2016 Electoral College polling thread

[AtTheMurph]

I was hoping this would be a poll thread for INGO to vote on and discuss the Electoral College and how ****ty it is. Should have known it would be about your RCP analysis toy.

The Electoral College is a masterful idea that protects the rights of each state.

What is a sh!tty idea is the 17th amendment that changed the election of senators to a popular vote. The senate was designed to be the protector of states rights from the Federal government and from the mob.

 

[nate77]

The Electoral College is a masterful idea that protects the rights of each state.

The country would look like Illinois without the electoral college; the liberal population center ruining the whole state.

 

[T.Lex]

What is a sh!tty idea is the 17th amendment that changed the election of senators to a popular vote. The senate was designed to be the protector of states rights from the Federal government and from the mob.

+1

Been saying that for years.

Before the whole newfangled rank-voting thing became vogue.

 

[jamil]

Okay. Now this thread got interesting.

The Electoral College is a masterful idea that protects the rights of each state.

What is a sh!tty idea is the 17th amendment that changed the election of senators to a popular vote. The senate was designed to be the protector of states rights from the Federal government and from the mob.

I completely agree with the latter. I fully support the idea going back to states choosing Senators however they decide to choose them.

The former, however, is, of course, nonsense. Contrary to popular belief, the EC was not ingenious. Like most compromises, it was just the least worst idea that the committee could devise and agree on. Nearly none of the political conditions which drove that outcome then exists today. It is past time to junk the EC and let urban conservatives finally get a vote on who will be president.

BUT BUSH! you might exclaim. The EC saved US from Al Gore the green slimy whore!

Well, SCOTUS notwithstanding Bush did narrowly win Florida which won him the EC and the presidency, while still losing the popular vote. But a popular vote election may not have had the same result. How many Republican Californians and New Yorkers and other democratic uber-meccas might have voted if it were by popular vote vs how many democrats in dixieland statelets didn't bother to vote because those states are respective locks in the EC? I'll take the tens of millions in uberland vs hundreds of thousands in the vast sparceland.

The country would look like Illinois without the electoral college; the liberal population center ruining the whole state.

If you want to more than cancel out Chicago give the ~13 million Republicans in California a vote. The uber-populated states have an exaggerated impact on the EC that outperforms the EC advantage that small states get. That favors the liberal population centers.

 

[nate77]

#nevertrump The Weekly Standard, sees several paths to victory for Donald Trump.

Electoral Mapmaking | The Weekly Standard

 

[T.Lex]

#nevertrump The Weekly Standard, sees several paths to victory for Donald Trump.

Electoral Mapmaking | The Weekly Standard

Yes, it does a good job recapping what INGO EC-watchers have been saying.

 

[Twangbanger]

...How many Republican Californians and New Yorkers and other democratic uber-meccas might have voted if it were by popular vote vs how many democrats in dixieland statelets didn't bother to vote because those states are respective locks in the EC? I'll take the tens of millions in uberland vs hundreds of thousands in the vast sparceland...If you want to more than cancel out Chicago give the ~13 million Republicans in California a vote. The uber-populated states have an exaggerated impact on the EC that outperforms the EC advantage that small states get. That favors the liberal population centers.

How do you know that "all" (I use that word loosely here) the people resignedly not casting votes, due to the already-decided nature of their respective states, are Republicans in the case of places like California, and Democrats in places like Mississippi? Because if anything, just based on simple demographics, plus the fact that apathy isn't a partisan emotion, I'd bet the number of "resignedly-apathetic" Democrats in CA exceeds the Repubs. fitting that description.

 

[Twangbanger]

This deviates a bit from the EC discussion, but is worth noting - Allan Lichtman (of "Lichtman Keys" fame) has scored his 13 keys in favor of a Hillary defeat. For those unfamiliar with the methodology, this is not trivial:

Election Forecasting Guru Allan Lichtman Predicts Donald Trump Will Win 2016 Election | Video | RealClearPolitics

It should be pointed out that the Lichtman system has correctly predicted the popular vote winner of all Prez elections since 1984; it was designed to correlate with popular vote results, and does not predict the electoral college result.

Still interesting, nonetheless. He's basically afraid Trump will wreck the perfect track record of a system which would otherwise be predicting a Republican victory right now.

 

[jamil]

How do you know that "all" (I use that word loosely here) the people resignedly not casting votes, due to the already-decided nature of their respective states, are Republicans in the case of places like California, and Democrats in places like Mississippi? Because if anything, just based on simple demographics, plus the fact that apathy isn't a partisan emotion, I'd bet the number of "resignedly-apathetic" Democrats in CA exceeds the Repubs. fitting that description.

