2016 US Presidential Election

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

arbiteroftruth
Posts: 437
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 3:44 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby arbiteroftruth » Sun Oct 16, 2016 5:18 pm UTC

I haven't decided. But I am neither going to express support for Trump who is unfit for office, nor am I going to contribute to Clinton's mandate to actively work against me on everything I care bout. My vote will indicate failure on the part of the Republicans to earn my vote, not success on the part of the Democrats. I haven't read up on him yet, but it sounds like McMullin is the most obvious way to do that.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6343
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Sun Oct 16, 2016 5:30 pm UTC

arbiteroftruth wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:First, note that what I'm arguing for only applies to the Presidential election, because of the unique rules of the Electoral college. And yes, the Presidential election truly is both ways.

How, exactly? In the presidential election, do the major parties need my vote or not? If they need my vote, then requiring them to actually earn it means something. If they don't need my vote, then what I do doesn't matter and I may as well vote my conscience.
Your argument seems to be that not only do they need my vote, they also need my vote to be something they can take for granted because they can't afford to bother actually earning it. If that's the case, then tough shit.
I'm not saying "to earn my vote you have to fall in line with all of my views". I'm saying, "to earn my vote you have to nominate someone who isn't a flagrant bigot who brags about assaulting women and would likely be completely incompetent in office". This isn't a matter of "you can't please everyone so you need to be willing to compromise", this is a matter of failing to achieve minimum basic acceptability. If we can't even hold the major parties to that low bar, then there's no point participating at all, because our opinions have no influence.

Do you actually live in a swing state?

As for your vote, there are limits to how much a politician can pander to your vote without alienating others. The most basic question is a simple numbers game. If he panders to your vote, how many voters does he lose? If you got a thousand voters, who all think like you, and if after he panders to you, he only loses a 500 voters, then that's a net gain. A politician should pander to you. Principles and morals complicate the issue, but the numbers bear it out. If you aren't being pandered to, it's either he's a bad politician, or the numbers just don't work out.* What are your positions anyway? Be morally upstanding? A Values voter? Pocketbook/wallet voter? Foreign policy? Closet lobbyist? Confused guy who just wants someone to say everything is gonna be ok?

*A politician could vaguely halfass pander to you like Hillary does to Republicans who are ostracized by Trump. But Hillary is limited in that she can't offer them much except to not start a trade war, or commit war crimes.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6403
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby ucim » Sun Oct 16, 2016 7:26 pm UTC

arbiteroftruth wrote:...do the major parties need my vote or not?
Voting is not about filling the needs of the major parties. It's about affecting the outcome of the race. Theoretically, even I could become president of the United States this year. But no matter how strongly you feel that I'd be a better leader than Hillary or Drumph, voting for me would be worse than silly. It's taking your hands off the steering wheel because, well, dental hygene is important and you need to brush your teeth.

Your vote, or your lack of voting, will affect the outcome of the race, not by making it more likely (or less likely) that the candidate you vote for will win, but by making it more (or less) likely that the #2 person will win. Those are the only likely outcomes: #1 wins, or #2 wins.
Spoiler:
Trump is #2.
If you vote to raise the chance of #3 winning from a Lebesgue zero to an Engineering zero, you forfeit your chance to move the needle between #1 and #2, one of whom will almost certainly win.

This is ok if you truly do not care who (between Hillary and Drumph) wins. But if you do see that, while one of them is a dumpster fire, the other is napalm, then you really are not "taking the high road" by not voting against one of them you are throwing your hands up and abdicating your (small) role in steering this ship of state.

And the strongest vote against one of the top two is to vote for the other one.

arbiteroftruth wrote:I'm saying, "to earn my vote you have to nominate someone who isn't a...
It's too late for that. Nominations are over. Start trying to affect next term's nominations, directly.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Sun Oct 16, 2016 7:35 pm UTC

arbiteroftruth wrote:How, exactly? In the presidential election, do the major parties need my vote or not?
As an individual, not in the least. Their problem is different than yours. They need lots of votes, you only have one. So they have to reach as many as they can, without scaring away their core support. You are important only in aggregate. Meaning if there are enough of you. The more people they can get the better. But they know they can't get them all. So they go after groups they can get.

arbiteroftruth
Posts: 437
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 3:44 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby arbiteroftruth » Sun Oct 16, 2016 9:12 pm UTC

ucim wrote:
arbiteroftruth wrote:...do the major parties need my vote or not?
Voting is not about filling the needs of the major parties. It's about affecting the outcome of the race. Theoretically, even I could become president of the United States this year. But no matter how strongly you feel that I'd be a better leader than Hillary or Drumph, voting for me would be worse than silly. It's taking your hands off the steering wheel because, well, dental hygene is important and you need to brush your teeth.


