Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Only 9% of America Chose Trump and Clinton as the Nominees

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 267 posts

Re: Only 9% of America Chose Trump and Clinton as the Nominees

#11

Post by bad_user »

trolly wrote: post #9
bad_user wrote: post #3

These 9% are representing a majority, since a lot of people didn't go to vote.

Considering both nominees have the highest disapproval rates I would say your statement is almost certainly incorrect. If anything, these 9% are representing a fundamental flaw in our first past the post system.

Why is it incorrect?

According to the statistic, 73 million did not vote in the primaries this year and about 88 million eligible adults do not vote at all. Add to that 103 million that are not eligible for voting. So if I'm not mistaken, only 18.5% voted in the primaries.

You mention they have the highest disapproval rates, but how is disapproval expressed if not by voting?

Re: Only 9% of America Chose Trump and Clinton as the Nominees

#12

Post by rm_-rf_slash »

rwmj wrote: post #7

As I understand it, everyone could choose nominees (assuming you can hold your nose and join one of the two major US parties), so this isn't really interesting news? The only sad bit from my point of view is the number of disenfranchised felons.

Most state primaries are closed, so you have to register for a particular political party within an appropriate timeframe to be eligible to vote for a potential nominee. Both Ivanka and Eric Trump were too late to register as republicans and vote for their father in the New York primary.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/04...

Re: Only 9% of America Chose Trump and Clinton as the Nominees

#14

Post by drabiega »

trolly wrote: post #9
bad_user wrote: post #3

These 9% are representing a majority, since a lot of people didn't go to vote.

Considering both nominees have the highest disapproval rates I would say your statement is almost certainly incorrect. If anything, these 9% are representing a fundamental flaw in our first past the post system.

Maybe in the Trump case, since he had fewer than half of the people that bothered to vote, but Clinton won the majority of those who bothered to vote in the primary, so even if you think the choice of her as unrepresentative of those who could have voted in the primary, first past the post isn't really the culprit, political apathy is.

That said, I generally agree that first past the post is bad and should be gotten rid of.

Re: Only 9% of America Chose Trump and Clinton as the Nominees

#15

Post by 0xcde4c3db »

rwmj wrote: post #7

As I understand it, everyone could choose nominees (assuming you can hold your nose and join one of the two major US parties), so this isn't really interesting news? The only sad bit from my point of view is the number of disenfranchised felons.

In states that have caucuses it can be fairly tough for people working full-time jobs to attend them. I don't think that represents a large share of the popular vote, but it is a barrier to participation that requires more than holding one's nose to overcome.

Re: Only 9% of America Chose Trump and Clinton as the Nominees

#17

Post by valarauca1 »

laichzeit0 wrote: post #10

I don't understand the problem. This is exactly what statistics addresses. Is that 9% a good enough random sample of the entire population, or not? If not, then what is the error 5%, 10%? Actually 9% is a really good sample.

        I don't understand the problem.
Low particaptation in the democratic election process can cause people to not benefit from their government.

        This is exactly what statistics addresses. 
        Is that 9% a good enough random sample of 
        the entire population, or not?
You are implying it is indeed random. Voting isn't random sampling as people are not randomly selected to take part in the democratic process, people choice too, while everyone has the right too.

For a proper bayesian result like you are suggesting participation would have to be randomly decided, and representative proportioinally of demographics (economic background, ethnic, educational, age, etc.), which it isn't.

Voters are more often then not. Old, affluent (I.E.: Can afford to take time off of work to vote, or has a job that permits them to take time off to vote, or have time to research+register for absentee voting), black, educated. Under-educated, immigrant, and younger backgrounds are heavily under represented in the voting process currently, and for most modern records keeping. Furthermore some local governments have laws that discourage particaptation for some ethnic-minorities.

Re: Only 9% of America Chose Trump and Clinton as the Nominees

#18

Post by thomasfoster96 »

What astounds me the most is that party membership in the United States is actually very high compared to most other countries (except for India).

Fewer than 200,000 Australians would currently be members of any political party - representing less than 1.5% of the total voters (around 14 million) - and that's being very generous with estimates of party membership figures. Most AFL football clubs would have more members than the major political parties.

Perhaps Australia is too different to compare the United States - compulsory voting (90% turnout this year), shorter campaigns (this year's 8 week campaign was twice as long as usual), elections being held on a weekend, preferential voting (third party votes are still valuable) and the parliamentary system (you never actually vote directly for the leader of the country) obviously result in a very different attitude toward elections and politics.

Re: Only 9% of America Chose Trump and Clinton as the Nominees

#20

Post by linuskendall »

laichzeit0 wrote: post #10

I don't understand the problem. This is exactly what statistics addresses. Is that 9% a good enough random sample of the entire population, or not? If not, then what is the error 5%, 10%? Actually 9% is a really good sample.

Except I'd venture it would not be a good sample as it's not necessarily very statistically representative of the whole population (ie. random)?

Of whether the people choosing the candidates have to be or even should be statistically representative of the whole population can be argued. The choice of candidates or order on ballots in many countries is decided by various less-than-representative groups.

Post reply on HN