

Interesting read. Sometimes we wonder why other peoples voting decisions are
fundamentally different from ours even if all good reasons speak against it.
Are they backward or brainwashed? Jonathan Haidt has written a book named
"The Righteous Mind" where he argues that people don't really listen to
arguments or reasons. Guided by their emotions, they often come to a quick
conclusion what is good or bad, and this decision is in accordance with
their worldview and their moral system (regardless how skewed it may be). 
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/the-righteous-mind-by-jonatha
n-haidt.html?pagewanted=all
<http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/the-righteous-mind-by-jonath
an-haidt.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0> &_r=0

-J.

Am 03.11.2012 21:18, schrieb Roger Critchlow: 

Here's how backward the conservative heart of america beats:
 
  http://www.thebaffler.com/past/the_long_con
 
-- rec --
 






============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

 
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

==========================================
J. T. Johnson
Institute for Analytic Journalism -- Santa Fe, NM USA
505.577.6482(c) 505.473.9646(h)
Twitter: jtjohnson

http://www.jtjohnson.com [hidden email]
==========================================

Bruce Sherwood

Re: The Presidential Election

Concerning multiple parties: In 1960, just after college, I studied in Italy for a year. I thought it be would so great to have multiple parties that stood for something, because the two US parties looked like Tweedledum and Tweedledee (not the problem we have now, obviously). Then I saw the very big disadvantages of multiparty situations, as least as that played out in Italy at the time. Each party was so ideologically committed to rigid dogma that there was no hope of compromise, with resulting gridlock, and the system really did not work. It has hardly worked for decades in Italy.

We seem now to have the worst of both worlds. There are only two parties, and at a minimum one of them is so ideologically committed to rigid dogma that there is no hope of compromise , with resulting gridlock.

Bruce

Nick Thompson

Re: The Presidential Election

In reply to this post by Steve Smith

My prurient interest in seeing Romney elected is seeing what a man without any center does when he’s in charge? My reference to the supreme court was not and enthusiasm for a Bush v Gore kind of out come …. I think there might be blood in the streets, if that happened again, chiefly because I might be willing to shed some … but a fear for the four replacements of sitting justices that may occur during the next 4 years.

Nick

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Steve Smith
Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2012 2:40 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The Presidential Election

Nick -

I really like the instant run=off. Or any run-off, for that matter. Forces people to snuggle with people they don’t like.

I do like run-offs, but more so that I can vote *first* for my preferred candidate and *second* for the lesser of evils and get a more diverse pot of ideals, issues, and discussions. Maybe "snuggling with people they don't like" is your shorthand for this diversity?

I have voted for Obama. And for Elizabeth Warren. I vote in Massachusetts. Romney seems to me to be a scoundrel.

I fear he is a scoundrel backed by scoundrels. He is much more astute personally than GW Bush or Ronnie V. Reagan was, maybe more like GHW Bush... and less likely to be a simple(ton) figurehead for the likes of Cheney/Rumsfield/Wolfowitz to run the country (into the ground) for the benefit of their arrogance and their pocketbooks (and those of their friends).

He seems so unstable that I am tempted to see him elected just for the pure thrill of seeing what happens.

I reveled (REVELED) at the coin toss of 2000 when Gore and Bush were left in limbo for months while their minions blew as hard as they could to get the coin to fall on their preferred side. My morbid fascination was in high gear... But within 2 years (9/11 and the start of the Iraq war and many other things) I was shitting my proverbial pants... it wasn't funny any more. Reagan and Bush I had used up a lot of my patience for Republicans, but Clinton balanced that out by using up a lot of my patience for Democrats. But Bush II and his cronies caused me to evacuate my patience for their party in short order.

Were it not for the supreme court, I might be tempted.

I'm not clear on the allusion? Are you saying it would be fun to watch another coin toss get blown over by the Supreme Court?

Gary Johnson, I don’t know, but I am only a libertarian on social issues.

Yes... this is what stopped me from voting for him really... that and knowing that I didn't want to vote *against* Obama. A vote for Gary Johnson would have been a vote for validating third parties more than anything. Perot and Nader have proven that our elections can be influenced significantly by a third party.