Well that's possible. For example, I suppose a number of Hoosier Republicans stay home because they think Indiana is already a lock for Republicans. But I can't help but think the utter futility of a Republican voting in California would be a stronger disincentive for them than the Democratic lock would be for "resignedly-apathetic". And that part of my argument was more about idea that had we voted directly, Bush would have lost. I think not necessarily because the dynamics of who stays home and who goes to vote would probably change and that may have benefited Bush.

The strength of my argument is not as much the bias smaller states get from the EC. It is the fact that nearly all states are winner-takes-all. This is what actually creates the futility. If I lived in California, whatever portion my little vote is worth goes to democrats whether I vote or not.

With presidential elections now, Democrats have a very wide path to victory because of that. Republicans have a very narrow path. Most of the uber-populated states are Democrat locks and Democrats get all the votes, even the ones that Republicans represent. It would be absolutely crazy for California Democrats to ever agree to go proportional because that throws ~13 EC votes to Republicans that would have gone to them.

Of course the Republican locked states would give up some votes to democrats--Republicans have a 5:2 advantage in number of red states. But they're mostly rural and don't have many electoral votes to give up. If you're a Republican, you'd gladly trade the tiny proportional share of votes in those rural states to Democrats to get their big numbers from the big states. This would also eliminate the term "swing-states" forever from election discussions.

 

[jamil]

This deviates a bit from the EC discussion, but is worth noting - Allan Lichtman (of "Lichtman Keys" fame) has scored his 13 keys in favor of a Hillary defeat. For those unfamiliar with the methodology, this is not trivial:

Election Forecasting Guru Allan Lichtman Predicts Donald Trump Will Win 2016 Election | Video | RealClearPolitics

It should be pointed out that the Lichtman system has correctly predicted the popular vote winner of all Prez elections since 1984; it was designed to correlate with popular vote results, and does not predict the electoral college result.

Still interesting, nonetheless. He's basically afraid Trump will wreck the perfect track record of a system which would otherwise be predicting a Republican victory right now.

Well. Maybe. But that doesn't take into account all the ways elections can be "won". I just can't imagine that Clinton would be denied the presidency. Somehow she will summons all the evil together in one place and cast a spell upon America, dead and living. I would expect many more busses on the roads heading to swing states. I would also expect to see people show up with names like Björklund that don't look Swedish.

 

[MisterChester]

First time that there are more republican ballots requested than democratic in Florida's history. Looks very good for Trump.

 

[Twangbanger]

Well. Maybe. But that doesn't take into account all the ways elections can be "won". I just can't imagine that Clinton would be denied the presidency. Somehow she will summons all the evil together in one place and cast a spell upon America, dead and living. I would expect many more busses on the roads heading to swing states. I would also expect to see people show up with names like Björklund that don't look Swedish.

I agree. And upon reading the article, I think Lichtmann does, too. We're all 3 in agreement Hillary will win - at least in terms of our armchair opinions. However, you and I don't have published prediction systems to defend; Lichtmann does. What's interesting here is that for the first time since I became aware of his system in 1990, Lichtmann is allowing his "13 Keys" system to predict an outcome which he publicly states he thinks will be wrong.

The dilemma for Lichtmann is, his system has gained him attention because it flies in the face of everything paid election experts think they know about elections: it asserts that Personalities and Campaigns have no effect on the outcomes of U.S. Presidential elections. It's deterministic. It predicts D vs. R outcomes before the candidates' names are even known. It states that all campaign spending is basically wasted money, and changes nothing, because the outcome is decided by the public's perception of what has happened for the _past_ 4 years - not because of anything the candidates propose to do in the _future_.

So the 2016 train-wreck is beginning to develop: Trump is defying the expectations of many, and Hillary hasn't put him away yet. So if you're in Lichtmann's position, what do you do? You've never been wrong. If your system is (as usual) successful in picking the outcome, there will be no need to explain anything. But to the extent things remain somewhat close, Lichtmann has to prepare for the unthinkable. He has one advantage going for him: 2 or 3 of the keys are "indeterminate," which is to say, circumstances do not provide a clear answer on which way to turn the key. So he has wiggle room to apply personal judgement to the prediction. Which way do you wiggle that key in _this_ election, to ensure you continue to appear brilliant?

