Friam

high turnout and tight races?

Classic

List

Threaded

29 messages Options

gepr

high turnout and tight races?

From:

https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2020/Pres/Maps/Oct28.html#item-7
"6. High turnout makes razor-thin victories, like the ones Trump notched in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania in 2016, much less likely."

Is that true? I've always heard that tight races lead to higher turnout, which would imply that high turnout would correlate WITH thin victories, not against them.

--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Frank Wimberly-2

Re: high turnout and tight races?

I predict that Biden will win by a large margin and that the outcome will be clear on election night notwithstanding any outstanding uncounted votes. Young people are voting in unprecedented numbers and are reportedly voting against Trump. Similarly the elderly, who favored Trump over Clinton by 10+ percentage points in 2016 are favoring Biden over Trump by a similar margin, according to polls.

The good thing about predictions is that they can be evaluated perfectly after the events have happened.

Frank

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Wed, Oct 28, 2020, 5:20 PM uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ <[hidden email]> wrote:

From:

https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2020/Pres/Maps/Oct28.html#item-7
"6. High turnout makes razor-thin victories, like the ones Trump notched in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania in 2016, much less likely."

Is that true? I've always heard that tight races lead to higher turnout, which would imply that high turnout would correlate WITH thin victories, not against them.

--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

gepr

Re: high turnout and tight races?

So, what about the question I asked? You have no opinion on whether high turnout negatively or positively correlates with narrow victories?

On 10/28/20 4:52 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote:

> I predict that Biden will win by a large margin and that the outcome will be clear on election night notwithstanding any outstanding uncounted votes. Young people are voting in unprecedented numbers and are reportedly voting against Trump. Similarly the elderly, who favored Trump over Clinton by 10+ percentage points in 2016 are favoring Biden over Trump by a similar margin, according to polls.
>
> The good thing about predictions is that they can be evaluated perfectly after the events have happened.
>
> Frank
>
> ---
> Frank C. Wimberly
> 140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
> Santa Fe, NM 87505
>
> 505 670-9918
> Santa Fe, NM
>
> On Wed, Oct 28, 2020, 5:20 PM uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
> From:
>
> https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2020/Pres/Maps/Oct28.html#item-7 <https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2020/Pres/Maps/Oct28.html#item-7>
> "6. High turnout makes razor-thin victories, like the ones Trump notched in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania in 2016, much less likely."
>
> Is that true? I've always heard that tight races lead to higher turnout, which would imply that high turnout would correlate WITH thin victories, not against them.

--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Frank Wimberly-2

Re: high turnout and tight races?

I'm saying that in this election there will be high turnout and not a very close election.

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Wed, Oct 28, 2020, 5:59 PM uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ <[hidden email]> wrote:

So, what about the question I asked? You have no opinion on whether high turnout negatively or positively correlates with narrow victories?

On 10/28/20 4:52 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
> I predict that Biden will win by a large margin and that the outcome will be clear on election night notwithstanding any outstanding uncounted votes. Young people are voting in unprecedented numbers and are reportedly voting against Trump. Similarly the elderly, who favored Trump over Clinton by 10+ percentage points in 2016 are favoring Biden over Trump by a similar margin, according to polls.
>
> The good thing about predictions is that they can be evaluated perfectly after the events have happened.
>
> Frank
>
> ---
> Frank C. Wimberly
> 140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
> Santa Fe, NM 87505
>
> 505 670-9918
> Santa Fe, NM
>
> On Wed, Oct 28, 2020, 5:20 PM uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
> From:
>
> https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2020/Pres/Maps/Oct28.html#item-7 <https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2020/Pres/Maps/Oct28.html#item-7>
> "6. High turnout makes razor-thin victories, like the ones Trump notched in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania in 2016, much less likely."
>
> Is that true? I've always heard that tight races lead to higher turnout, which would imply that high turnout would correlate WITH thin victories, not against them.

--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

gepr

Re: high turnout and tight races?

[sigh] N=1 doesn't make for good estimates of correlation. I'm guessing you have no opinion on the question but prefer to answer a question that nobody asked. >8^D

On 10/28/20 5:00 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote:

> I'm saying that in this election there will be high turnout and not a very close election.
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 28, 2020, 5:59 PM uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
> So, what about the question I asked? You have no opinion on whether high turnout negatively or positively correlates with narrow victories?
>
>
> On 10/28/20 4:52 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
> > I predict that Biden will win by a large margin and that the outcome will be clear on election night notwithstanding any outstanding uncounted votes. Young people are voting in unprecedented numbers and are reportedly voting against Trump. Similarly the elderly, who favored Trump over Clinton by 10+ percentage points in 2016 are favoring Biden over Trump by a similar margin, according to polls.
> >
> > The good thing about predictions is that they can be evaluated perfectly after the events have happened.
> >
> > Frank
> >
> > ---
> > Frank C. Wimberly
> > 140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
> > Santa Fe, NM 87505
> >
> > 505 670-9918
> > Santa Fe, NM
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 28, 2020, 5:20 PM uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>> wrote:
> >
> > From:
> >
> > https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2020/Pres/Maps/Oct28.html#item-7 <https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2020/Pres/Maps/Oct28.html#item-7> <https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2020/Pres/Maps/Oct28.html#item-7 <https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2020/Pres/Maps/Oct28.html#item-7>>
> > "6. High turnout makes razor-thin victories, like the ones Trump notched in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania in 2016, much less likely."
> >
> > Is that true? I've always heard that tight races lead to higher turnout, which would imply that high turnout would correlate WITH thin victories, not against them.