Going with the steering analogy, it's more like having a broken steering wheel and trying to balance the short term goal of steering however well you can(voting for someone from a major party) with the long term goal of repairing the wheel(putting pressure on the major parties to nominate better candidates). Sometimes the wheel works well enough that it's worth using it. Sometimes it's so pathetically broken that the most productive thing you can do is forget about steering while you make some marginal repairs.

arbiteroftruth wrote:I'm saying, "to earn my vote you have to nominate someone who isn't a...


It's too late for that. Nominations are over. Start trying to affect next term's nominations, directly.


Except it's not too late to say what it takes to earn my vote. There's nothing mutually exclusive about trying to affect next term's nominations directly and affect them by the message sent in this election. As has been pointed out, the losing party tends to analyze why they lost. In that regard, if I vote for the candidate from my party despite how bad he is, then I'm not even contributing to the indication that a problem exists at all. If I vote for the candidate from the other party, I'm indistinguishable from someone who actually agrees with the other party. If I stay home, I'm indistinguishable from someone who just doesn't care. The only way of accurately demonstrating the problem is to cast an obvious spoiler vote that they could have earned with a better nominee.

Now, you may point out that people end up blaming the spoiler voters rather than blaming themselves. But regardless of where the blame gets placed, the diagnosis becomes "we lost because a lot of would-be supporters went third party, we need to make sure that doesn't happen again". A Clinton landslide sends a recommendation of "the Republicans should move further left". A conservative spoiler sends a recommendation of "the Republicans need to actually be conservative instead of a parody of conservatism".
Last edited by arbiteroftruth on Sun Oct 16, 2016 11:27 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3900
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Dauric » Sun Oct 16, 2016 10:31 pm UTC

arbiteroftruth wrote:A conservative spoiler sends a recommendation of "the Republicans need to actually be conservative instead of a parody of conservatism".


Unless the conservative spoiler candidate/party is itself a greater parody of conservatism than the current Republican establishment. Recall that Trump -was- the establishment spoiler for the Republicans, and he is arguably the most stereotypical parody of conservativism you could assemble in a living breathing human being.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6403
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby ucim » Sun Oct 16, 2016 11:07 pm UTC

arbiteroftruth wrote:Going with the steering analogy, it's more like having a broken steering wheel and trying to balance the short term goal of steering however well you can(voting for someone from a major party) with the long term goal of repairing the wheel(putting pressure on the major parties to nominate better candidates).
But the car is still careening down the highway at a mile a minute and there's a big truck coming your way. This isn't the time to take the steering wheel apart.

To fix the steering, you have to stop the car. Ironically, a Trump victory may well stop the car. "If Trump wins this election, we won't need to have another."
Spoiler:
Sure, the analogy breaks down somewhat - you can fix the (metaphorical) steering wheel while the car is moving. But in doing so, you will probably hit the truck.
And in any case, the steering wheel isn't what's broken. It's the engine. It's the built-up feeling that our elected representatives don't represent us.1 It's the expectation that things should be easy; that we shouldn't have to work at anything.2 It's the sense of entitlement that Americans have.3 It's the rejection of the idea that freedom and democracy actually requires work; requires thinking and discernment; requires challenging comfortable assumptions rather than reflexively tromping on them. In short, it's the desire for a "saviour" who will come and effortlessly give us rainbows and ponies.4

Playing to these things, the parties choose candidates that pander to the base emotions that these flaws respond to, and those are almost by definition, but certainly by design, not good candidates to begin with.

This is the problem. It's the engine. The steering wheel works well enough.