So, we’ll see.

with Bated Breath!
- Steve

Pamela McCorduck

Re: The Presidential Election

<base href="x-msg://21/">The only problem with that, Nick, is that he wouldn't be in charge, any more than George W. Bush was "in charge," "the decider," etc. I think Romney's whole campaign shows this. He's a plaything of The Interests. I immediately got your reference to the possibility of a Bork-directed set of Supreme Court nominees. Doesn't give you a good feeling in the pit of your stomach.

I was not thrilled with Obama's bending over to Wall Street. But on most other issues, I'm okay with him; he'll get my vote.

On Nov 4, 2012, at 10:11 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:

My prurient interest in seeing Romney elected is seeing what a man without any center does when he’s in charge? My reference to the supreme court was not and enthusiasm for a Bush v Gore kind of out come …. I think there might be blood in the streets, if that happened again, chiefly because I might be willing to shed some … but a fear for the four replacements of sitting justices that may occur during the next 4 years.

Nick

Nick Thompson

Re: The Presidential Election

Pamela,

Oh, please let me be clear. I am very happy with Obama. My only fascination with Romney is what would happens if he were SIMULATANEOUSLY put under pressure from competing interests. It is by no means a noble curiosity. It would be like slowing down to look at a car wreck.

Nick

From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Pamela McCorduck
Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2012 8:24 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The Presidential Election

The only problem with that, Nick, is that he wouldn't be in charge, any more than George W. Bush was "in charge," "the decider," etc. I think Romney's whole campaign shows this. He's a plaything of The Interests. I immediately got your reference to the possibility of a Bork-directed set of Supreme Court nominees. Doesn't give you a good feeling in the pit of your stomach.

I was not thrilled with Obama's bending over to Wall Street. But on most other issues, I'm okay with him; he'll get my vote.

On Nov 4, 2012, at 10:11 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:

Nick

Owen Densmore

Re: The Presidential Election

Administrator

As much as we think we know what each candidate stands for and would do under unforeseen events (Katrina, 9/11, Superstorm Sandy), presidential historians believe the times shape the presidency.

One good example: Clinton was a master of many arts, but he was the prime mover of the eventual economic disaster by his deregulation of the Glass-Steagall act:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass%E2%80%93Steagall_Act

.. thus opening the doors to the financial farces like letting banks gamble with your money and the weird packaging of debt.

And Lyndon B. Johnson of all things .. hero for civil rights and horror of Vietnam.

Yes, I think I'd hate another idiot president (but nobody could be worse than Bush .. not even Mitt the Twit) but I really don't believe you can predict the success and failure of presidents. There are just too many exogenous forces.

So I guess I'd enjoy being entertained by a good Libertarian for example. I won't be upset if Mitt wins, just ready for insane rhetoric and bumbling behavior. Maybe like Silvio Berlusconi. But who knows, that's why we play the game.

-- Owen

Stephen Guerin

Re: The Presidential Election

hover text: The choices we make Tuesday can have MASSIVE and PERMANENT on the charts of Nate Silver's blog!

On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 10:34 PM, Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote:

As much as we think we know what each candidate stands for and would do under unforeseen events (Katrina, 9/11, Superstorm Sandy), presidential historians believe the times shape the presidency.

One good example: Clinton was a master of many arts, but he was the prime mover of the eventual economic disaster by his deregulation of the Glass-Steagall act:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass%E2%80%93Steagall_Act

.. thus opening the doors to the financial farces like letting banks gamble with your money and the weird packaging of debt.

And Lyndon B. Johnson of all things .. hero for civil rights and horror of Vietnam.

Yes, I think I'd hate another idiot president (but nobody could be worse than Bush .. not even Mitt the Twit) but I really don't believe you can predict the success and failure of presidents. There are just too many exogenous forces.

So I guess I'd enjoy being entertained by a good Libertarian for example. I won't be upset if Mitt wins, just ready for insane rhetoric and bumbling behavior. Maybe like Silvio Berlusconi. But who knows, that's why we play the game.

-- Owen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

--
--- -. . ..-. .. ... .... - .-- --- ..-. .. ... ....

office: 505.995.0206 mobile: 505.577.5828
[hidden email]

redfish.com | simtable.com

tw: @redfishgroup

Douglas Roberts-2

Re: The Presidential Election

I'm going to be so glad when tomorrow is over. Either totally disgusted and glad, or just normal cynical disgusted and glad. But really glad.

On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 8:10 AM, Stephen Guerin <[hidden email]> wrote:

hover text: The choices we make Tuesday can have MASSIVE and PERMANENT on the charts of Nate Silver's blog!