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Frank Wimberly-2

Re: high turnout and tight races?

In reply to this post by Frank Wimberly-2

In 1964 Johnson beat Goldwater by 60 to 40. The Kennedy/Nixon and Gore/Bush elections were extremely close. In all three elections the turnout was between 35 and 40 percent.

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Wed, Oct 28, 2020, 6:00 PM Frank Wimberly <[hidden email]> wrote:

I'm saying that in this election there will be high turnout and not a very close election.

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Wed, Oct 28, 2020, 5:59 PM uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ <[hidden email]> wrote:
So, what about the question I asked? You have no opinion on whether high turnout negatively or positively correlates with narrow victories?

On 10/28/20 4:52 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
> I predict that Biden will win by a large margin and that the outcome will be clear on election night notwithstanding any outstanding uncounted votes. Young people are voting in unprecedented numbers and are reportedly voting against Trump. Similarly the elderly, who favored Trump over Clinton by 10+ percentage points in 2016 are favoring Biden over Trump by a similar margin, according to polls.
>
> The good thing about predictions is that they can be evaluated perfectly after the events have happened.
>
> Frank
>
> ---
> Frank C. Wimberly
> 140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
> Santa Fe, NM 87505
>
> 505 670-9918
> Santa Fe, NM
>
> On Wed, Oct 28, 2020, 5:20 PM uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
> From:
>
> https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2020/Pres/Maps/Oct28.html#item-7 <https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2020/Pres/Maps/Oct28.html#item-7>
> "6. High turnout makes razor-thin victories, like the ones Trump notched in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania in 2016, much less likely."
>
> Is that true? I've always heard that tight races lead to higher turnout, which would imply that high turnout would correlate WITH thin victories, not against them.

--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

Frank Wimberly-2

Re: high turnout and tight races?

N = 3 is slightly better. But I don't have time or incentive to do a detailed statistical analysis.

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Wed, Oct 28, 2020, 6:14 PM Frank Wimberly <[hidden email]> wrote:

In 1964 Johnson beat Goldwater by 60 to 40. The Kennedy/Nixon and Gore/Bush elections were extremely close. In all three elections the turnout was between 35 and 40 percent.

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Wed, Oct 28, 2020, 6:00 PM Frank Wimberly <[hidden email]> wrote:
I'm saying that in this election there will be high turnout and not a very close election.

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Wed, Oct 28, 2020, 5:59 PM uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ <[hidden email]> wrote:
So, what about the question I asked? You have no opinion on whether high turnout negatively or positively correlates with narrow victories?

On 10/28/20 4:52 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
> I predict that Biden will win by a large margin and that the outcome will be clear on election night notwithstanding any outstanding uncounted votes. Young people are voting in unprecedented numbers and are reportedly voting against Trump. Similarly the elderly, who favored Trump over Clinton by 10+ percentage points in 2016 are favoring Biden over Trump by a similar margin, according to polls.
>
> The good thing about predictions is that they can be evaluated perfectly after the events have happened.
>
> Frank
>
> ---
> Frank C. Wimberly
> 140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
> Santa Fe, NM 87505
>
> 505 670-9918
> Santa Fe, NM
>
> On Wed, Oct 28, 2020, 5:20 PM uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
> From:
>
> https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2020/Pres/Maps/Oct28.html#item-7 <https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2020/Pres/Maps/Oct28.html#item-7>
> "6. High turnout makes razor-thin victories, like the ones Trump notched in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania in 2016, much less likely."
>
> Is that true? I've always heard that tight races lead to higher turnout, which would imply that high turnout would correlate WITH thin victories, not against them.

--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

Roger Critchlow-2

Re: high turnout and tight races?

I would think that the more people who vote the less likely a tie or close outcome becomes, simply by the larger number of ways you can miss with more votes in play.

-- rec --

On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 8:17 PM Frank Wimberly <[hidden email]> wrote:

N = 3 is slightly better. But I don't have time or incentive to do a detailed statistical analysis.

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Wed, Oct 28, 2020, 6:14 PM Frank Wimberly <[hidden email]> wrote:
In 1964 Johnson beat Goldwater by 60 to 40. The Kennedy/Nixon and Gore/Bush elections were extremely close. In all three elections the turnout was between 35 and 40 percent.

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Wed, Oct 28, 2020, 6:00 PM Frank Wimberly <[hidden email]> wrote:
I'm saying that in this election there will be high turnout and not a very close election.

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Wed, Oct 28, 2020, 5:59 PM uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ <[hidden email]> wrote:
So, what about the question I asked? You have no opinion on whether high turnout negatively or positively correlates with narrow victories?

On 10/28/20 4:52 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
> I predict that Biden will win by a large margin and that the outcome will be clear on election night notwithstanding any outstanding uncounted votes. Young people are voting in unprecedented numbers and are reportedly voting against Trump. Similarly the elderly, who favored Trump over Clinton by 10+ percentage points in 2016 are favoring Biden over Trump by a similar margin, according to polls.
>
> The good thing about predictions is that they can be evaluated perfectly after the events have happened.
>
> Frank
>
> ---
> Frank C. Wimberly
> 140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
> Santa Fe, NM 87505
>
> 505 670-9918
> Santa Fe, NM
>
> On Wed, Oct 28, 2020, 5:20 PM uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
> From:
>
> https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2020/Pres/Maps/Oct28.html#item-7 <https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2020/Pres/Maps/Oct28.html#item-7>
> "6. High turnout makes razor-thin victories, like the ones Trump notched in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania in 2016, much less likely."
>
> Is that true? I've always heard that tight races lead to higher turnout, which would imply that high turnout would correlate WITH thin victories, not against them.