That said, sure, the steering wheel can be improved. Approval voting, for example, is likely to support centrist positions rather than extremist ones, and less likely to punish candidates for being similar (negating a spoiler effect).

arbiteroftruth wrote:Except it's not to late to say what it takes to earn my vote.
Fine. Speak up. But meanwhile, we're heading towards a cliff, with a big truck on one side, a forest on the other side, and a ditch in the middle. The election itself is more important than the analysis that will later be done.

Footnoted comments:
Spoiler:
1This is largely a function of the huge size and power of the country; decisions made at the federal level are quite far removed from individual input.

2Figuring out what is true and what is nonsense is hard. People don't want to do that; they want sound bytes to react to. Science is hard, and doesn't always provide clear answers. But marketers want clear answers and take advantage; people then lose faith in science, and in the entire idea of rational thought.

3The whole "make America great again" slogan reflects this 100%. To a large group of Americans, everyone should speak English, work in a factory, wear boots and drive a truck. And get a good salary for doing so. But capitalism (one of the core American values that these people espouse) requires competition, and when others outcompete us, it's "not fair!"

4And this is the most dangerous thing; what a good third of Americans seem to want is a dictator, using the code words "strong leader" and "law and order". The unspoken assumption is that this dictator will be benevolent and will absolve us from the need pay attention to and actively contribute to (or fight against) our leadership. But once a dictator is in place, it's too late.
Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

arbiteroftruth
Posts: 437
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 3:44 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby arbiteroftruth » Sun Oct 16, 2016 11:29 pm UTC

ucim wrote:
arbiteroftruth wrote:Going with the steering analogy, it's more like having a broken steering wheel and trying to balance the short term goal of steering however well you can(voting for someone from a major party) with the long term goal of repairing the wheel(putting pressure on the major parties to nominate better candidates).
But the car is still careening down the highway at a mile a minute and there's a big truck coming your way. This isn't the time to take the steering wheel apart.


It is, because the steering wheel as is offers no hope of avoiding the truck, and the car will keep moving and hitting more trucks until we get the steering wheel fixed.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6403
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby ucim » Mon Oct 17, 2016 12:22 am UTC

arbiteroftruth wrote:It is, because the steering wheel as is offers no hope of avoiding the truck
Yes it does. Drive into the ditch instead.

The steering wheel won't bring you ponies and rainbows, but the present task is to minimize damage. Aim for the ditch as best you can. Taking the wheel apart now won't let you do that.

When you're in the ditch you can fix the steering wheel and get back on the road. But if you hit the truck, it's game over.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

arbiteroftruth
Posts: 437
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 3:44 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby arbiteroftruth » Mon Oct 17, 2016 12:51 am UTC

This is where we disagree on the analogy. You're saying it's hitting the truck vs. hitting the ditch. I'm saying it's hitting the truck at a full 180 degree head-on collision vs. hitting the truck with a 175 degree collision. Sure, you can run the numbers and find that the 175 degree collision is marginally safer, but it's still a total disaster and your time is better spent working on fixing the wheel.

User avatar
Liri
Healthy non-floating pooper reporting for doodie.
Posts: 1113
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2014 8:11 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Liri » Mon Oct 17, 2016 1:07 am UTC

Clinton is not "marginally safer" than Trump. She is by many orders of magnitude a better choice in every regard.
There's a certain amount of freedom involved in cycling: you're self-propelled and decide exactly where to go. If you see something that catches your eye to the left, you can veer off there, which isn't so easy in a car, and you can't cover as much ground walking.

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11083
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Yakk » Mon Oct 17, 2016 1:14 am UTC

Imagine you have infinite faith that the way things are are the way things are.

Then it does not matter who you elect.

The US government is already bad; it won't do worse, not measurably, because you cannot imagine it or believe it.

You cannot imagine the US devolving into dictatorship, mass slaughter of own citizens, explicit conquest, etc. Or even mass incarceration beyond current, finishing the welfare state slsughter, starvation, police state, persecution of minorities, use nuclear weapons aggressively, etc.

