Jump to content

US Elections: Super Tuesday Edition, It's Over 9000!


Fez

Recommended Posts

55 minutes ago, White Walker Texas Ranger said:

It's a logical conclusion. Those who wouldn't vote in a non compulsory election are more likely to be low information or apathetic voters, who then vote more based on name recognition.

It would be hard to test, and even if there was a study or two that disputed it, the logic behind it is so strong, that, from a Bayesian perspective, I'd be more inclined to think there was something wrong with the study.

Indeed. Generally those without strong political inclinations or low-information voters are the most likely to not vote.

Here's a recent thing from 538 attacking the mirror image of OAR's argument.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ted-cruzs-general-election-strategy-is-wishful-thinking/

He's talking here about Ted Cruz and the conservative vote but the general principle applies to both sides:

Quote

In general, we see the expected U-shaped pattern: Just like people who don’t care much about the outcome of a baseball game are less likely to go, people who are more moderate ideologically are less likely to vote. As Jan Leighley and Jonathan Nagler show in a recent book, perceiving that the parties differ is a motivation to turn out. 

Voters who don't vote are generally voters who don't care or don't know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Wow, really? You really want to just turn it into a beauty contest and don't care at all about electing someone who is a good ruler, but who can convince everyone that they should vote for them? Huh. That's super shocking given your leftist views. Parliamentary democracies don't work this way - are you completely against them, then?

Even for you, this is a shockingly uncharitable and obnoxious response. It's also incredibly stupid.

Since you're apparently unaware, this is how our system actually works. Elections or referenda are held, and the most popular candidate or choice- the highest vote-getter- wins (this is also how the Parliamentary systems of the UK, Canada, and Australia work). You don't get to tell people how to decide their vote. If you want to disparage that as a beauty contest, go for it buddy. A system which did attempt to tell people how to decide their vote would be completely unworkable.

What I would like to change here is to have more people vote, in a system that more directly translates their preferences into power (pure proportional representation is ideal). I, personally, vote only based on policy agreement. But it's an utter impossibility to propose that we should tell other people how to make their choices- in majoritarian, plurality, or proportional systems.

Quote

Per your policy of quibbling,  the article you linked provides zero evidence that this is the case but simply states that this is the case. Do you have another source?

 

Allow me to quote directly from the article that you either didn't read or failed to comprehend:

"Mandatory voting changed referendum outcomes. As soon as authorities in Vaud introduced compulsory voting, electoral support for leftist policy increased by about 8 to 15 percentage points when compared to the cantons where there was no fine. The green line in the figure equals the difference in support for leftist policies between districts in Vaud and districts in the control cantons, adjusted for their differences before the introduction of compulsory voting."

 

Quote

Per quibbling it absolutely is a logical conclusion. The premise is as follows:

a) those who don't vote in noncompulsory systems do not care as much and do not know as much about the election

b ) those who don't care as much will tend to vote for names they recognize 

Therefore

c) compulsory systems will more strongly favor those whose names are recognized.

It's perfect syllogistic logic. That you disagree with it is also fine (namely you're disagreeing with a premise) but it doesn't make it not logical.

 

It does not logically follow from "Those who wouldn't vote in a non compulsory election are more likely to be low information or apathetic voters" that they will "then vote more based on name recognition."

They might equally vote completely randomly. That is what I responded to. Yes, you can rework that into something that has logical form but is also false, fine. But, in this case, you're for once correct that this is quibbling, unlike your ridiculous whining that it's quibbling that I asked you provide a source that's actually related to your claim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trump has more than 50% chance of being the Republican nominee. Once that happens, he has less than a 50% chance of being President.

Also, I suspect voter turnout issues for the Democrats will go away once they see who the Republican nominee is.

Trump has one general election strategy flip 2012 white voters from democrat to republican and increase white turnout overall as much as Obama increased black turnout. If he increases the republican share of the white vote from 59% to 62% he is unbeatable in the general election. Obama increased black turnout about 4% above historic norms, if trump that with whites it's all over.