--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

Gary Schiltz-4

Re: high turnout and tight races?

I think that Republicans make up way less than half of the population, but the people who are traditionally less inclined to vote, would vote Democrat if they voted. This is responsible for Republicans lately getting very slightly over half the votes cast. I further believe that most of the newly motivated voters come from this heretofore underrepresented left leaning group, hence the likelihood of the Democratic margin of victory being larger this year. Whether that implies a correlation between turnout and margin of victory, I will leave it to the statisticians to argue over.

Incidentally, I have warned to the idea of mandatory voting, as we have here in Ecuador, and I believe in Australia as well. Without a “papel de votación”, i.e. a certificate that proves that you voted in the previous election, you have to pay a fine in order to get government services such ad drivers licenses.

On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 8:16 PM Roger Critchlow <[hidden email]> wrote:

I would think that the more people who vote the less likely a tie or close outcome becomes, simply by the larger number of ways you can miss with more votes in play.

-- rec --

On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 8:17 PM Frank Wimberly <[hidden email]> wrote:
N = 3 is slightly better. But I don't have time or incentive to do a detailed statistical analysis.

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Wed, Oct 28, 2020, 6:14 PM Frank Wimberly <[hidden email]> wrote:
In 1964 Johnson beat Goldwater by 60 to 40. The Kennedy/Nixon and Gore/Bush elections were extremely close. In all three elections the turnout was between 35 and 40 percent.

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Wed, Oct 28, 2020, 6:00 PM Frank Wimberly <[hidden email]> wrote:
I'm saying that in this election there will be high turnout and not a very close election.

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Wed, Oct 28, 2020, 5:59 PM uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ <[hidden email]> wrote:
So, what about the question I asked? You have no opinion on whether high turnout negatively or positively correlates with narrow victories?

On 10/28/20 4:52 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
> I predict that Biden will win by a large margin and that the outcome will be clear on election night notwithstanding any outstanding uncounted votes. Young people are voting in unprecedented numbers and are reportedly voting against Trump. Similarly the elderly, who favored Trump over Clinton by 10+ percentage points in 2016 are favoring Biden over Trump by a similar margin, according to polls.
>
> The good thing about predictions is that they can be evaluated perfectly after the events have happened.
>
> Frank
>
> ---
> Frank C. Wimberly
> 140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
> Santa Fe, NM 87505
>
> 505 670-9918
> Santa Fe, NM
>
> On Wed, Oct 28, 2020, 5:20 PM uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
> From:
>
> https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2020/Pres/Maps/Oct28.html#item-7 <https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2020/Pres/Maps/Oct28.html#item-7>
> "6. High turnout makes razor-thin victories, like the ones Trump notched in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania in 2016, much less likely."
>
> Is that true? I've always heard that tight races lead to higher turnout, which would imply that high turnout would correlate WITH thin victories, not against them.

--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

Gary Schiltz-4

Re: high turnout and tight races?

Arghhh, I meant to write that I’ve warmed to the idea of mandatory voting, not warned. The perils of typing on a phone.

On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 9:40 PM Gary Schiltz <[hidden email]> wrote:

I think that Republicans make up way less than half of the population, but the people who are traditionally less inclined to vote, would vote Democrat if they voted. This is responsible for Republicans lately getting very slightly over half the votes cast. I further believe that most of the newly motivated voters come from this heretofore underrepresented left leaning group, hence the likelihood of the Democratic margin of victory being larger this year. Whether that implies a correlation between turnout and margin of victory, I will leave it to the statisticians to argue over.

Incidentally, I have warned to the idea of mandatory voting, as we have here in Ecuador, and I believe in Australia as well. Without a “papel de votación”, i.e. a certificate that proves that you voted in the previous election, you have to pay a fine in order to get government services such ad drivers licenses.

On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 8:16 PM Roger Critchlow <[hidden email]> wrote:
I would think that the more people who vote the less likely a tie or close outcome becomes, simply by the larger number of ways you can miss with more votes in play.

-- rec --

On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 8:17 PM Frank Wimberly <[hidden email]> wrote:
N = 3 is slightly better. But I don't have time or incentive to do a detailed statistical analysis.

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Wed, Oct 28, 2020, 6:14 PM Frank Wimberly <[hidden email]> wrote:
In 1964 Johnson beat Goldwater by 60 to 40. The Kennedy/Nixon and Gore/Bush elections were extremely close. In all three elections the turnout was between 35 and 40 percent.

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Wed, Oct 28, 2020, 6:00 PM Frank Wimberly <[hidden email]> wrote:
I'm saying that in this election there will be high turnout and not a very close election.

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Wed, Oct 28, 2020, 5:59 PM uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ <[hidden email]> wrote:
So, what about the question I asked? You have no opinion on whether high turnout negatively or positively correlates with narrow victories?