So moving *away* from that *has no value to you*. It is all shit, and you consider everything shit to be brown. Hell deeper brown is better, to motivate people to backlash. The possibility that deeper brown might be a cliff off you may not return is not contemplated.
One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision - BR

Last edited by JHVH on Fri Oct 23, 4004 BCE 6:17 pm, edited 6 times in total.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Mon Oct 17, 2016 1:18 am UTC

arbiteroftruth wrote:This is where we disagree on the analogy. You're saying it's hitting the truck vs. hitting the ditch. I'm saying it's hitting the truck at a full 180 degree head-on collision vs. hitting the truck with a 175 degree collision. Sure, you can run the numbers and find that the 175 degree collision is marginally safer, but it's still a total disaster and your time is better spent working on fixing the wheel.


Look, you're saying that by being a spoiler vote, you're gonna get the attention of the Republicans to make a better candidate in 2020, right? (Or something like that?)

Well, here's the thing. A vote for Clinton better sends that message than a vote for a 3rd party. In the end of the day, if you're a Republican and want to voice your disgust at this year, the best way to do that is Clinton. Because that means I'm a "converted vote" (which means my voting power / level of disgust is effectively doubled by voting for Clinton: both a vote against the candidate AND a vote denied for the current candidate).

A vote for 3rd party basically only acts as half of the switch vote, and effectively does the same thing (ie: makes Clinton marginally more likely to win...) I think as a protest vote, voting for Clinton is superior. Say you're a Republican for Clinton. Which means you're gonna vote Republican for the House / Senate and then vote Clinton in the Presidency.

That has a hell of a lot more power than voting for McMullin this year.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

idonno
Posts: 171
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 3:34 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby idonno » Mon Oct 17, 2016 1:30 am UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:Well, here's the thing. A vote for Clinton better sends that message than a vote for a 3rd party. In the end of the day, if you're a Republican and want to voice your disgust at this year, the best way to do that is Clinton. Because that means I'm a "converted vote" (which means my voting power / level of disgust is effectively doubled by voting for Clinton: both a vote against the candidate AND a vote denied for the current candidate).

A vote for 3rd party basically only acts as half of the switch vote, and effectively does the same thing (ie: makes Clinton marginally more likely to win...) I think as a protest vote, voting for Clinton is superior. Say you're a Republican for Clinton. Which means you're gonna vote Republican for the House / Senate and then vote Clinton in the Presidency.

That has a hell of a lot more power than voting for McMullin this year.
You can't differentiate if extra Hillary votes are caused by more Hillary voters turning out or Republicans switching sides but a vote for a third party conservative demonstrates that the voter is a conservative who has a commitment to turn out even when their vote is meaningless for the election.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6403
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby ucim » Mon Oct 17, 2016 1:51 am UTC

arbiteroftruth wrote:This is where we disagree on the analogy. You're saying it's hitting the truck vs. hitting the ditch. I'm saying it's hitting the truck at a full 180 degree head-on collision vs. hitting the truck with a 175 degree collision.
No, it's not. Trump and Clinton are completely different. The kind of problems we'd have are completely different under one than under the other. Never mind degree, I'm talking about kind.

Under Clinton, there is virtually no danger of descending into a dictatorship. Under Trump... well, that's practically his entire platform.

Disagree on policy all you like, Clinton has one and understands it. She knows how to negotiate in the geopolitical world. She undersands nuance. She's a grownup. Trump is a spoiled child who bullies his way through whatever he does. He's quite happy to destroy anything that gets in his way; the Republican Party has gotten in his way and look what he's doing to it now. If elected, the United States will be in his way. Trump has no policy beyond that, and doesn't think he even needs it, because he's "smarter than all the experts". It's a bluff that has gotten him this far, but won't last five minutes when he's in power. He'll then throw a tantrum, and it won't be just on Twitter.

These are very different dangers from the ills of a Clinton presidency, which would be four years of taking the country in a liberal direction, the Supreme court nominee that Obama would have filled if it weren't for the Obstructionist party, and maybe another nominee if one kicks off in the next four years.

Even if you don't like the liberal direction, it's something the country can recover from. But if we end up in a Trump dictatorship, recovery would have to come from outside, and it will be in the form of nuclear missiles.