I find his response, and the potential reasons for it, fascinating. The safe bet would be to turn those "indeterminate" keys in the direction that predicts a Hillary victory. That's what the polling evidence seems to indicate. But that's not what he did. He did the exact opposite. Why? Why put yourself in the position of having your system, your only achievement which distinguishes you above anybody else who is Professor of *Something* at the University of *Someplace*, at risk of being professionally debunked?

I have my theory. Lichtmann knows the only reason he'll get called out to make an explanation, is if he's wrong. If he turns the keys to predict a Hillary victory, and Trump wins, that "wrong" explanation consists of the following: he's going to have to admit that there was something specific about Trump's personality or policy positions which pleased the electorate enough to upend his 30+ year success streak. He's going to have to admit that:

A) Certain policy specifics _do_ matter, contrary to everything he's asserted in the past, and...
B) Anti-Establishment positions on Trade and Race/Immigration may have resonated with voters so strongly, it "broke the system."

That's a DAMN awkward, unsettling statement for any member of the political and academic elite to have to make.

...So Lichtmann took the other road. He's predicting a Trump victory, against all evidence, because if he fails, it sets up the following "explanation:"

C) Certain policy specifics _do_ matter, contrary to everything he's asserted in the past, and...
D) Anti-Establishment positions on Trade and Race/Immigration may have repulsed voters so strongly, it "broke the system."

This (C+D) strategy is really brilliant on Lichtmann's part. It is 1) most likely to occur, and 2) guaranteed to earn him instant popularity inside the echo chamber, and a lucrative mini-tour on the talk-interview circuit.

This, friends, is why people like you and me are not smart enough to come up with undefeated prediction algorithms. If you're going to fail, make it count for something!

 

[BugI02]

Okay. Now this thread got interesting.



I completely agree with the latter. I fully support the idea going back to states choosing Senators however they decide to choose them.

The former, however, is, of course, nonsense. Contrary to popular belief, the EC was not ingenious. Like most compromises, it was just the least worst idea that the committee could devise and agree on. Nearly none of the political conditions which drove that outcome then exists today. It is past time to junk the EC and let urban conservatives finally get a vote on who will be president.

BUT BUSH! you might exclaim. The EC saved US from Al Gore the green slimy whore!

Well, SCOTUS notwithstanding Bush did narrowly win Florida which won him the EC and the presidency, while still losing the popular vote. But a popular vote election may not have had the same result. How many Republican Californians and New Yorkers and other democratic uber-meccas might have voted if it were by popular vote vs how many democrats in dixieland statelets didn't bother to vote because those states are respective locks in the EC? I'll take the tens of millions in uberland vs hundreds of thousands in the vast sparceland.



If you want to more than cancel out Chicago give the ~13 million Republicans in California a vote. The uber-populated states have an exaggerated impact on the EC that outperforms the EC advantage that small states get. That favors the liberal population centers.

But if every vote counts you'll be cutting off the water to the Manus Lavit party

 

[ArcadiaGP]

CNN/ORC
Colorado likely voters

Trump 42%
Clinton 41%
Johnson 13%
Stein 3%

 

[T.Lex]

Yeah, if CO holds for Trump, then he'd be in position to win.

These polls couldn't hit at a more interesting time going into the debate.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Five Thirty-Eight showing a dead heat

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/


and the "nowcast" has Trump winning if vote was today

 

[T.Lex]

I don't think that even takes into account ME's CD2, which appears to strongly favor Trump. Yeah, its only 1 EC delegate, but every bit helps.

And how does Johnson get .3 EC?

ETA:
*Paging Doris Kerns Godwin, please pick up the yellow courtesy phone*

If CO, IA, OH, FL and ME's CD2 go Trump, and NV, NH go HRC, that's a 269 tie.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Please 269/269...

NEW Reuters/Ipsos Polls:

Pennsylvania:
Trump 46 (Tie)
Clinton 46

Wisconsin:
Trump 41 (Tie)
Clinton 41

Nevada:
Clinton 45 (Tie)
Trump 45

 

[jamil]

Please 269/269...

NEW Reuters/Ipsos Polls:

Pennsylvania:
Trump 46 (Tie)
Clinton 46

Wisconsin:
Trump 41 (Tie)
Clinton 41

Nevada:
Clinton 45 (Tie)
Trump 45

If that actually happens. I promise to start attending church.

 

[T.Lex]

If that actually happens. I promise to start attending church.

You'll have to be WAY more specific about which one for that to have any real meaning.