On 10/28/20 4:52 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
> I predict that Biden will win by a large margin and that the outcome will be clear on election night notwithstanding any outstanding uncounted votes. Young people are voting in unprecedented numbers and are reportedly voting against Trump. Similarly the elderly, who favored Trump over Clinton by 10+ percentage points in 2016 are favoring Biden over Trump by a similar margin, according to polls.
>
> The good thing about predictions is that they can be evaluated perfectly after the events have happened.
>
> Frank
>
> ---
> Frank C. Wimberly
> 140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
> Santa Fe, NM 87505
>
> 505 670-9918
> Santa Fe, NM
>
> On Wed, Oct 28, 2020, 5:20 PM uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
> From:
>
> https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2020/Pres/Maps/Oct28.html#item-7 <https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2020/Pres/Maps/Oct28.html#item-7>
> "6. High turnout makes razor-thin victories, like the ones Trump notched in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania in 2016, much less likely."
>
> Is that true? I've always heard that tight races lead to higher turnout, which would imply that high turnout would correlate WITH thin victories, not against them.

--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

thompnickson2

Re: high turnout and tight races?

In reply to this post by Roger Critchlow-2

HANG ON, Roger

Variance decreases with N.

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Roger Critchlow
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2020 7:16 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] high turnout and tight races?

I would think that the more people who vote the less likely a tie or close outcome becomes, simply by the larger number of ways you can miss with more votes in play.

-- rec --

On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 8:17 PM Frank Wimberly <[hidden email]> wrote:

N = 3 is slightly better. But I don't have time or incentive to do a detailed statistical analysis.
---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Wed, Oct 28, 2020, 6:14 PM Frank Wimberly <[hidden email]> wrote:
In 1964 Johnson beat Goldwater by 60 to 40. The Kennedy/Nixon and Gore/Bush elections were extremely close. In all three elections the turnout was between 35 and 40 percent.
---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Wed, Oct 28, 2020, 6:00 PM Frank Wimberly <[hidden email]> wrote:
I'm saying that in this election there will be high turnout and not a very close election.
---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Wed, Oct 28, 2020, 5:59 PM uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ <[hidden email]> wrote:
So, what about the question I asked? You have no opinion on whether high turnout negatively or positively correlates with narrow victories?

On 10/28/20 4:52 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote:

> I predict that Biden will win by a large margin and that the outcome will be clear on election night notwithstanding any outstanding uncounted votes. Young people are voting in unprecedented numbers and are reportedly voting against Trump. Similarly the elderly, who favored Trump over Clinton by 10+ percentage points in 2016 are favoring Biden over Trump by a similar margin, according to polls.
>
> The good thing about predictions is that they can be evaluated perfectly after the events have happened.
>
> Frank
>
> ---
> Frank C. Wimberly
> 140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
> Santa Fe, NM 87505
>
> 505 670-9918
> Santa Fe, NM
>
> On Wed, Oct 28, 2020, 5:20 PM uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
> From:
>
> https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2020/Pres/Maps/Oct28.html#item-7 <https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2020/Pres/Maps/Oct28.html#item-7>
> "6. High turnout makes razor-thin victories, like the ones Trump notched in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania in 2016, much less likely."
>
> Is that true? I've always heard that tight races lead to higher turnout, which would imply that high turnout would correlate WITH thin victories, not against them.

--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

Roger Critchlow-2

Re: high turnout and tight races?

You're right, assuming that either vote is equally likely:

julia> for n in [10000, 100000, 1000000]
# run 1000 simulations
close = 0
for x in 1:1000
# collect votes
v = rand(Int(n))
n1 = count(v .< 0.5)
n2 = n-n1
if (n1-n2)/n < 0.01
close += 1
end
end
p = close/1000
println("pop $n has p(close) $p");
end
pop 10000 has p(close) 0.841
pop 100000 has p(close) 0.999
pop 1000000 has p(close) 1.0

However, if there is the tiniest tendency toward voting one way or the other, then the probability of a close result dwindles with the turnout:

bias = 0.51
for n in [10000, 100000, 1000000]
# run 1000 simulations
close = 0
for x in 1:1000
# collect votes
v = rand(Int(n))
n1 = count(v .< bias)
n2 = n-n1
if (n1-n2)/n < 0.01
close += 1
end
end
p = close/1000
println("pop $n has p(close) $p");
end

pop 10000 has p(close) 0.166
pop 100000 has p(close) 0.001
pop 1000000 has p(close) 0.0

-- rec --

On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 10:46 PM <[hidden email]> wrote:

HANG ON, Roger

Variance decreases with N.

Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Roger Critchlow
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2020 7:16 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] high turnout and tight races?

I would think that the more people who vote the less likely a tie or close outcome becomes, simply by the larger number of ways you can miss with more votes in play.

-- rec --

On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 8:17 PM Frank Wimberly <[hidden email]> wrote:
N = 3 is slightly better. But I don't have time or incentive to do a detailed statistical analysis.
---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Wed, Oct 28, 2020, 6:14 PM Frank Wimberly <[hidden email]> wrote:
In 1964 Johnson beat Goldwater by 60 to 40. The Kennedy/Nixon and Gore/Bush elections were extremely close. In all three elections the turnout was between 35 and 40 percent.
---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Wed, Oct 28, 2020, 6:00 PM Frank Wimberly <[hidden email]> wrote:
I'm saying that in this election there will be high turnout and not a very close election.
---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Wed, Oct 28, 2020, 5:59 PM uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ <[hidden email]> wrote:
So, what about the question I asked? You have no opinion on whether high turnout negatively or positively correlates with narrow victories?