It is a grave mistake to think that Clinton and Trump differ only by degree. They differ in kind. The analogy remains illustrative. Hit the ditch and you live to fix the steering wheel. Hit the truck and it's game over.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

User avatar
ahammel
My Little Cabbage
Posts: 2135
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2012 12:46 am UTC
Location: Vancouver BC
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby ahammel » Mon Oct 17, 2016 2:02 am UTC

idonno wrote:You can't differentiate if extra Hillary votes are caused by more Hillary voters turning out or Republicans switching sides [...]
Sure you can. For instance, you could call up a representative sample of voters and ask them who they voted for any why.

Political parties aren't limited to looking at vote counts for their market research.
He/Him/His/Alex
God damn these electric sex pants!

idonno
Posts: 171
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 3:34 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby idonno » Mon Oct 17, 2016 2:54 am UTC

ahammel wrote:Sure you can. For instance, you could call up a representative sample of voters and ask them who they voted for any why.

Political parties aren't limited to looking at vote counts for their market research.

If you want to bring surveys into it, it is probably more strategic to just plan to lie on surveys. A third party vote gives a clear vote signal and lying and saying you voted for Hillary causes them to incorrectly allocate a greater percentage of her voters as conservatives who hate Trump.

User avatar
Qaanol
The Cheshirest Catamount
Posts: 3058
Joined: Sat May 09, 2009 11:55 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Qaanol » Mon Oct 17, 2016 4:01 am UTC

A study by researchers at Stanford University and Tilburg University looked at the 2016 Democratic primary and found substantial evidence that the results were rigged. Specifically:

• States without verifiable paper trails for votes gave Clinton a far higher proportion of their delegates, even after accounting for ideology.

• Exit polls were much different from the reported results (especially so in the non-paper-trail states) and generally to Clinton’s benefit.

• Caucuses that saw widespread allegations of suppression or fraud went notably more toward Clinton than did non-controversial caucuses.

• Repeating the same analysis on the 2008 Democratic primary showed no such irregularities.

You can see their methodology in the paper, as well as links to the data. Here are some excerpts (emphasis mine).

From their summary:
First, we show that it is possible to detect irregularities in the 2016 Democratic Primaries by comparing the states that have hard paper evidence of all the placed votes to states that do not have this hard paper evidence. Second, we compare the final results in 2016 to the discrepant exit polls. Furthermore, we show that no such irregularities occurred in the 2008 competitive election cycle involving Secretary Clinton against President Obama. As such, we find that in states wherein voting fraud has the highest potential to occur, systematic efforts may have taken place to provide Secretary Clinton with an exaggerated margin of support.


And their conclusion:
Our first analysis showed that states wherein the voting outcomes are difficult to verify show far greater support for Secretary Clinton. Second, our examination of exit polling suggested large differences between the respondents that took the exit polls and the claimed voters in the final tally. Beyond these points, these irregular patterns of results did not exist in 2008. As such, as a whole, these data suggest that election fraud is occurring in the 2016 Democratic Party Presidential Primary election. This fraud has overwhelmingly benefited Secretary Clinton at the expense of Senator Sanders.
wee free kings

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6165
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Mon Oct 17, 2016 4:20 am UTC

I was kind of expecting detailed, peer reviewed analysis, not just a quickly put together four page paper.

https://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/6/1 ... s-analysis
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Mon Oct 17, 2016 4:34 am UTC

ahammel wrote:
idonno wrote:You can't differentiate if extra Hillary votes are caused by more Hillary voters turning out or Republicans switching sides [...]
Sure you can. For instance, you could call up a representative sample of voters and ask them who they voted for any why.

Political parties aren't limited to looking at vote counts for their market research.


Or in my case, explicit support of http://r4c16.org kinda states my intentions rather bluntly.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Diadem » Mon Oct 17, 2016 4:42 am UTC

Thesh wrote:I was kind of expecting detailed, peer reviewed analysis, not just a quickly put together four page paper.
https://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/6/1 ... s-analysis

The paper is a fun read though. They spent more time quoting platitudes about freedom then discussing their results. They give contradicting numbers for the same stat in different paragraphs, and at one point say some number is smaller than the preceding one, when it is clearly larger. I didn't bother checking their math, but their p-values seem suspicious. They have huge standard deviations but tiny p-values.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6343
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Mon Oct 17, 2016 4:50 am UTC