Caveat, it's much harder to increase white turnout since it is already the most voting demographic and the barriers to voting erected since Roberts killed the VRA will also impact these traditionally no voting whites and impede their registration and voting in the end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Jaxom 1974 said:

There was a Democratic Town Hall Debate last night?  I mean I know I've been busy this week, but I did not know there was such a thing last night.  I would have at least checked it out a little.

 

Also, why does it seem as though this resignation of Donald Trump as the presumptive Republican nominee is leading to a lot of resignation in line with, "He won't be as bad as Cruz or Rubio"? Of course he'll be just as bad.  It doesn't matter if he pivots and suddenly is all kinds of moderate once he's the candidate.  He's lied, he's smeared, he's promoted racism and xenophobia.  Folks cannot begin to resign themselves to the idea that he's the nominee and he might actually be President.  To go that way lies madness. 

 

Trump would be terrible but not as bad as Cruz or Rubio. He'd have issues getting anything done. Look at any independent candidate for governor or the like, there's a general pattern to how running outside the system ends up working out. The government is alot more then just the executive (as basically all independent candidates forget). Trump isn't exactly an independent, but he's pretty close and you'd see conflict between his goals and that of the GOP who would control the legislature. His running of the executive as a whole would likely be a clusterfuck in general.

He's also unlikely to have any real ambitions of his own.

More or less I'd expect Trump to be an ineffective executive leader who ends up mostly as a rubber-stamp for the GOP congress except maybe getting in a fight with them over a few things.

 

Cruz or Rubio would be worse in that they'd be a rubberstamp for the GOP congress and more able to run the executive, get cooperation from the party and push specific horrible political agendas that would actually be doable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

 

Even for you, this is a shockingly uncharitable and obnoxious response. It's also incredibly stupid.

Since you're apparently unaware, this is how our system actually works. Elections or referenda are held, and the most popular candidate or choice- the highest vote-getter- wins (this is also how the Parliamentary systems of the UK, Canada, and Australia work). You don't get to tell people how to decide their vote. A system which did attempt to tell people how to decide their vote would be completely unworkable.

What I would like to change here is to have more people vote, in a system that more directly translates their preferences into power (pure proportional representation is ideal). I, personally, vote only based on policy agreement. But it's an utter impossibility to propose that we should tell other people how to make their choices, in majoritarian or proportional systems.

 

This...isn't actually true. In many parliamentary democracies the Prime Minister is chosen from their party, and it is the party that is chosen by the people on a seat by seat basis. In governments where there are multiple parties this is even more true. Sorry, did you not know that this was the case? That the popular election does not actually determine the leader? Apparently not. This has more details on a general election for England, for instance. The important part for this conversation would be this:

 

Quote

 

Can I vote for a new Prime Minister?

No.

 

 

In this way the voters choose the party or parties that they want, but they do not choose the leadership that they want. They can voice their opinions to their representatives and there are other ways that they can make their voice heard. 

You were apparently unaware of the way that a large chunk of the democracies in the world work. I don't think that makes my point obnoxious or uncharitable. 

It is impossible to tell people how precisely to choose how to vote - but it certainly is possible to elect leaders based on things other than popular vote and make that stick pretty well. 

Quote

 

Allow me to quote directly from the article that you either didn't read or failed to comprehend:

"Mandatory voting changed referendum outcomes. As soon as authorities in Vaud introduced compulsory voting, electoral support for leftist policy increased by about 8 to 15 percentage points when compared to the cantons where there was no fine. The green line in the figure equals the difference in support for leftist policies between districts in Vaud and districts in the control cantons, adjusted for their differences before the introduction of compulsory voting."

 

I didn't quibble with this. You said that the article indicated people who vote would not be low or no-information voters. The article does say that - in one sentence - but provides no data backing that up. The quoted statement above also does not provide any data on that. Again, since you didn't apparently understand - what data do you have saying that compulsory voting does not have more non-informed or low-informed voters on either an absolute or proportional scale?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Trump

I think this article (I swear I've seen one just like it before too) is probably one of the most important thigns to keep in mind when talking about Trump and his chances and such:

http://www.vox.com/2016/2/23/11099644/trump-support-authoritarianism

Quote

 

A voter’s gender, education, age, ideology, party identification, income, and race simply had no statistical bearing on whether someone supported Trump. Neither, despite predictions to the contrary, did evangelicalism.