On 10/28/20 4:52 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote:

> I predict that Biden will win by a large margin and that the outcome will be clear on election night notwithstanding any outstanding uncounted votes. Young people are voting in unprecedented numbers and are reportedly voting against Trump. Similarly the elderly, who favored Trump over Clinton by 10+ percentage points in 2016 are favoring Biden over Trump by a similar margin, according to polls.
>
> The good thing about predictions is that they can be evaluated perfectly after the events have happened.
>
> Frank
>
> ---
> Frank C. Wimberly
> 140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
> Santa Fe, NM 87505
>
> 505 670-9918
> Santa Fe, NM
>
> On Wed, Oct 28, 2020, 5:20 PM uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
> From:
>
> https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2020/Pres/Maps/Oct28.html#item-7 <https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2020/Pres/Maps/Oct28.html#item-7>
> "6. High turnout makes razor-thin victories, like the ones Trump notched in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania in 2016, much less likely."
>
> Is that true? I've always heard that tight races lead to higher turnout, which would imply that high turnout would correlate WITH thin victories, not against them.

--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

David Eric Smith

Re: high turnout and tight races?

In reply to this post by thompnickson2

For an ordinary sum of values, as described by the central limit theorem with finite variance, variance increases linearly with N.

It is relative variance — variance normalized by the square of the mean — that decreases with N as 1/N.

Eric

On Oct 28, 2020, at 10:46 PM, <[hidden email]> <[hidden email]> wrote:

HANG ON, Roger

Variance decreases with N.

Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Roger Critchlow
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2020 7:16 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] high turnout and tight races?

I would think that the more people who vote the less likely a tie or close outcome becomes, simply by the larger number of ways you can miss with more votes in play.

-- rec --

On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 8:17 PM Frank Wimberly <[hidden email]> wrote:
N = 3 is slightly better. But I don't have time or incentive to do a detailed statistical analysis.
---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Wed, Oct 28, 2020, 6:14 PM Frank Wimberly <[hidden email]> wrote:
In 1964 Johnson beat Goldwater by 60 to 40. The Kennedy/Nixon and Gore/Bush elections were extremely close. In all three elections the turnout was between 35 and 40 percent.
---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Wed, Oct 28, 2020, 6:00 PM Frank Wimberly <[hidden email]> wrote:
I'm saying that in this election there will be high turnout and not a very close election.
---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Wed, Oct 28, 2020, 5:59 PM uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ <[hidden email]> wrote:
So, what about the question I asked? You have no opinion on whether high turnout negatively or positively correlates with narrow victories?

On 10/28/20 4:52 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote:

> I predict that Biden will win by a large margin and that the outcome will be clear on election night notwithstanding any outstanding uncounted votes. Young people are voting in unprecedented numbers and are reportedly voting against Trump. Similarly the elderly, who favored Trump over Clinton by 10+ percentage points in 2016 are favoring Biden over Trump by a similar margin, according to polls.
>
> The good thing about predictions is that they can be evaluated perfectly after the events have happened.
>
> Frank
>
> ---
> Frank C. Wimberly
> 140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
> Santa Fe, NM 87505
>
> 505 670-9918
> Santa Fe, NM
>
> On Wed, Oct 28, 2020, 5:20 PM uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
> From:
>
> https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2020/Pres/Maps/Oct28.html#item-7 <https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2020/Pres/Maps/Oct28.html#item-7>
> "6. High turnout makes razor-thin victories, like the ones Trump notched in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania in 2016, much less likely."
>
> Is that true? I've always heard that tight races lead to higher turnout, which would imply that high turnout would correlate WITH thin victories, not against them.

--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,M3M6TwpBzzmPpiCi0gX07yf68iB1C0CAxUsrqgb0awD9l_wSWpG486LijQfNIwytic-3KcpqJxPff5Jg-bjDKDhK-wJWH8ny8Eo6lIv7qJFfuzIZsh_2-RUVj5_d&typo=1
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,mW-yJ2YzILMmiLaRm8lbiMDdr94Mx_3iCJLMI0k9myPAb7LOyIN7btz_mcHmIOdI6sKVZhU46BRwh49F9JwYbo7AZlhLpVrtEUAnuBDqtNgq5WPU&typo=1

gepr

Re: high turnout and tight races?

In reply to this post by Gary Schiltz-4

My incompetence is overwhelming. But I have found a couple of peer-reviewed articles that reflect Roger's point about reduction from high-dimension to low-dimension [⛧], which doesn't imply Nick's misrepresentation of what Roger said. But it does imply that high turnout elections will be less *predictable*. And by being less predictable, you're left with estimating the distribution of closeness of the outcome.

So, if there are more points in the outcome space that are "not close", then "not close" is the higher probability.

But I *think* the causal links between turnout and closeness are swamped by other things like anti-incumbent bias, lesser of 2 evils, and the partisan effect Gary raises.

[⛧] This is the primary thing I think about when considering instant runoff, the algorithm for reduction. But if/when we made such a change, this whole area of statistics about elections might explode into ruin. My Conservative homunculus objects! How can we mine old research if you suddenly change the reduction algorithm? Screw the inhuman consequences of our current system. Better the devil you know.

On 10/28/20 7:43 PM, Gary Schiltz wrote:

> Arghhh, I meant to write that I’ve warmed to the idea of mandatory voting, not warned. The perils of typing on a phone.
>
> On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 9:40 PM Gary Schiltz <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
> I think that Republicans make up way less than half of the population, but the people who are traditionally less inclined to vote, would vote Democrat if they voted. This is responsible for Republicans lately getting very slightly over half the votes cast. I further believe that most of the newly motivated voters come from this heretofore underrepresented left leaning group, hence the likelihood of the Democratic margin of victory being larger this year. Whether that implies a correlation between turnout and margin of victory, I will leave it to the statisticians to argue over.
>
> Incidentally, I have warned to the idea of mandatory voting, as we have here in Ecuador, and I believe in Australia as well. Without a “papel de votación”, i.e. a certificate that proves that you voted in the previous election, you have to pay a fine in order to get government services such ad drivers licenses.
>
> On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 8:16 PM Roger Critchlow <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
> I would think that the more people who vote the less likely a tie or close outcome becomes, simply by the larger number of ways you can miss with more votes in play.

