I like how none of the charts actually match another
Live Presidential Forecast
81–90 of 318 posts
Re: Live Presidential Forecast
#82Earlier quoted context omitted.
Disable jitter by running the following in console: require('forecast/jitter').get = function(){return 0;}
Increase the jitter amount with the following: require('forecast/jitter').get = function(){return Math.random()*10;}
Election Time!
require('forecast/jitter').get = function(){return new Date().getSeconds()-30;}Re: Live Presidential Forecast
#83Re: Live Presidential Forecast
#84According to the nytimes it looks like the following right now: - President: Democrats (72%), - Senate (76%) and House (>95%): Republicans Is this a good outcome for a democracy? And if so, why? Wouldn't this mean that the system is effectively gridlocked?
Refresh your page. Upshot has Trump with a 59% chance to win.
Re: Live Presidential Forecast
#85According to the nytimes it looks like the following right now: - President: Democrats (72%), - Senate (76%) and House (>95%): Republicans Is this a good outcome for a democracy? And if so, why? Wouldn't this mean that the system is effectively gridlocked?
"That government is best which governs least, because its people discipline themselves." (Thoreau) Gridlock in the US government is a feature, not a bug, if for no other reason than it forces polarized, mutually opposed interests to compromise their principles and self-interest to get anything done.
[deleted]
Re: Live Presidential Forecast
#86Re: Live Presidential Forecast
#87Why is voting actually hard to do? Even though we're so encouraged to vote, there is a lot of red tape. For example, depending on your street address, you may have to vote at a garden variety pick of a building. At my university, I couldn't vote in building A because my apartment was on street X. I ultimately was not able to vote today because it was actually _hard_ to vote.
Well if you're too lazy to walk across the street then just vote by mail.
Re: Live Presidential Forecast
#88Why isn't the president decided by the percentage of votes? Seems to me, there are a lot voters whose vote essentially are useless?
I kind of understand the house and senate being more regional representation, but the president kind of represents all Americans, no?
Re: Live Presidential Forecast
#89According to the nytimes it looks like the following right now: - President: Democrats (72%), - Senate (76%) and House (>95%): Republicans Is this a good outcome for a democracy? And if so, why? Wouldn't this mean that the system is effectively gridlocked?
Refresh your page. Upshot has Trump with a 59% chance to win.
FL, NH and MI are leaning Trump at the moment. It's looking a lot closer than it did even last week.
Re: Live Presidential Forecast
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
Jitter is a visualization of uncertainty. Rather than display a range, it displays a needle moving within that range. It's only misleading developers, who will think that data is being streamed rather than fetched once. Other than that it's a clever (and yes, entertaining) way of displaying margins of error. Can I offer that, of all the things in news and dataviz to shit on, this isn't one of them? I mean, really, an…
> Other than that it's a clever (and yes, entertaining) way of displaying margins of error. No dispute that it's clever and entertaining. These are undesirable qualities in a reliable source of information. Can you imagine reading a scientific journal in which the data narrative was deliberately engineered to keep you guessing until the conclusion? You would be right to raise eyebrows at a publication that is investi…
Good thing the NYT is not a scientific journal then? And that what you mentioned has nothing to do with jitter, either.
HN is so incredibly cynical sometimes. How are "clever and entertaining" undesirable qualities in reliable source of information? The only requirement in a reliable source of information is reliability. "Entertaining" is very much a desirable quality if you actually want people to care about said reliable information.
My argument is that jitter doesn't make it unreliable as it's simply a visualization of the uncertainty. So if it gets people interested and doesn't do it inaccurately, that's a win in my book.
You would be right to raise eyebrows at a publication that is investing in your attention rather than its own accuracy
Por que no los dos? One doesn't conflict with the other.
> unapologetically leveraged as a vehicle for mass entertainment
Sorry America, you turned those elections into mass entertainment all by yourself ;)