Spoiler:
Qaanol wrote:A study by researchers at Stanford University and Tilburg University looked at the 2016 Democratic primary and found substantial evidence that the results were rigged. Specifically:
• States without verifiable paper trails for votes gave Clinton a far higher proportion of their delegates, even after accounting for ideology.
• Exit polls were much different from the reported results (especially so in the non-paper-trail states) and generally to Clinton’s benefit.
• Caucuses that saw widespread allegations of suppression or fraud went notably more toward Clinton than did non-controversial caucuses.
• Repeating the same analysis on the 2008 Democratic primary showed no such irregularities.
You can see their methodology in the paper, as well as links to the data. Here are some excerpts (emphasis mine).
From their summary:
First, we show that it is possible to detect irregularities in the 2016 Democratic Primaries by comparing the states that have hard paper evidence of all the placed votes to states that do not have this hard paper evidence. Second, we compare the final results in 2016 to the discrepant exit polls. Furthermore, we show that no such irregularities occurred in the 2008 competitive election cycle involving Secretary Clinton against President Obama. As such, we find that in states wherein voting fraud has the highest potential to occur, systematic efforts may have taken place to provide Secretary Clinton with an exaggerated margin of support.

And their conclusion:
Our first analysis showed that states wherein the voting outcomes are difficult to verify show far greater support for Secretary Clinton. Second, our examination of exit polling suggested large differences between the respondents that took the exit polls and the claimed voters in the final tally. Beyond these points, these irregular patterns of results did not exist in 2008. As such, as a whole, these data suggest that election fraud is occurring in the 2016 Democratic Party Presidential Primary election. This fraud has overwhelmingly benefited Secretary Clinton at the expense of Senator Sanders.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the ... t-sanders/
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ber ... delegates/
I have a sense of deja vu here. Didn't you already post this myth back during the primaries. It's been debunked several times here, and I won't stand for bolds(aka total bullshit) claims without better evidence.

User avatar
thunk
Posts: 456
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2016 3:29 am UTC
Location: Arguably Exiled

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby thunk » Mon Oct 17, 2016 6:43 am UTC

The paper was done by presumably two graduate students not representing either university, and was not subject to peer review.

As such, it's really no more conclusive than anything else online.
Also, most of the sources cited to back up the claims are either people with an interest in the outcome, or conspiracy nuts. This doesn't prove it's wrong necessarily (see the fallacy fallacy), but means that there's a higher bar to clear in terms of verification.
Free markets, free movement, free plops
Blitz on, my friends Quantized, GnomeAnne, and iskinner!
troo dat

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7459
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Zamfir » Mon Oct 17, 2016 6:56 am UTC

Ah, but this paper is literally self-refuting. That helps in the analysis, saves on the hard work of checking the sources and the statistics and the methodology.

First they say that Clinton got 65% of the delegates in states without paper trail, and 48% in paper trail states. Hypothesis: fraud. Null hypothesis: Clinton is more popular in the trailless states.

How to check? Well, the very same paper says that Clinton got 63% exit poll support in the trailless states, and 48% in paper trail states. Mystery solved.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11207
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Oct 17, 2016 3:47 pm UTC

sardia wrote:No thoughts on the strength of partisanship among GOP women?


*shrug* Partisanship seems pretty high in general. One would think that, perhaps, Trump's words would be particularly damaging to him in this demographic...and it's true he's not doing fantastic, but it seems that a candidates actual words only affect the margins, whereas the broad majority is willing to cheer on their team regardless.

KnightExemplar wrote:Because I've already outlined what happens: Ross Perot won 18.9% of the vote in 1992... the most out of all 3rd party presidential bids in recent history. George Bush / Republicans complain about him being a spoiler, and then the Reform Party fades away to irrelevancy.


Success looks like the Republican party coming to power. Success FOR the third party, at any rate. This is rare. The parties change position rarely, and it is unlikely that the current election will change this dynamic.

Success in the term of pushing issues happens a great deal more frequently. In practice, while it is always convenient to blame someone else for losing an election, and blaming third parties is logical, either unusually successful primary challenges or third party runs can result in ideals influencing the party going forward. This is still not easy, mind you, but looking at the numbers, it seems probable that Perot did not actually act as a spoiler, whatever was said. In addition, his focus on deficits, etc definitely affected the Republican party going forward. So, he did have an impact.

