You can roll your eyes anytime you like, even when the reason is as silly as the act of actually rolling your eyes.
Well this voter would also be complaining about Clinton if she got elected so what's your point. You act as though it's a given that Clinton would have been a better president. Why would any person vote for a candidate whose policies were against what they believed. People say a lot of things but don't follow through. With the exception of 3 or 4 posters on here I don't believe that ANY of them would have switched over and voted Republican no matter who the Republicans' candidate was. They would have voted for Clinton even though they knew she was a deeply flawed candidate.
Actually, yes. I was being facetious. I only jumped in to defend att's logic, which is sound, and back it up with some math, which is also sound. I'm not interested in turning it into a blame game, and I personally believe that "Don't blame me - I voted for the other guy!" is one of the dumbest bumper stickers out there.
Huh?
Most Democrats on here haven't claimed they would have voted for a Republican over Clinton. Most of them claim they would have voted for a Republican over Trump running as a Democrat. I know I would have, unless the Republican had been one of the few I liked even less than Trump, like Cruz.
I answered your question several times now. Let me repeat. No set of non-Hillary voters of size less than about 446K is sufficiently large to change the outcome in Ohio. Since the Johnson voters are less than 446K they are not large enough to change the outcome. If one is not responsible for an election outcome by virtue of belonging to some set of voters smaller than the actual margin of victory it follows that nobody is responsible for election outcomes unless the election is a perfect tie. I don't dispute your logic but you don't follow your logic all the way out. When you follow your reasoning to its logical conclusion you see that it leads to nobody being responsible for election outcomes. With all due respect Captain, if you follow this tack you will run the ship aground!
Powered ships don't tack.
Aloha Goats explanation is pretty simple that I even understand it!I'm not dealing, I'm playing the cards that were dealt.
Suppose that a Captain of a ship faces a morally tough decision where he doesn't like either of the outcomes. Can he delegate that decision to someone else and thereby avoid responsibility for the decision?
Of course it's simple - in every election in our history the loser would have been the winner if everyone that voted third party or didn't vote had voted for said loser instead. I say again, so what? It's a useless fact.
There were 17 Presidential candidates who received votes in Indiana including write ins. Trump won by 524,000 votes over Clinton. Trump got more that 375,000 more votes than Clinton and the other 15 combined. If CLinton had gotten them all she'd have been skunked slightly less than she was.
No he is saying you could add Johnsons and the other two candidates vote totals in Ohio to HRC vote total and she would have still lost the State
Have a great run. But maybe reflect that the issues here are not silly at all. At a broad level the question of collective responsibility has to be close to the top of the list of vexing problems for Naval Captains. At least I would think.
Game theory time!
1 / 2 Own Third
Own -4.5, -4.5 1, -10
Third -10, 1 0, 0This is why people who don't like the outcome of an election looking for people to blame should look at nonvoters before they look at third-party voters. If every eligible voter who didn't vote had come out to vote for Clinton, she would have won every single electoral vote (if we limit ourselves to registered voters, she would have lost NE-3).
I very much appreciate your jumping in on this exchange. As someone with an interest in this kind of mathematical analysis of voting it is cool to see you bring in the data and take a shot at apportioning responsibility. I haven't thought about how to score a level of responsibility as you do but something like that ought to be possible. The most important point I think that you are making is that changing the behavior of a Trump voter to a vote for Hillary has an larger impact than changing a non-voter to a vote for Hillary. The goal should be to assign responsibility not to arbitrary blocks but to individuals. It makes sense to me to say that people who actually voted for Trump are twice as responsible as those who abstained or voted third party.
I don't see your argument for treating 3rd party types different from abstainers. Can you help me understand?
Because the abstainer group is so much larger, and we've been focused on group blame, rather than individual blame. Obviously, when you portion that out per voter, the individual blame will be the same for a member of either group.
Yes, I've bounced between "responsibility" and "blame." When I use the word "blame," it's only because it's shorter. Sloppy on my end.
We could do something like this. Use the actual number of voters of each type in a state and call the proportions of each type an expected proportion. Then we could calculate following methods existing in the literature a probability that (1) switching one persons vote from Trump to Hillary; or (2) switching one persons vote from abstain to Hillary, changes the election outcome from Trump to Hillary. This leads to a responsibility score that is 0 for a Hillary voter because changing a vote from Hillary to something else never effects the outcome in events 1 or 2 above. It should lead to a responsibility score that is some amount greater for Trump voters than abstainers or third party voters. But abstainers and third party voters will have the same score as far as I can see.
Yes, no matter how you parse that math, individual abstainers and individual third-party voters will end up with the exact same result, and individual Trump-voters will end up with a, say, "responsibility score" exactly twice that of the others, at least within the same state. Obviously, under your parameters (which I agree with), scores will vary from state to state based on things like the number of electoral votes assigned to the state, the actual vote margin in the state, and how far the actual margin deviates from the expected margin.
Why does @Aloha Hoosier hate John Nash so much?
A good stopping place!!! Thanks!Yes, no matter how you parse that math, individual abstainers and individual third-party voters will end up with the exact same result, and individual Trump-voters will end up with a, say, "responsibility score" exactly twice that of the others, at least within the same state. Obviously, under your parameters (which I agree with), scores will vary from state to state based on things like the number of electoral votes assigned to the state, the actual vote margin in the state, and how far the actual margin deviates from the expected margin.
That's going to be a lot of math, though, and I'm gearing up for a day of basketball in about 17 minutes, so have fun.
The recent discussion in several of the last posts is an overview of why polling firms go to great pains, sometimes unsuccessfully, to identify likely voters and even certain voters and fashion their samples to reflect the actual electorate. They missed this time on their samples and thus got the wrong outcome state by state in the swing states.
For one thing, a lot of those third party voters would have voted for Trump if they absolutely had to choose between them. Those voters helped HRC by voting third party instead. Another thing is that this entire "blame" thing for any election all depends on perspective of who's doing the blaming. I shouldn't have responded again. I'm out. Had a good run and I'm watching Duke at UofL now.
Google "Nash Equilibrium" when you get a chance. Brilliant stuff.
A similar game actually explains that, as well. If you assume that both sides actually prefer the third party candidate (say, by assigning him a +2 in the matrix), then it becomes advantageous for both sides to vote third party, but only in the first election, and then so long as the third party continues to win. As soon as you have one election in which one of the major candidates wins, it becomes advantageous for the supporters of the loser to switch their strategy in an attempt to avoid a similar outcome in the next election, thus trapping us within the two-party system.
So, by your logic if I hear a nazi say, "I like bratwurst" and I happen to agreee, that makes ME a nazi?
No, it's more like if you hear Nazi's say that Jews shouldn't eat bratwurst and you agree, then you're a turd.