On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 10:34 PM, Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote:

As much as we think we know what each candidate stands for and would do under unforeseen events (Katrina, 9/11, Superstorm Sandy), presidential historians believe the times shape the presidency.

One good example: Clinton was a master of many arts, but he was the prime mover of the eventual economic disaster by his deregulation of the Glass-Steagall act:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass%E2%80%93Steagall_Act

.. thus opening the doors to the financial farces like letting banks gamble with your money and the weird packaging of debt.

And Lyndon B. Johnson of all things .. hero for civil rights and horror of Vietnam.

Yes, I think I'd hate another idiot president (but nobody could be worse than Bush .. not even Mitt the Twit) but I really don't believe you can predict the success and failure of presidents. There are just too many exogenous forces.

So I guess I'd enjoy being entertained by a good Libertarian for example. I won't be upset if Mitt wins, just ready for insane rhetoric and bumbling behavior. Maybe like Silvio Berlusconi.  But who knows, that's why we play the game.

-- Owen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

--
--- -. .   ..-. .. ... ....   - .-- ---   ..-. .. ... ....
office: <a href="tel:505.995.0206" value="+15059950206" target="_blank">505.995.0206 mobile: <a href="tel:505.577.5828" value="+15055775828" target="_blank">505.577.5828
[hidden email]
redfish.com |  simtable.com

tw: @redfishgroup

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

--
Doug Roberts
[hidden email]
[hidden email]

http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell

Steve Smith

Re: The Presidential Election

On that note, I'm starting to hope for a draw again! Let's listen to the gloaters and the whiners waffle, not sure which to do! NO... let me take that back... I'm holding out for a landslide, a mandate... or at least a clear win by Obama... and a continued slow steady climb out of this morass.

I'm going to be so glad when tomorrow is over. Either totally disgusted and glad, or just normal cynical disgusted and glad. But really glad.

On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 8:10 AM, Stephen Guerin <[hidden email]> wrote:

hover text: The choices we make Tuesday can have MASSIVE and PERMANENT on the charts of Nate Silver's blog!

On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 10:34 PM, Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote:

As much as we think we know what each candidate stands for and would do under unforeseen events (Katrina, 9/11, Superstorm Sandy), presidential historians believe the times shape the presidency.

One good example: Clinton was a master of many arts, but he was the prime mover of the eventual economic disaster by his deregulation of the Glass-Steagall act:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass%E2%80%93Steagall_Act

.. thus opening the doors to the financial farces like letting banks gamble with your money and the weird packaging of debt.

And Lyndon B. Johnson of all things .. hero for civil rights and horror of Vietnam.

Yes, I think I'd hate another idiot president (but nobody could be worse than Bush .. not even Mitt the Twit) but I really don't believe you can predict the success and failure of presidents. There are just too many exogenous forces.

So I guess I'd enjoy being entertained by a good Libertarian for example. I won't be upset if Mitt wins, just ready for insane rhetoric and bumbling behavior. Maybe like Silvio Berlusconi.  But who knows, that's why we play the game.

-- Owen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

--
--- -. .   ..-. .. ... ....   - .-- ---   ..-. .. ... ....
office: <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="tel:505.995.0206" value="+15059950206" target="_blank">505.995.0206 mobile: <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="tel:505.577.5828" value="+15055775828" target="_blank">505.577.5828
[hidden email]

redfish.com |  simtable.com

tw: @redfishgroup

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

--
Doug Roberts
[hidden email]
[hidden email]
http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Roger Critchlow-2

Re: The Presidential Election

A few more months fighting it out in the courts would be just peachy -- :-( -- give me an uncontested victory one way or the other.

-- rec --

Steve Smith

Re: The Presidential Election

Everything I know about Politics...
I learned from XCDC....

it COULD be worse!

Two-Party System

A few more months fighting it out in the courts would be just peachy -- :-( -- give me an uncontested victory one way or the other.

-- rec --
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Steve Smith

Re: The Presidential Election

Everything I know about Politics...
I learned from XCDC....

erh... XKCD
and the answer to life, the universe and everything is 43^H^H42!

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Steve Smith

Prediction Markets

In reply to this post by Douglas Roberts-2

Doug -

I'm going to be so glad when tomorrow is over. Either totally disgusted and glad, or just normal cynical disgusted and glad. But really glad.