It's also logical to suppose that Perot handled the race exceptionally poorly, and could have performed better. Withdrawing from the race and re-entering it is highly unusual, and was obviously wildly unhelpful. He could have done much better had he not done that. Perot had a rare opportunity, and didn't capitalize on it properly.

User avatar
Qaanol
The Cheshirest Catamount
Posts: 3058
Joined: Sat May 09, 2009 11:55 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Qaanol » Mon Oct 17, 2016 4:37 pm UTC

The FBI released some documents on Hillary Clinton. I have not read them all, but here are a few excerpts from Part 4:

Disregarding protocol:
[________] described a “stark difference” between Rice and Clinton with regard to obedience to security and diplomatic protocols. Rice observed strict adherence to State Department security and diplomatic protocols, while Clinton frequently and “blatantly” disregarded them.


Offending ambassadors:
This frequently resulted in complaints by ambassadors who were insulted and embarrassed by this breach of protocol. [________] explained that Clinton’s protocol breaches were well known throughout Diplomatic Security and were “abundant.”


Taking US government property:
Early in Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State, she and her staff were observed removing lamps and furniture from the State Department which were transported to her residence in Washington, D.C.


Disrespecting her own security personnel:
Clinton’s treatment of DS agents on her protective detail was so contemptuous that many of them sought reassignment or employment elsewhere. Prior to Clinton’s tenure, being an agent on the Secretary of State’s protective detail was seen as an honor and privilege reserved for senior agents. However, by the end of Clinton’s tenure, it was staffed largely with new agents because it was difficult to find senior agents willing to work for her.


Ignoring sensitive-information rules:
Clinton refused to abide to this security regulation and brought her cell phone, believed to be a Blackberry, inside the SCIF where a DS agent assigned to Post 1 was required to guard it. DS agents were indignant that they were required to follow security policy but Clinton made herself exempt from the same regulations.
wee free kings

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7459
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Zamfir » Mon Oct 17, 2016 5:21 pm UTC

In your previous post, you suspected Clinton of organising country-wide election fraud. Do you still believe that?

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Mon Oct 17, 2016 5:26 pm UTC

Qaanol wrote:Taking US government property:

Early in Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State, she and her staff were observed removing lamps and furniture from the State Department which were transported to her residence in Washington, D.C.
Grand theft furniture. I love it. However as these things go I suppose it is better than the murder accusations during the first term. Or Whitewater and so on. I get this amusing mental picture of Clinton carrying out a Queen Anne chair.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11207
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Oct 17, 2016 5:34 pm UTC

Zamfir wrote:In your previous post, you suspected Clinton of organising country-wide election fraud. Do you still believe that?


I don't know if he does, but those accusations always seemed to be more of unhappy Bernie voter accusations. Not quite willing to accept that Bernie didn't have the votes. I mean, sure, it's obvious that Clinton was the establishment favorite, but that's not really that shocking, and it's very different from widespread fraud.

The things documented here seem much more in line with expectations. I totally buy that Clinton's arrogant and ignoring the rules. That is highly consistent with everything I know of her. The idea that she embraced widespread fraud to beat Bernie...not so much. Looking at the polls, it doesn't seem reasonable. No need to. You don't need fraud to explain anything.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7459
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Zamfir » Mon Oct 17, 2016 5:49 pm UTC

It's such a contrast. Post 1, Clinton is organising the end of democracy in the US, post 2, she pissed off people at the state department. I have troubling seeing how Qaanol can care much about the second, if they're already concerned about the first.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11207
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Oct 17, 2016 6:07 pm UTC

Clinton doesn't want to end the system. Why would she? It works for her. She wants to use the system for everything it's worth.

She's not a reformer, for good or ill. She'll just take advantage of whatever's available.

IMO, it's just the normal halo effect. It's super easy to ascribe negative traits to the "enemy", even if they don't make any logical sense.

User avatar
Qaanol
The Cheshirest Catamount
Posts: 3058
Joined: Sat May 09, 2009 11:55 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Qaanol » Mon Oct 17, 2016 6:30 pm UTC

Another excerpt from part 4 of the FBI documents.

State Department pressuring FBI agents to change the classification level of Hillary Clinton’s emails prior to their release:
[________] email enclosed copies of 5 email communications from former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private email account which State believed may contain “FBI equities.” State requested the FBI conduct an appropriate classification review of the emails prior to their scheduled FOIA public release.

<snip>

[________] indicated he had been contacted by Patrick Kennedy, Undersecretary of State, who had asked his assistance in altering the email’s classification in exchange for a “quid pro quo.”
wee free kings

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6165
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Mon Oct 17, 2016 6:41 pm UTC

So are you going to post the full excerpt so we can see it in context, or do you expect us to go through 100 pages of an unsearchable PDF to find it?
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 1808
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Sableagle » Mon Oct 17, 2016 6:46 pm UTC

Qaanol wrote:
[________] email enclosed copies of 5 email communications from former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s private email account which State believed may contain “FBI equities.”
Image

WTF are FBI equities? Has the USA taken capitalism to the point where the FBI is now a publicly-traded company?
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6165
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Mon Oct 17, 2016 6:50 pm UTC

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/equity

Still can't figure out what "FBI Equities" means, but I'm guessing it's more related to that, since it seems more applicable.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
Qaanol
The Cheshirest Catamount
Posts: 3058
Joined: Sat May 09, 2009 11:55 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Qaanol » Mon Oct 17, 2016 6:57 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:So are you going to post the full excerpt so we can see it in context, or do you expect us to go through 100 pages of an unsearchable PDF to find it?

It’s on pp. 25–26. The previous excerpts I posted are from pp. 43–45.
wee free kings

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6165
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Mon Oct 17, 2016 7:35 pm UTC

Okay, so Kennedy was debating classification with the FBI, which is to be expected given the benign nature of what we know about the supposedly classified emails (e.g. discussing a newspaper article in such a way that it confirms that the US does indeed have a drone program), and then some unnamed person at the FBI said they would change the classification if Kennedy increased FBI agents in Iraq, which it doesn't say if Kennedy did it or not. If he did, there's a story, otherwise this is just more meh.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Diadem » Mon Oct 17, 2016 7:49 pm UTC

The more emails and other internal documents are leaked about Clinton, the more I start liking her. All the 'revelations' about her are just so fucking mundane and ordinary. If that's all, then things are pretty good.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Mon Oct 17, 2016 7:50 pm UTC

Ok. We've established that Hillary steals furniture, likes dangerous photo ops, and that horsetrading goes on in Government. She's pissed off the State Department Protective service or whatever it's called. The BBC did a write up that is somewhat clearer than the links. Oh yes and she had a private email server. So what?

User avatar
Quizatzhaderac
Posts: 1554
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 5:28 pm UTC
Location: Space Florida

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Quizatzhaderac » Mon Oct 17, 2016 7:56 pm UTC

Zamfir wrote: Is electoral reform really that brilliant as a goal? If you look at countries with other systems, do their elections look that much more attractive?
It's not a silver bullet, and entire categories of political problems would remain unsolved, but it's something that seems to have a huge benefit ratio to effort ratio (effort in implementing it after agreeing to it, agreeing to it is looking a little pie in the sky in the near future).
For example, the big people in a PR system are the people who do well at intra-party politics of the major parties, because they control the party lists.
I don't know of anybody in America that's advocating party list PR.

The significant majority of interested Americans just want additional transparency, finance restrictions, or an end to the electoral college.

A smaller fraction (that seems to be well represented in this forum) would like to see non-FPTP voting for exactly the same positions. Maybe with some new anti-gerrymandering rules for the districts, but house members representing the districts none-the-less. Same for state and local levels.

I find the idea of single-district STV PR interesting, but I don't know how much it works out in practice. Americans are pretty well agreed that candidates should be elected, not parties.
And since you have to join a coalition to govern..
That reflects an additional difference in our systems, particularly the parliamentary/presidential distinction. A guess you could call the groups that get together and pass those omnibus bills collations of sorts, but those tend to be relatively transient.
The thing about recursion problems is that they tend to contain other recursion problems.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Dauric and 7 guests