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,
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
"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
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
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
ritchlow
> Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2020 7:16 PM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <mailto:friam@redfish.com>>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] high turnout and tight races?
>
> I would think that the more people who vote the less likely a tie or close
&
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
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
:22 AM
To: friam@redfish.com
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-wri
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
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
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
gt;
> *From:* Friam *On Behalf Of *Roger Critchlow
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 29, 2020 9:33 AM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam@redfish.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] high turnout and tight races?
>
>
>
> You're right, assuming
hursday, October 29, 2020 9:33 AM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam@redfish.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] high turnout and tight races?
>
>
>
> You're right, assuming that either vote is equally likely:
>
>
>
> julia> for n i
nt: Thursday, October 29, 2020 9:33 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] high turnout and tight races?
You're right, assuming that either vote is equally likely:
julia> for n in [1, 10, 100]
# run 1000 simulations
close = 0
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
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
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 28, 2020 7:16 PM
> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <
> friam@redfish.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] high turnout and tight races?
>
>
>
> I would think that the more people who vote the less likely a tie or close
> outcom
From: Friam On Behalf Of Roger Critchlow
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2020 7:16 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
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 b
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
wrote:
> I think that Republicans make up way less than half of the population, but
> the people who are traditionally less
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 wrote:
> N = 3 is slightly better. But I don't have time or incentive
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 wrote:
> In 1964 Johnson beat Goldwater by 60 to 40. The
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
[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
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 ↙↙↙ wrote:
> So, what about the question I asked? You have no opinion on
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
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
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
28 matches
Mail list logo