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Barry MacKichan

Re: high turnout and tight races?

In reply to this post by gepr

In this case, I think the reason is specific to this country at this time, rather than a general rule.

The reasoning goes, high turnout means more votes from the young, minorities, and those who say it doesn’t matter because nothing changes. In this country at this time, the first two categories are known to skew to the left. And there are a lot of potential voters in those categories.

At the demonstrations last summer there was usually a group carrying “Vote!” signs. I think it has sunk in that the future of the climate depends on who votes, and the young have a much bigger stake in that.

—Barry

PS. Apparently 43% of the early voters on the San Carlos reservation are first-time (but not necessarily young) voters. The Navajo reservation results are similar.

On 28 Oct 2020, at 19:19, uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ wrote:

From:

https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2020/Pres/Maps/Oct28.html#item-7
"6. High turnout makes razor-thin victories, like the ones Trump notched in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania in 2016, much less likely."

Is that true? I've always heard that tight races lead to higher turnout, which would imply that high turnout would correlate WITH thin victories, not against them.

--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

thompnickson2

Re: high turnout and tight races?

In reply to this post by Roger Critchlow-2

Roger wrote:

However, if there is the tiniest tendency toward voting one way or the other, then the probability of a close result dwindles with the turnout:

If you are correct here, then why doesn’t it upend small sample theory? Sample variance = population variance / sample size?

Nick

Nicholas Thompson

Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology

Clark University

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Roger Critchlow
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2020 9:33 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] high turnout and tight races?

You're right, assuming that either vote is equally likely:

However, if there is the tiniest tendency toward voting one way or the other, then the probability of a close result dwindles with the turnout:

pop 10000 has p(close) 0.166
pop 100000 has p(close) 0.001
pop 1000000 has p(close) 0.0

-- rec --

On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 10:46 PM <[hidden email]> wrote:

HANG ON, Roger

Variance decreases with N.

Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Roger Critchlow
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2020 7:16 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] high turnout and tight races?

I would think that the more people who vote the less likely a tie or close outcome becomes, simply by the larger number of ways you can miss with more votes in play.

-- rec --

On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 8:17 PM Frank Wimberly <[hidden email]> wrote:
N = 3 is slightly better. But I don't have time or incentive to do a detailed statistical analysis.
---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Wed, Oct 28, 2020, 6:14 PM Frank Wimberly <[hidden email]> wrote:
In 1964 Johnson beat Goldwater by 60 to 40. The Kennedy/Nixon and Gore/Bush elections were extremely close. In all three elections the turnout was between 35 and 40 percent.
---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Wed, Oct 28, 2020, 6:00 PM Frank Wimberly <[hidden email]> wrote:
I'm saying that in this election there will be high turnout and not a very close election.
---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Wed, Oct 28, 2020, 5:59 PM uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ <[hidden email]> wrote:
So, what about the question I asked? You have no opinion on whether high turnout negatively or positively correlates with narrow victories?

On 10/28/20 4:52 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote:

> I predict that Biden will win by a large margin and that the outcome will be clear on election night notwithstanding any outstanding uncounted votes. Young people are voting in unprecedented numbers and are reportedly voting against Trump. Similarly the elderly, who favored Trump over Clinton by 10+ percentage points in 2016 are favoring Biden over Trump by a similar margin, according to polls.
>
> The good thing about predictions is that they can be evaluated perfectly after the events have happened.
>
> Frank
>
> ---
> Frank C. Wimberly
> 140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
> Santa Fe, NM 87505
>
> 505 670-9918
> Santa Fe, NM
>
> On Wed, Oct 28, 2020, 5:20 PM uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
> From:
>
> https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2020/Pres/Maps/Oct28.html#item-7 <https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2020/Pres/Maps/Oct28.html#item-7>
> "6. High turnout makes razor-thin victories, like the ones Trump notched in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania in 2016, much less likely."
>
> Is that true? I've always heard that tight races lead to higher turnout, which would imply that high turnout would correlate WITH thin victories, not against them.

--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

Frank Wimberly-2

Re: high turnout and tight races?

Variance of what? A random variable defined by Biden = 1, Trump = 0? Over the population of voters?

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Thu, Oct 29, 2020, 10:55 AM <[hidden email]> wrote:

Roger wrote:

However, if there is the tiniest tendency toward voting one way or the other, then the probability of a close result dwindles with the turnout:

If you are correct here, then why doesn’t it upend small sample theory? Sample variance = population variance / sample size?

Nick

Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Roger Critchlow
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2020 9:33 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] high turnout and tight races?

You're right, assuming that either vote is equally likely:

julia> for n in [10000, 100000, 1000000]
# run 1000 simulations
close = 0
for x in 1:1000
# collect votes
v = rand(Int(n))
n1 = count(v .< 0.5)
n2 = n-n1
if (n1-n2)/n < 0.01
close += 1
end
end
p = close/1000
println("pop $n has p(close) $p");
end
pop 10000 has p(close) 0.841
pop 100000 has p(close) 0.999
pop 1000000 has p(close) 1.0

However, if there is the tiniest tendency toward voting one way or the other, then the probability of a close result dwindles with the turnout:

bias = 0.51
for n in [10000, 100000, 1000000]
# run 1000 simulations
close = 0
for x in 1:1000
# collect votes
v = rand(Int(n))
n1 = count(v .< bias)
n2 = n-n1
if (n1-n2)/n < 0.01
close += 1
end
end
p = close/1000
println("pop $n has p(close) $p");
end

pop 10000 has p(close) 0.166
pop 100000 has p(close) 0.001
pop 1000000 has p(close) 0.0

-- rec --

On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 10:46 PM <[hidden email]> wrote:
HANG ON, Roger

Variance decreases with N.

Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Roger Critchlow
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2020 7:16 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] high turnout and tight races?

I would think that the more people who vote the less likely a tie or close outcome becomes, simply by the larger number of ways you can miss with more votes in play.

-- rec --

On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 8:17 PM Frank Wimberly <[hidden email]> wrote:
N = 3 is slightly better. But I don't have time or incentive to do a detailed statistical analysis.
---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Wed, Oct 28, 2020, 6:14 PM Frank Wimberly <[hidden email]> wrote:
In 1964 Johnson beat Goldwater by 60 to 40. The Kennedy/Nixon and Gore/Bush elections were extremely close. In all three elections the turnout was between 35 and 40 percent.
---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Wed, Oct 28, 2020, 6:00 PM Frank Wimberly <[hidden email]> wrote:
I'm saying that in this election there will be high turnout and not a very close election.
---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Wed, Oct 28, 2020, 5:59 PM uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ <[hidden email]> wrote:
So, what about the question I asked? You have no opinion on whether high turnout negatively or positively correlates with narrow victories?

On 10/28/20 4:52 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote:

> I predict that Biden will win by a large margin and that the outcome will be clear on election night notwithstanding any outstanding uncounted votes. Young people are voting in unprecedented numbers and are reportedly voting against Trump. Similarly the elderly, who favored Trump over Clinton by 10+ percentage points in 2016 are favoring Biden over Trump by a similar margin, according to polls.
>
> The good thing about predictions is that they can be evaluated perfectly after the events have happened.
>
> Frank
>
> ---
> Frank C. Wimberly
> 140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
> Santa Fe, NM 87505
>
> 505 670-9918
> Santa Fe, NM
>
> On Wed, Oct 28, 2020, 5:20 PM uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
> From:
>
> https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2020/Pres/Maps/Oct28.html#item-7 <https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2020/Pres/Maps/Oct28.html#item-7>
> "6. High turnout makes razor-thin victories, like the ones Trump notched in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania in 2016, much less likely."
>
> Is that true? I've always heard that tight races lead to higher turnout, which would imply that high turnout would correlate WITH thin victories, not against them.

--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

Roger Critchlow-2

Re: high turnout and tight races?

In reply to this post by thompnickson2

We can measure the bias is by holding an election, everything else is estimating bias and yielding distributions that probably include the true bias. The election outcome is a population description, polls are samples.

Tired of typing on my phone.

-- rec --

On Thu, Oct 29, 2020, 12:55 PM <[hidden email]> wrote:

Roger wrote:

However, if there is the tiniest tendency toward voting one way or the other, then the probability of a close result dwindles with the turnout:

If you are correct here, then why doesn’t it upend small sample theory? Sample variance = population variance / sample size?

Nick

Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Roger Critchlow
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2020 9:33 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] high turnout and tight races?

You're right, assuming that either vote is equally likely:

julia> for n in [10000, 100000, 1000000]
# run 1000 simulations
close = 0
for x in 1:1000
# collect votes
v = rand(Int(n))
n1 = count(v .< 0.5)
n2 = n-n1
if (n1-n2)/n < 0.01
close += 1
end
end
p = close/1000
println("pop $n has p(close) $p");
end
pop 10000 has p(close) 0.841
pop 100000 has p(close) 0.999
pop 1000000 has p(close) 1.0

However, if there is the tiniest tendency toward voting one way or the other, then the probability of a close result dwindles with the turnout:

bias = 0.51
for n in [10000, 100000, 1000000]
# run 1000 simulations
close = 0
for x in 1:1000
# collect votes
v = rand(Int(n))
n1 = count(v .< bias)
n2 = n-n1
if (n1-n2)/n < 0.01
close += 1
end
end
p = close/1000
println("pop $n has p(close) $p");
end

pop 10000 has p(close) 0.166
pop 100000 has p(close) 0.001
pop 1000000 has p(close) 0.0

-- rec --

On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 10:46 PM <[hidden email]> wrote:
HANG ON, Roger

Variance decreases with N.

Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
[hidden email]
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Roger Critchlow
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2020 7:16 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] high turnout and tight races?

I would think that the more people who vote the less likely a tie or close outcome becomes, simply by the larger number of ways you can miss with more votes in play.

-- rec --

On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 8:17 PM Frank Wimberly <[hidden email]> wrote:
N = 3 is slightly better. But I don't have time or incentive to do a detailed statistical analysis.
---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Wed, Oct 28, 2020, 6:14 PM Frank Wimberly <[hidden email]> wrote:
In 1964 Johnson beat Goldwater by 60 to 40. The Kennedy/Nixon and Gore/Bush elections were extremely close. In all three elections the turnout was between 35 and 40 percent.
---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Wed, Oct 28, 2020, 6:00 PM Frank Wimberly <[hidden email]> wrote:
I'm saying that in this election there will be high turnout and not a very close election.
---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Wed, Oct 28, 2020, 5:59 PM uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ <[hidden email]> wrote:
So, what about the question I asked? You have no opinion on whether high turnout negatively or positively correlates with narrow victories?