Here is what did: authoritarianism, by which I mean Americans’ inclination to authoritarian behavior. When political scientists use the term authoritarianism, we are not talking about dictatorships but about a worldview. People who score high on the authoritarian scale value conformity and order, protect social norms, and are wary of outsiders. And when authoritarians feel threatened, they support aggressive leaders and policies.

Authoritarianism and a hybrid variable that links authoritarianism with a personal fear of terrorism were the only two variables that predicted, with statistical significance, support for Trump.

Put simply, Trump won South Carolina because of the overwhelming, unyielding support of authoritarian voters.

 

Trump's support is based on his strongman image. Pseudo-fascism is what I've referred to it as before and it's basically the same thing.

Trump is giving alot of disaffected white people what they want: a strong leader who will agree with their fears and prejudices and give them an other to blame their problems on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, A Prince of Dorne said:

So one issue can preclude a person from being moderate? The only people I've heard not consider Kasich to be moderate are staunch liberals. 

That's a pretty big issue, yes. Samantha Bee recently launched into him about how pro-life he is, how he's against recognizing same-sex marriages, how he doesn't allow rape victims counseling. The Boston Globe also indicated how he's wanting to strip labor rights like Scott Walker did. 

Oh hey, he's also super against crime reform and wants tougher rules on death penalty appeals and even more juvenile crimes pushed to adult crimes!

While he's likely the most moderate choice remaining (Bush would likely have been better) calling someone who actively campaigns for pro-life choices and tries to remove labor rights is hardly a moderate voice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, A Prince of Dorne said:

So one issue can preclude a person from being moderate? The only people I've heard not consider Kasich to be moderate are staunch liberals. 

The only people who've called Kasich a moderate are people who don't know anything about the guy. He's a standard Republican.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

This...isn't actually true. In many parliamentary democracies the Prime Minister is chosen from their party, and it is the party that is chosen by the people on a seat by seat basis. In governments where there are multiple parties this is even more true. Sorry, did you not know that this was the case? That the popular election does not actually determine the leader? Apparently not. This has more details on a general election for England, for instance. The important part for this conversation would be this:

 

 

In this way the voters choose the party or parties that they want, but they do not choose the leadership that they want. They can voice their opinions to their representatives and there are other ways that they can make their voice heard. 

You were apparently unaware of the way that a large chunk of the democracies in the world work. I don't think that makes my point obnoxious or uncharitable. It is impossible to tell people how precisely to choose how to vote - but it certainly is possible to elect leaders based on things other than popular vote and make that stick pretty well. 

Jesus fucking Christ.

There are popular elections across many individual constituencies- you know, like the single-member districts we talked about earlier when you were utterly failing to support your claim. 

You replied with your "beauty contest" remark to a post where I said "in a democracy candidates should be chosen by popular vote." Now, obnoxiously, you want to to insist that what I've really been talking about is choosing Prime Ministers.

And, by the way, England doesn't hold general elections or have a Prime Minister. The UK does, though, and I'll assume that's what you meant. ;)

Quote

I didn't quibble with this. You said that the article indicated people who vote would not be low or no-information voters.

No I did not say that.

What I actually said was, "the actual evidence ... suggests that apathetic, non-voters have a preference not for names they recognize, but for redistributive policy."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

That's a pretty big issue, yes. Samantha Bee recently launched into him about how pro-life he is, how he's against recognizing same-sex marriages, how he doesn't allow rape victims counseling. The Boston Globe also indicated how he's wanting to strip labor rights like Scott Walker did. 

Oh hey, he's also super against crime reform and wants tougher rules on death penalty appeals and even more juvenile crimes pushed to adult crimes!

While he's likely the most moderate choice remaining (Bush would likely have been better) calling someone who actively campaigns for pro-life choices and tries to remove labor rights is hardly a moderate voice.