And me, I'm just getting wound up!

Getting a little (morbidly?) fascinated by the prediction markets.
    http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/24/oct-23-the-virtues-and-vices-of-election-prediction-markets/

Once the odds shift a little away from the middle in a winner-takes-all situation, it seems like the markets would exaggerate the split...

The Iowa Markets are a "toy" market where it is *real* money, but not REAL MONEY being layed down.   But even with REAL MONEY on the line, there seems to be some natural biases. Will people bet opposite their vote? (otherwise) Fiscally Responsible Republicans seem likely to keep their money on Mitt as a token show of support even if they (must?) know they are going to lose it? Nate Silver's reference to Favourite-longshot bias helped resolve some of the paradox I was feeling.

I'm curious what this group thinks about these prediction markets?

Are they useful?
Are they unethical?

in Politics?
in Horrific Events?

Are they biased when US Citizens are presumably prohibited from using them?

If I were an efficient markets purist, I might believe that they would be extremely accurate and unbiased, and over time perhaps they will become so, but while still young, there will continue to be "bargains to be had" or "fools to be fleeced", depending on how you look at it.

- Steve

Douglas Roberts-2

Re: Prediction Markets

Steve, this is a comprehensive resource. It is somewhat reassuring that the general shapes and inflection points of the curves roughly match the WTA market graph.

And disappointing as well, in its predictions that very nearly exactly half of our fine fellow American citizens are apparently planning to vote for an idiot who has "faith" that god lives on a crystal planet named Kolob. And super-power skivvies. And NY state golden plates. And moronic special delivery of magic glasses for translating "Egyptian Hieroglyphics". And cursed sub-humans of color. Etc.

--Doug

On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 12:52 PM, Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

Doug -

I'm going to be so glad when tomorrow is over. Either totally disgusted and glad, or just normal cynical disgusted and glad. But really glad.

And me, I'm just getting wound up!

Getting a little (morbidly?) fascinated by the prediction markets.
    http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/24/oct-23-the-virtues-and-vices-of-election-prediction-markets/

Once the odds shift a little away from the middle in a winner-takes-all situation, it seems like the markets would exaggerate the split...

The Iowa Markets are a "toy" market where it is *real* money, but not REAL MONEY being layed down.   But even with REAL MONEY on the line, there seems to be some natural biases. Will people bet opposite their vote? (otherwise) Fiscally Responsible Republicans seem likely to keep their money on Mitt as a token show of support even if they (must?) know they are going to lose it? Nate Silver's reference to Favourite-longshot bias helped resolve some of the paradox I was feeling.

I'm curious what this group thinks about these prediction markets?

Are they useful?

Are they unethical?

in Politics?

in Horrific Events?

Are they biased when US Citizens are presumably prohibited from using them?

If I were an efficient markets purist, I might believe that they would be extremely accurate and unbiased, and over time perhaps they will become so, but while still young, there will continue to be "bargains to be had" or "fools to be fleeced", depending on how you look at it.

- Steve

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

--
Doug Roberts
[hidden email]
[hidden email]

http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins

505-455-7333 - Office
505-670-8195 - Cell

Owen Densmore

Re: Prediction Markets

Administrator

In reply to this post by Steve Smith

On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 12:52 PM, Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

I'm curious what this group thinks about these prediction markets?

Are they useful?

They are based on the correctness of the 4 Wisdom of Crowds criteria. In this case not all are met.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wisdom_of_Crowds

Criteria	Description
Diversity ofopinion	Each person should have private information even if it's just an eccentric interpretation of the known facts.
Independence	People's opinions aren't determined by the opinions of those around them.
Decentralization	People are able to specialize and draw on local knowledge.
Aggregation	Some mechanism exists for turning private judgments into a collective decision.

Voting is the aggregation method. Decentralized is semi-OK but not completely. Diversity yes, I think. Independence NOT AT ALL.

Are they unethical?

in Politics?

in Horrific Events?

No .. the winners might contribute to the losers, for example. I'd love to be able to hedge, but I can't see what would satisfy for your favorite loosing. I guess if you had $1000 to put on The Evil Alternative, you'd have something to feel good about if he/she won.

Are they biased when US Citizens are presumably prohibited from using them?

Don't know about that. Because off-shore?

-- Owen