On 10/28/20 4:52 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote:

> I predict that Biden will win by a large margin and that the outcome will be clear on election night notwithstanding any outstanding uncounted votes. Young people are voting in unprecedented numbers and are reportedly voting against Trump. Similarly the elderly, who favored Trump over Clinton by 10+ percentage points in 2016 are favoring Biden over Trump by a similar margin, according to polls.
>
> The good thing about predictions is that they can be evaluated perfectly after the events have happened.
>
> Frank
>
> ---
> Frank C. Wimberly
> 140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
> Santa Fe, NM 87505
>
> 505 670-9918
> Santa Fe, NM
>
> On Wed, Oct 28, 2020, 5:20 PM uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
> From:
>
> https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2020/Pres/Maps/Oct28.html#item-7 <https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2020/Pres/Maps/Oct28.html#item-7>
> "6. High turnout makes razor-thin victories, like the ones Trump notched in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania in 2016, much less likely."
>
> Is that true? I've always heard that tight races lead to higher turnout, which would imply that high turnout would correlate WITH thin victories, not against them.

--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

Steve Smith

Re: high turnout and tight races?

In reply to this post by gepr

uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ wrote:

> My incompetence is overwhelming. But I have found a couple of peer-reviewed articles that reflect Roger's point about reduction from high-dimension to low-dimension [⛧], which doesn't imply Nick's misrepresentation of what Roger said. But it does imply that high turnout elections will be less *predictable*. And by being less predictable, you're left with estimating the distribution of closeness of the outcome.
>
> So, if there are more points in the outcome space that are "not close", then "not close" is the higher probability.
>
> But I *think* the causal links between turnout and closeness are swamped by other things like anti-incumbent bias, lesser of 2 evils, and the partisan effect Gary raises.

And my own incompetence overwhelms Glen's in the game of "more
incompetent than though".   When I read this I deleted the 1000 line
(and growing) thesis I was writing on this topic. I wish I could be as
succinct as this.

My instinct is to go to "correlation" only when causal relations are
hidden, overly tangled, or demonstrably wrong.   Given that we only have
a presidential election every 12 years and have had only 45 elected
presidents, and a much shorter record (150 years?) of turnout, it seems
we *could* do some kind of exhaustive analysis (and perhaps some
have).   In any given election from say 2000-2020 we have our own
personal experiences and opinions to draw on (and make the process less
objective?)

It would seem that National Politics are Complex Adaptive Systems with
multiple feedback loops leading to some auto-regulation with
intermittent, bounded runaway modes.   The "normal" pendulum swing
between right/left is auto-regulation and the sweeping support for say
Obama and Trump in 08 & 16 were (bounded, positive) feedback loops (of
hope and change?).

I do think as elections/politics as a CAS suggest that their can be
modes of "competitive scaffolding" where the energy developed on one
side triggers an equal counter-energy on the oopposite, and vice-versa
in a vicous/virtuous cycle.

So I suppose my answer to the original question is that it can be
either/both...   It seems likely to be a (at least) bimodal
distribution.   A one-sided landslide can cause a large turnout while a
tight, competitive race can do the same. Maybe more interesting is what
leads to a low-turnout?   Voter apathy (second term, a pendulum swing
toward a weak candidate?) seems to be the dominant cause?

- Steve

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

gepr

Re: high turnout and tight races?

On 10/29/20 10:44 AM, Steve Smith wrote:
> My instinct is to go to "correlation" only when causal relations are
> hidden, overly tangled, or demonstrably wrong.

That's interesting. In all my hand-wringing arguments about the hyper-skepticism I adhere to, I don't think I've ever heard anyone express their objection to it like that: that conceptions of cause are preferable to conceptions of correlation. I think I tend the other way. Cause is a fiction useful for brainwashing engineers into great feats like colonizing Mars. But metaphysically, it's all ambiguous mush that you can knead into whatever you want if you're motivated enough.

> Given that we only have
> a presidential election every 12 years and have had only 45 elected
> presidents, and a much shorter record (150 years?) of turnout, it seems
> we *could* do some kind of exhaustive analysis (and perhaps some
> have).   In any given election from say 2000-2020 we have our own
> personal experiences and opinions to draw on (and make the process less
> objective?)

One of the papers I skimmed talked about the significant difference between national and state/local elections. Nick's mention of "small sample theory" threw me for a loop because most of what I saw focused on larger datasets than what we have for presidential elections. The assumptions about dimension reduction and population biases are massive statements of ignorance. I can't even imagine leaping by faith from correlation to cause. Even the relatively validated partisan effect Gary mentioned seems suspicious to me.

> So I suppose my answer to the original question is that it can be
> either/both...   It seems likely to be a (at least) bimodal
> distribution.   A one-sided landslide can cause a large turnout while a
> tight, competitive race can do the same. Maybe more interesting is what
> leads to a low-turnout?   Voter apathy (second term, a pendulum swing
> toward a weak candidate?) seems to be the dominant cause?

I'm attracted to the idea of runaway processes. Apathy and nihilism *as* runaway processes is especially attractive. It kinda reminds me of "pandemic fatigue". At this point, I don't even care if I or my loved ones die of COVID-19 or the country devolves into a tin-pot dictatorship anymore. I need to see a good band up on stage ... have too many pints at the pub ... share spit arguing with drunk Christians over a rowdy game of pool ... that feeling definitely smacks of a runaway heat death.

I did vote, though. 8^D

--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen