512 Paths to the White House • Hacker News Board

Re: 512 Paths to the White House

#41

Post by afterburner » Sat, Nov 03, 2012, 6:34 AM UTC

waterlesscloud wrote: post #34

calinet6 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would not appear to, but in effect, it would make the entire election simply based on popular vote. Therefore your vote is not lost, it simply becomes equal. This is far better than your vote actually being lost in the mass of California votes, since you, living in California, would still have some impact on the national outcome. And candidates, looking for popular votes instead of electoral votes, would have much…

What specific concrete difference do you see happening in that case? What does it mean to "campaign to all people"?

If you can move one percent of the population everywhere with some nation-wide issues, that's huge. Currently, that strategy is less useful, being costly and with less payoff.

Re: 512 Paths to the White House

#42

Post by ecmendenhall » Sat, Nov 03, 2012, 6:34 AM UTC

If you're sufficiently convinced by this, the 538 model, or your favorite electoral vote map, and you are willing to bet your beliefs (and you are in a jurisdiction that has not regulated prediction markets out of existence), Intrade contracts on an Obama victory were trading around $6.70 today.

Re: 512 Paths to the White House

#43

Post by afterburner » Sat, Nov 03, 2012, 6:37 AM UTC

tomasien wrote: post #3

I think this is a great way to explain to someone who's not intimately familiar with electoral politics why people think Obama is going to win despite razor thing polls. Predictions mean nothing of course but: If Obama wins Florida, Romney has exactly 1 path to victory: winning every other swing state. If Obama wins Ohio, Romney has only 11 ways to win. If Obama loses Florida, Virginia, NC, and Ohio he could still po…

The only thing interesting about election day will be what happens to the House.

Re: 512 Paths to the White House

#44

Post by afterburner » Sat, Nov 03, 2012, 6:42 AM UTC

nextstep wrote: post #8

Damn, I wish I lived in one of the states that gets to choose our president.

Don't forget you choose your House and Senate reps. Those are vital for actually passing laws.

Re: 512 Paths to the White House

#45

Post by btilly » Sat, Nov 03, 2012, 6:42 AM UTC

leif wrote: post #25

drewrv wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what? Why should some peoples vote matter more than others?

It's all about what kinds of questions get discussed and addressed during campaigns. The point of the campaigning process is chiefly to elect new representation, but secondarily (and closely so) to debate and test competing theories on the primary problems of the time. In the electoral college model, the concerns of the swing states get the most attention, for reasons which are far too numerous and obvious to go in t…

You make a huge and incorrect assumption that both parties care based on raw population.

In fact the more urban someone is, the more likely they are to vote Democrat. The more rural, the more likely they are to vote Republican. If you're targeting swing votes, you're interested primarily in suburbs and smaller cities.

Re: 512 Paths to the White House

#46

Post by usaar333 » Sat, Nov 03, 2012, 6:51 AM UTC

ecmendenhall wrote: post #42

If you're sufficiently convinced by this, the 538 model, or your favorite electoral vote map, and you are willing to bet your beliefs (and you are in a jurisdiction that has not regulated prediction markets out of existence), Intrade contracts on an Obama victory were trading around $6.70 today.

This should be legal for any American: http://tippie.uiowa.edu/iem/

Sadly, if you don't already have money there, your transfer is unlikely to go through until after the election.

Re: 512 Paths to the White House

#47

Post by robomartin » Sat, Nov 03, 2012, 7:06 AM UTC

The electoral college is incredibly unfair to voters who live in states that lean opposite their view.

I fully understand that the popular vote option has its issues (focusing on large population areas, etc.). However, a lot of this can be mitigated through legislation and regulation of the process.

Here's a random set of ideas:

- Candidates are only allowed to visit each state capital once. That's it.

- Candidates are not allowed to trash the other candidates. They are only allowed to discuss their views.

- Candidates are awarded an amount of money to run their campaigns. No external contributions from any source whatsoever. None.

- Candidates must participate in detailed interviews for a period of several weeks. Some of these interviews are aired in national networks and the rest made available online.

- Candidates are obligated to participate in detailed debates

- Television networks are prohibited from endorsing or communicating bias

- The publication of poll data is illegal

- A candidate must post a huge bond. If he or she is found telling lies they end-up in prison and have huge financial consequences.

- Campaign promises are recorded and signed in a document that is publicly available. A politician that does not deliver on promises made is exposed to financial and criminal liability. Don't make promises you can't keep.

- Public endorsement of any candidate is illegal. They have to float and survive on their platform and track record.

- The incumbent is not allowed to campaign in any way at all. His or her opponents cannot trash him/her. The incumbent can only rely on having done a good job and kept promises. People will vote and want to keep someone who is doing a good job. The only thing they are allowed to do is announce their running for office and participate in scheduled debates or interviews.

- Politicians are limited to serving in public office for a certain period of time, perhaps ten years. After that they must return to private life --no connection whatsoever to government and politics-- for five years before they can run for office again. This is to infuse balance and perspective and not have a race of politicians, by politicians and for politicians.

There are probably a number of other interesting ideas out there. What we have it horribly broken in many ways. It'd be nice to see real dialog and actions to change it.

Re: 512 Paths to the White House

#48

Post by arrrg » Sat, Nov 03, 2012, 7:17 AM UTC

leif wrote: post #15

tomasien wrote: post #3

I think this is a great way to explain to someone who's not intimately familiar with electoral politics why people think Obama is going to win despite razor thing polls. Predictions mean nothing of course but: If Obama wins Florida, Romney has exactly 1 path to victory: winning every other swing state. If Obama wins Ohio, Romney has only 11 ways to win. If Obama loses Florida, Virginia, NC, and Ohio he could still po…

Obama's going to win. The only reason you hear pundits talking about it is because they get paid to talk about it. The media controls the messaging these days, not the candidates or the people, and it's in the media's interest to maintain as close a race as possible until the bitter end. That's why even the most partisan pundits, even when everything's in their candidate's favor, keep claiming that "this is such a cl…

Well, I don’t know. Calling it a tossup is very wrong, but Romney’s odds don’t seem that bad to me.

Nate Silver, for example, gives Romney a twenty percent chance. That’s not bad. I would gladly pay $1,000 for a twenty percent chance to win a million.

Re: 512 Paths to the White House

#49

Post by anigbrowl » Sat, Nov 03, 2012, 7:30 AM UTC

calinet6 wrote: post #30

waterlesscloud wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So instead of your vote being lost in the mass of California or New York votes, it would just be lost in the much larger mass of national votes. You'd still be in a winner-take-all situation with your vote, but on a national level rather than a state level. I don't think this change would have the effect people imagine. At all.

It would not appear to, but in effect, it would make the entire election simply based on popular vote. Therefore your vote is not lost, it simply becomes equal. This is far better than your vote actually being lost in the mass of California votes, since you, living in California, would still have some impact on the national outcome. And candidates, looking for popular votes instead of electoral votes, would have much…

I see your point, but have a strong suspicion that the election would just be fought out on TV to an even greater extent, with more mudslinging and rumor-mongering. Traditional city/country campaign rallies would become a fixture, but mainly as audience competitions. But the internet and broadcast media would become more critical than ever, and accuracy or integrity haven't exactly been at a premium in large-scale election campaigns.

Re: 512 Paths to the White House

#50

Post by anigbrowl » Sat, Nov 03, 2012, 7:31 AM UTC

robomartin wrote: post #47

The electoral college is incredibly unfair to voters who live in states that lean opposite their view. I fully understand that the popular vote option has its issues (focusing on large population areas, etc.). However, a lot of this can be mitigated through legislation and regulation of the process. Here's a random set of ideas: - Candidates are only allowed to visit each state capital once. That's it. - Candidates a…

This would be great if voting were restricted to smart people with halos.