Glen -
I've found this graph the most interesting rendering of the electoral game:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/upshot/presidential-polls-forecast.html#explore-paths
Interesting fault tree (I wanted to say dendogram, but I'm not sure it
has all of the properties necessary.
I may just print this out and paste it on the wall for my election night
fun (I rarely actually hang by the media outlet waiting for these
things). I wish they had included Jill and Gary, though their chances
of winning *any* much less many states is vanishingly small. But so
seems a *tie* in these scenarios. As much as I want to see theDonald
handed his lunch, I want it to be handed to him by *other* iconoclasts,
not by theHillary. I have given over to planning my life in the second
Clinton Dynasty and have less of an impulse to bolt for one border or
another (or into one of my self created boltholes (of the mind or the
world)), but that doesn't mean I don't want to see the most
entertainment or hard-knocks education wrung out of the process of
arriving there as possible.
I grew up (and still hear repeated to kids) "you can be anything you want to be". It seems clear
that any "outsider" has a steep learning curve w.r.t. the complex game of getting elected. One
could (I won't) argue that Trump would be a good candidate to game this system, given that he seems to have
spent his entire life gaming other systems to benefit his brand. But I suspect the game is too complex.
He's done a great job garnering popular support in our TV-nation. And, at this point, I'm grateful for the
electoral college. It pits my naive sense of majority rule against my naive sense of an intellectual
oligarchy (or perhaps a "gamers oligarchy" -- ruled by the lawyerly -- lawyerish? -- class).
Well said.
I voted for Stein in 2012 because I didn't see all that much consequential
difference between Obama and Romney and it seemed clear Obama would win, anyway.
In retrospect, I accept your logic. Though I think gay (LGBTQZedOmega)
and reproduction rights would have been retarded and a few (other)
conservative Xtian rights would have been advanced differently but...
In the end, by failing to exercise the Republican machine (at least in any
whole sense), Trump_is_
helping to open the door for 3rd parties by letting the R-machine
atrophy. But such a 3rd partier will have to avoid gaffs like
#whatisaleppo and disinfo memes like Stein's wifi, gmo, and
vaccination.
Johnson's Aleppo gaffe (could easily have been a Trumpism) definitely
shows his lack of experience/preparation on foreign policy... Jill and
Ajamu were not very presidential out there with rattlecans writing on
bulldozers which showed me that they have (mostly?) given over to using
the presidential race as a forum to promote their more active(ist)
ideals. I don't fault them for it, but it makes it harder to choose
them as president/vice
In short, this game has absolutely nothing to do with the
idealistic system(s) framing Arrow's or Condorcet's propositions. And
that may partially explain why markets would be more robust predictors.
Excepting, I would contend that "this game" is *shaped* by the lack of
viable paths to successful 3rd party intrusions INTO the game.
So, this election, I decided to check out Stein for real, to see if I could
really vote for her, regardless of the consequences. I went to a local meeting
of Stein supporters and was presented with (albeit trivial, partial) evidence
why her campaign is such a failure. These people were flat out timid. Their
only strength lies in their willingness to take abuse by police and private
security. This perception was reinforced by this article:
http://www.newsweek.com/russian-green-activists-brand-us-green-party-accomplice-putin-496359?rx=us
When I compare Stein's positions on several things against the caricatures of her
opinions made by others, I like a lot of what she says. Her positions are
"nuanced". But you can't win the game solely with nuance, timidity, and facts
any more than you can (like Trump) solely with bluster and posturing. It requires a
_machine_. And Clinton seems to have such a machine. Trump does, too, a bit Rube
Goldberg, whereas Clinton's shows evidence of serious engineering (... though that's an
insult to Rube Goldberg).
This is my own fundamental point, no matter how poorly made. I'm
looking for the mechanical changes that might be made in our system to
*allow* third parties to be relevant. There is a chicken and egg. For
all the things I like about both Jill and Gary, they are not as serious
of candidates as I think we need in third parties. As long as third
parties are a priori non-viable at this level, we will not see anyone
*build* a machine and put a seasoned driver at it's helm... and of
course, the argument many make against supporting third parties
*because* they are not viable, or that their chosen representatives are
not experienced or serious enough is a little bit self-fulfilling methinks.
Now of course, there is a "meta game" revolving around *WHO* would
champion such changes, who would effect them? The "powers that be" are
succeeding in the game as it is... why would they want it to change in
a way that made it harder for them to game the game? But the unwashed
masses (present company explicitely included) would seem to *want* and
*benefit from* a more complex game, one harder to game by the "usual
suspects". We flocked to theDonald and theBernie camps in drove
*because* they offered an alternative, but now in the 11th hour, it
seems we are not willing to carry that spirit further.
Also I hoped that this august body (ok, so we are into September by now)
would have more interest/insight into the game-theoretic/structural
issues implied by our electoral system. Maybe the real world stakes are
too high to even try to think objectively/abstractly for most of us....
I know *I* get a little squeamish when my mental simulations run out to
some of the edges and do things like imagine Trump as our next Demander
in Chief. And I get (nearly) as sqeamish (well, not really nearly) when
I think of ClintonII and a magnification (even) of many of the
disappointments I feel with theBarack in the rain shadow of a lot of
HopeyChangey.
============================================================
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
