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

512 Paths to the White House

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 175 posts

Re: 512 Paths to the White House

#101

Post by dwiel »

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…

We need to address the problem at its heart which is the separation of wealth. If there weren't huge players with lots of money to throw at the election (people and corporations), or if at least everyone had the same opportunity to do so, then a lot of those problems would be somewhat relieved.

unequal distribution of wealth == unequal distribution of money == unequal distribution of power != democracy

Re: 512 Paths to the White House

#102

Post by riordan »

jashkenas wrote: post #32
cedrichurst wrote: post #2

Thanks Jeremy, Shan and Mike. I'm continually blown away by the data journalism you're doing over at nytimes on the election. It's truly an inspiration.

I've got nothing whatsoever to do with this one -- it's a Shan + Mike joint. But thanks for the kudos. We should have some fun stuff for y'all on Tuesday night...

We're really looking forward to seeing what you've got in store on Tuesday.

It's been a while since the Interactive News Team profile a few years back; I think we'd all like to know how a major night goes down in the newsroom for your team.

Re: 512 Paths to the White House

#103

Post by tomasien »

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…

I prefer Barack Obama as President of the United States, primarily because I believe things like healthcare reform make job churn and entrepreneurship more feasible - however, there are SOME indications that maybe Obama's lead isn't what it looks like.

Polls are conducted on landlines, which nobody uses anymore. What does that mean? We don't know. Obama has only a slight early voting lead after leading in it 2-1 in 2008? What does that mean? Probably that both campaigns made a push for it this time around and it's reflecting the populous at large, BUT some polling data suggests maybe this isn't the case?

Re: 512 Paths to the White House

#104

Post by arrrg »

btmorex wrote: post #62
arrrg wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Nate Silver gives Romney a ~20% chance of winning because there's a chance that the polls are systematically wrong. Each polling firm comes up with their own likely voter model and participation model. If they're are correct in the aggregate, there's essentially a 0% chance of Romney winning, but they might not be correct (and there were times in the past where they were systematically wrong). Basically, don't confus…

Well, obviously. But twenty percent are twenty percent. It doesn’t really matter where they come from. The net result is that Romney (according to Nate Silver) has a pretty good chance of winning.

Re: 512 Paths to the White House

#105

Post by netfire »

cletus wrote: post #60

Well I guess it's that time in the cycle again: for people to complain about the electoral college (disclaimer: I'm not American). Over the years in different elections in different countries I've heard this complaint [1] > The electoral college is incredibly unfair to voters who live in states that lean opposite their view. Translation: > It's unfair that I don't get my way even though I'm in the minority. Also, thi…

The chances are very low that a national popular vote would be so close that counting or not counting dimpled/pregnant chads would make a difference. Lets also not make the assumption that the same people would vote in an electoral election as in a popular one. I think more people would vote, especially in non-swing states, where their vote usually doesn't matter as much in a presidential election

The main problem I see with the electoral college is that it forces the candidates to focus on winning the votes of just a few swing states, instead of the entire country. If the president is supposed to represent the needs/wants of the whole country, shouldn't everyone's vote count equally to decide who takes office?

Re: 512 Paths to the White House

#106

Post by btilly »

leif wrote: post #98
btilly wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That correlation does exist, but surely it's influenced by the voting model.

Why would a correlation that exists both inside of and outside of swing states be affected by the electoral system? Something deeper is going on.

My theory is that the value of government and getting along with very different people is forced on those who live in cities. And the feeling that government doesn't do anything for you is reinforced if you live in the country. Therefore people who live in urban areas are more likely to be Democrat, and people who live in the country are more likely to be Republican. (People do move and keep their political beliefs, but that trend is pretty much universal.)

(Ironically government spends more per capita on people who live in the country than on people who live in the city. But the spending is less visible to them.)

Of course that's just my theory. But the trend exists.

Re: 512 Paths to the White House

#107

Post by harshreality »

baddox wrote: post #68
cletus wrote: post #60

Well I guess it's that time in the cycle again: for people to complain about the electoral college (disclaimer: I'm not American). Over the years in different elections in different countries I've heard this complaint [1] > The electoral college is incredibly unfair to voters who live in states that lean opposite their view. Translation: > It's unfair that I don't get my way even though I'm in the minority. Also, thi…

There are problems with FTPT, but all voting systems are simply compromises between certain mutually exclusive criteria, all of which are generally desirable. You can't have all the desirable characteristics at the same time, as demonstrated by Arrow's impossiblity theorem and the Gibbard–Satterthwaite theorem. Sure, FTPT has some disadvantages, but trading it for something like instant run-off voting introduces some…

FPTP and IRV for single-winner elections are completely compromised, due to tactical voting (and lack of fairness to third parties) in common scenarios. I don't think you can support your claim that other systems are just as bad. In every informed discussion of voting systems I've ever encountered, FPTP and IRV are considered inferior to voting systems like Condorcet variants [1] or Range Voting [2] [3].

Preference between condorcet and range voting is a lot more murky.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_system#Compliance_of_sel...

http://rangevoting.org/rangeVcond.html

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_method

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Range_voting

[3] http://rangevoting.org

Re: 512 Paths to the White House

#108

Post by yummyfajitas »

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"?

One effect - economic conservatism may make a comeback.

NY, CA and several other liberal states tend to have people who call themselves "conservatives" (folks like me). We tend to be libertarian leaning economic conservatives who don't identify with religious culture war stuff (war on christmas, the gays are gonna get you).

We get ignored since our vote doesn't matter. This leads to national candidates who are basically Democrats with a little bit of Jesus thrown in (e.g. Bush, Romney), albeit answering to different special interest groups.

Re: 512 Paths to the White House

#109

Post by robomartin »

khawkins wrote: post #57
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…

Is this a joke? What you're proposing is almost fundamentally contradictory to the principles the nation was founded upon. Banning bias? No "trashing" other candidates? No polling? No public endorsements? Incumbent can't run? You propose some of the most egregious restrictions on freedom of speech I've ever heard of. Only can use government money to campaign (and not their own)? Can only visit state capitals once? Ca…

No, it wasn't made in jest. Obviously arriving at a systems that could work well would require intelligent discussion of all kinds of proposals point by point. I am more than prepared to accept that some aspects of what I rattled-off in five minutes of typing could be bad ideas. It's not like I spend every waking hour of my life thinking about this. It's almost exactly the opposite.

My point is that what we see today is an abomination. Perhaps the system put into place when this country was founded made sense at that time and for a number of years after that. I really think it makes no sense at all today.

The Obama and Romney spent TWO BILLION DOLLARS in their campaigns and who knows how much PAC's spent. This is obscene. Particularly at a time when so many people in our country are suffering.

Today you can't run for office unless you can raise a billion dollars. Period. That's what it takes. That means that there are a lot of truly intelligent people with great ideas that are financially banned from the process. Want to talk about the 1%. About wealth inequality? Let's talk about the 0.01%, the handful of people that can raise a billion dollars and, effectively, try to buy the presidency.

Sick.

Candidates ought to be restricted to presenting their platform and ideas. They should not be allowed to trash the other candidates with impunity and, yes, lie right and left. What we end-up with today is something I see in my house every day with my little ones: "Daddy, he broke the flower!"; "No, I didn't, she pushed me"; "Nooooo, he said a bad word". Oh, please, stop it!

I'll self-appoint as an intelligent voter. I think you might be one too. The problem is that not everyone is. And the system we have in place allows candidates with money to use drive-by media techniques to cause outrage and indignation on the average voter with the aim being to gain a vote and take it away from the competition. This is criminal.

There are other issues here. If you are not "cool", speak well and present well you have zero chances of getting elected. Before someone goes off thinking that I am attacking Obama, stop it! This is a general statement that is party and candidate agnostic. Steven Hawking --or someone like him-- could never become president. Never. That is wrong. Is being president about looking good and speaking well? Not at all. It shouldn't be, anyway. It should be, among other things, about their ideas, track record, experience and ability to make tough decisions.

I want to get down to an election system that removes all the five-year-old crap from the process and focuses on ideas and accountability. If you can't guarantee that you will come through with a promise, then don't promise it. State it as you idea and explain the challenges you might face making it happen.

Hugo Chavez? Please, stop it. We should be able to discuss an issue like the failings of the electoral college system without resorting to insults, right?

Re: 512 Paths to the White House

#110

Post by AlexMennen »

nhebb wrote: post #81
cletus wrote: post #60

Well I guess it's that time in the cycle again: for people to complain about the electoral college (disclaimer: I'm not American). Over the years in different elections in different countries I've heard this complaint [1] > The electoral college is incredibly unfair to voters who live in states that lean opposite their view. Translation: > It's unfair that I don't get my way even though I'm in the minority. Also, thi…

> The electoral college is incredibly unfair to voters who live in states that lean opposite their view. The Constitution doesn't mandate how electoral votes are allocated. Maine and Nebraska, for example, distribute the electoral college votes by congressional district. So the winner take all policy of most states isn't due to the electoral college itself, but how the states choose to implement it.

States have an incentive to use a winner take all policy to maximize their influence in the outcome.
Post reply on HN