I'll say right now I vehemently disagree with Kasich on Planned Parenthood and abortion rights. For me, being right in the middle, I have a hell of a time finding anyone I agree with on 75% of the issues. So I have to pick and choose which ones are the most important to me. I have economics higher on the list than planned parenthood. Though I understand if others feel differently about that. 

As to he wanting to limit the bargaining power of public sector unions, well thank goodness. 

Being in Ohio, I have not found that he's against recognizing same-sex marriages. He has mostly stated the government should not be involved in determining which people can marry. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

 

Jesus fucking Christ.

There are popular elections across many individual constituencies- you know, like the single-member districts we talked about earlier when you were utterly failing to support your claim. 

You replied with your "beauty contest" remark to a post where I said "in a democracy candidates should be chosen by popular vote." Now, obnoxiously, you want to to insist that what I've really been talking about is choosing Prime Ministers.

 

Well, yes, because we were talking about leaders. Why wouldn't I think that you were talking about that? We were talking about Trump, not Senate seats. And you stated specifically this:

Quote

As for You-Know-Who doing better because he is a more popular candidate... if this is the case (I don't believe it is), so be it. That's how democracy should work.

I don't see how I interpreted you wrong here. You stated that if Trump is doing better because he's a more popular candidate, then he should win because that is how democracy should work. That isn't how democracy does work in a number of other countries, and point of fact those other countries would never, ever have Trump as a leader because their party would choose their leader. If we had a parliamentary democracy Trump wouldn't even be allowed to represent the Republicans because he's not a member of said parliament and has never been one. Are you opposed to a system where the leader of the country is not chosen by direct vote?

Quote

What I actually said was, "the actual evidence which suggests that apathetic, non-voters have a preference not for names they recognize, but for redistributive policy."

Right, and there's no evidence of that statement either. What the article indicates is that compulsory voting improves voting for left-leaning policy. When they're voting on a referendum. There is no indication from that article that compulsory voting improves voting for left-leaning candidates. So again, do you have a source for the idea that left-leaning candidates are the same as left-leaning policies when being voted for by low-information voters? 

ETA: we have a  lot of evidence that name recognition is a pretty big deal as far as low-information or no-information voters. Why would policy trump that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, A Prince of Dorne said:

I'll say right now I vehemently disagree with Kasich on Planned Parenthood and abortion rights. For me, being right in the middle, I have a hell of a time finding anyone I agree with on 75% of the issues. So I have to pick and choose which ones are the most important to me. I have economics higher on the list than planned parenthood. Though I understand if others feel differently about that. 

As to he wanting to limit the bargaining power of public sector unions, well thank goodness. 

Being in Ohio, I have not found that he's against recognizing same-sex marriages. He has mostly stated the government should not be involved in determining which people can marry. 

Why Kasich on economics? His policy appears to be standard trickle-down conservatism with an extra dose of fuck you to labor laws and regulations on wall street. He worked for Lehman Brothers, after all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

Trump has one general election strategy flip 2012 white voters from democrat to republican and increase white turnout overall as much as Obama increased black turnout. If he increases the republican share of the white vote from 59% to 62% he is unbeatable in the general election. Obama increased black turnout about 4% above historic norms, if trump that with whites it's all over.

Caveat, it's much harder to increase white turnout since it is already the most voting demographic and the barriers to voting erected since Roberts killed the VRA will also impact these traditionally no voting whites and impede their registration and voting in the end.

Well, it isnt just percentages, raising the Republican white vote percentage (compared to african american) involves getting nearly 4 fold as many people to either join or change allegiances. This is assuming he starts at the same baseline Romney did, not a given at all considering his.negatives.

So that would involve millions more to switch and come out, if Obama could get only 4% no way trump could get 4 times as many people to the polls.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People were asking earlier about Carson. I think this may be my favourite thing yet about that situation.

Maybe Carson's campaign is a scam.

And maybe even he doesn't know it.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/02/ben-carson-thinks-maybe-his-campaign-was-a-scam/470715/?utm_source=SFFB

Hypothetical: Ben Carson thinks he is running for President. His campaign staff are just trying to make some money while they can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Carson's argument for being the best candidate for President (having zero political experience) was that he was super smart and would surround himself with the right people and the right experts. His super smarts would then be able to lead him to the right decisions, even if he didnt quite know the minutae of the issues at hand.

