high turnout and tight races?
Locked
12
12
Re: high turnout and tight races?
 
|
Yeah, I empathize with your sentiments. Oh to see a good band, the only
notion of a church that has ever made any sense to me and where Communion is served a pint at a time. Even though my left-leaning friends guarantee that my vote has been thrown away and I feel just as disenfranchised wrt politics as I ever have been and that this is only the second time in my life that I have ever voted, I feel angsty at the thought that my vote may not get counted. When I chat with other friends, equally alienated from politics, they also feel the same angstiness around their vote in this election. I feel brainwashed, but I am not entirely sure in what direction. No amount of rational argument has ever convinced me that voting matters, and yet, here I am, throwing away my vote and feeling ready to brawl. -- Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.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/ |
Re: high turnout and tight races?
|
In reply to this post by gepr
Glen writes:
< 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. > Ok, I'll admit I don't want to do any of these latter things, but I'm strangely intrigued by the possibility of millions of people doing them. You said something along these lines about four years ago, with regard to the possibility of Trump presidency. -----Original Message----- From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of u?l? ??? Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2020 11:22 AM To: [hidden email] Subject: Re: [FRIAM] 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/ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . 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/ |
Re: high turnout and tight races?
|
|
In reply to this post by jon zingale
Bring it, Jon. I voted by sending my absentee ballot via USPS. The County Clerk's website confirms that they received and processed it a few days later. F --- Frank C. Wimberly 140 Calle Ojo Feliz, Santa Fe, NM 87505 505 670-9918 Santa Fe, NM On Thu, Oct 29, 2020, 12:58 PM jon zingale <[hidden email]> wrote: Yeah, I empathize with your sentiments. Oh to see a good band, the only - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . 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/ |
Re: high turnout and tight races?
|
|
Yeah, I voted some weeks ago. It was a little weird because I showed up at
the county clerk's office on a Sunday and there was a sketchy guy there acting as if he was there to drop off his own ballot. He wasn't, he was just watching me (it seemed) to make sure I put my ballot in the box. Nothing about the discussion he and I had suggested that he was there to verify anything in any official capacity. I will check with the office shortly to verify my vote. -- Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.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/ |
Re: high turnout and tight races?
|
|
In reply to this post by gepr
uǝlƃ ↙↙↙
>> 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. I believe that 0th order, we (modern humans?) strongly seek causal explanations... thus our plethora of (wrong but occasionally useful) models and just-so-stories (are they perhaps the same by different names?) I accept that 1st order, statistically trained/sophisticated modelers understand that causality is a bit more precious or rare (or in the extreme an entire fiction). this is what I find fascinating about Frank's Gilmore et. al. and Judea Pearl's work in teasing (implied?) causality out of networks of correlation. Perhaps all of life (most measurably/notably/relevantly higher vertebrates) have no causal models running in their neural systems, just correlation/associative networks seeded with genetic adaptation (nature) and evolving/tuning/tweaking via social/experiential adaptation) nurture. >> 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. I find it admirable that you are able to (or intrinsically embrace) a non-causal model of the world. It may be a property of your "episodic" vs my own (per your categorization) "diachronic" nature. It may say something qualitative about how our egos are formed, or self-regulate. I am a fan of skepticism but distinguish it from cynicism and admit to failing at both implied aspirations. >> 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. My own morbid fascination (sometimes) seems to reduce to (no more than) the Complexity Pattern: "Punctuated Equilibrium" and my own egocentric desire to be there when the balanced-cum-unbalanced system starts to slide. I felt it when Trump stumbled sideweiz into the POTUS position and again when COVID knocked us out of our current social balance. I even feel it welling up as I read/study the myriad "Endogenous Existential Threats" we are bringing down on our own heads while we fiddle (referencing Caeser) with trivialities such as a pandemic that is arguably 5% lethal but has an Ro >> 1.0 under our default social/travel/hygeinic standards. > I did vote, though. 8^D I took Mary to vote early and cruised the vicinity in my 4x4 diesel truck looking for any Poll Watcher's wearing military/tactical gear and "exercising their 2nd Amendment Rights!!!!!", not quite sure if I would exercise my own right to be a "sovereign nation unto myself" and run them down, stop and let them assume I am "one of them" and thereby take their temperature or defuse/diffuse them in some way, or maybe just call the voter-suppression hotline... it was a nicely ambiguous moment. My early voter location is not a likely location for such for better or worse. I ordered a mail-in ballot which I have not yet completed nor mailed nor turned in... but am getting "around to it", savoring my own resistance... trying to understand what that is about. When I dropped Mary for her 2 hour stand-in-line I could/should have simply joined her, but would have been sorely tempted to give up my place in line (repeatedly?) for the many elderly/infirm who also stood out there for a similar time. I *did* give an elderly mother-daughter pair one of the camp chairs in my truck... the younger (in her 70's) was sitting in a very unstable camp-chair while her mother (90's) stood in the sun because the elder didn't feel trusting of the chair... we even talked the elder into moving up next to the entrance and sitting in the chair while her daughter shifted down the line with the flimsy one. I was surprised nobody had the ??? to simply push them forward to the front of the line? The demographic (in Pojoqaue) was probably 90% >50, 70% over 60 and 50% over 70 with perhaps 5% over 80... and more than a few were carrying oxygen tanks, using walkers, canes, etc. It was a great show of determination. Probably all lifetime voters, so not defining a groundswell of *new* or *swing* voters. Mary reported *one* MAGA hat in line... nobody commented, and nobody engaged in *any* level of political conversation in line... it was a pretty polite but sober bunch. In the fullness of time? - 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/ |
Re: high turnout and tight races?
|
|
In reply to this post by jon zingale
Jon -
> Yeah, I empathize with your sentiments. Oh to see a good band, the only > notion of a church that has ever made any sense to me and where Communion is > served a pint at a time. > > Even though my left-leaning friends guarantee that my vote has been thrown > away and I feel just as disenfranchised wrt politics as I ever have been and > that this is only the second time in my life that I have ever voted, I feel > angsty at the thought that my vote may not get counted. When I chat with > other friends, equally alienated from politics, they also feel the same > angstiness around their vote in this election. I feel brainwashed, but I am > not entirely sure in what direction. No amount of rational argument has ever > convinced me that voting matters, and yet, here I am, throwing away my vote > and feeling ready to brawl. this is very close to how I felt in 1973 as the freight-train of conscription/Vietnam bore down on me. I didn't trust either of the two factions trying to persuade as to how to think/feel/act... I had my sympathies ( I was already a vegetarian, but still held onto the idea that violence was a necessary evil) but in general I felt very disoriented and brainwashed (or in constant resistance to same). Today I am much more suited to that kind of ambiguity... maybe that seed set me up. I have wanted to ask my younger, more cynical friends (Gen X/Z/millenial???) what I could do to trade them for their vote... I don't mean the "sense" of their vote, but persuade them to vote. Many (including you as I understand your sensibilities) insist that direct action is the only way good things happen... "doing the work"... so if I were not so isolated (or lazy?) perhaps I would strike a deal with a few I find too cynical (or aware) to vote and agree to "feed a homeless person" or somesuch in exchange for their voting "just this one". And maybe open a larger conversation about how we DO change the world we have created (collectively) into one that serves us more-better (collectively)? - Steve > > > > -- > Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.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/ |
Re: high turnout and tight races?
|
|
In reply to this post by gepr
"I've always heard that tight races lead to higher turnout" that is true! Though it might be better to say that the perception of a tight race leads to higher turnout. However, other things can also lead to high turn out. Rampant polarization of the population with a media-induced frenzy of urgency. If the number of people on each side of the polarization is uneven, then the larger the turn out, the better the chance the final count reflects the population discrepancy. On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 7:20 PM uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ <[hidden email]> wrote: From: - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . 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/ |
Re: high turnout and tight races?
|
|
In reply to this post by gepr
I think I have a counterexample, if such things exist when discussing probability. The US presidential election with the highest turnout (81.8%, as a percentage of the voting age population) was the Tiden-Hayes election of 1876. It is also the smallest electoral vote victory (185-184). The winner of the popular vote (by 3%) did not win the election. The result ultimately came from a back, presumably smoky, room. —Barry On 28 Oct 2020, at 19:19, uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ wrote:
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . 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/ |
|
Excellent! As we're seeing with the re-politicization of the SCOTUS, more decisions are made in smoky back rooms than I'd been reared to believe. These Legal Eagle episodes are helpful:
Problems with the Electoral College ft. Extra Credits https://youtu.be/KYVw9lPiCHQ On 11/2/20 8:05 AM, Barry MacKichan wrote: > I think I have a counterexample, if such things exist when discussing probability. > > The US presidential election with the highest turnout (81.8%, as a percentage of the voting age population) was the Tiden-Hayes election of 1876. It is also the smallest electoral vote victory (185-184). The winner of the popular vote (by 3%) did not win the election. The result ultimately came from a back, presumably smoky, room. > > —Barry > > On 28 Oct 2020, at 19:19, uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ 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
|
«
Return to Friam
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |