Re: Hope?

Posted by Robert Wall on Oct 04, 2016; 12:18am
URL: http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/Hope-tp7587915p7587920.html

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

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

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

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

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

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

I liked the point as made by this post:

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

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

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

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

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

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

--
glen

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

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