Turns out he is crap at judging and hiring the right people too. What exactly are his qualifications for being in the running for any sort of political office?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Well, yes, because we were talking about leaders. Why wouldn't I think that you were talking about that? We were talking about Trump, not Senate seats. And you stated specifically this:

Because I have repeatedly referred to "candidates," broadly. Trump happens to fall into this category.

Quote

I don't see how I interpreted you wrong here. You stated that if Trump is doing better because he's a more popular candidate, then he should win because that is how democracy should work. That isn't how democracy does work in a number of other countries, and point of fact those other countries would never, ever have Trump as a leader because their party would choose their leader. If we had a parliamentary democracy Trump wouldn't even be allowed to represent the Republicans because he's not a member of said parliament and has never been one. Are you opposed to a system where the leader of the country is not chosen by direct vote?

This is an almost entirely irrelevant counterfactual argument. In a hypothetical alternative universe where we had a parliamentary system, no, Trump would not be a candidate for Prime Minister unless he had also previously stood for Parliament and been elected leader of the Republicans. Is this the sort of bullshit you're interested in arguing? It's ridiculous.

In our system, a candidate for the House of Representatives should win if he or she receives the most votes. Same for a candidate for the Senate or for Governor of a state. Same for candidates for Parliament in the UK. In a system of proportional representation the party with the highest share of the votes should send receive most members of Parliament, and will most likely form the government. If a coalition of other parties can form a majority, they should govern. The democratic principle is the same in any case- the most popular choice wins. And it should. That's all I've been saying. This really shouldn't be remotely controversial.

Quote

Right, and there's no evidence of that statement either. What the article indicates is that compulsory voting improves voting for left-leaning policy. When they're voting on a referendum. There is no indication from that article that compulsory voting improves voting for left-leaning candidates. So again, do you have a source for the idea that left-leaning candidates are the same as left-leaning policies when being voted for by low-information voters?

 

You're so consistently and transparently incapable of giving a charitable read to information presented to you that it's actually pretty funny. 1) I said "redistributive policy" not "left-leaning candidates" and 2) the article I linked supports that completely:

"But what were the policy consequences? We find that higher turnout caused stronger support for leftist, redistributive policy, for example, bills that proposed stricter market regulation and expanded welfare programs.

The figure below shows the evolution of support for leftist policy proposals for districts in Vaud (red line) and districts in the control cantons (blue line). The gray shaded area represents the period in which Vaud practiced compulsory voting. We see little difference in support for leftist policy proposals between districts in Vaud and districts in the control cantons — at least, until Vaud introduces a fine for failing to vote in 1925."

The article completely supports my specific statement, since in fact I drew my statement directly from it.

But, in fact, there is evidence to suggest compulsory voting helps left-leaning candidates, anyway:

"Next, exploiting the differential adoption of compulsory voting across states, I find that the policy increased voter turnout by 24 percentage points which in turn increased the vote shares and seat shares of the Labor Party by 7 to 10 percentage points. Finally, comparing across OECD countries, I find that Australia’s adoption of compulsory voting significantly increased turnout and pension spending at the national level."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

Well, it isnt just percentages, raising the Republican white vote percentage (compared to african american) involves getting nearly 4 fold as many people to either join or change allegiances. This is assuming he starts at the same baseline Romney did, not a given at all considering his.negatives.

So that would involve millions more to switch and come out, if Obama could get only 4% no way trump could get 4 times as many people to the polls.

He doesn't have to do it everywhere, he just needs to win a few strategic states, most notably Ohio. Here's an article about one way he can win (there are other ways). It's not entirely implausible, particularly since many of those states are demographically favorable for him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

 

*cough* HRC *cough*

What about her?  I don't recall her running for election for the position of President and losing to a Republican.  Romney ran in 2012 and lost to Obama.  Has there ever been an occasion in US politics where a failed candidate ran as the running mate in a subsequent election?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...