55% of 55% is only 30.25%

"PotbellyJoe and 42 others" (potbellyjoe) 10/12/2016 at 15:05 • Filed to: None

6

37

Your Ridiculously Beautiful Chevy Citation X11 Wallpaper of the Day.

Political Rant Ahead: A Chevy Citation for your time.

I work in statistics and every election year I am ashamed of my country’s willful ignorance towards math.

I can see no greater indictment of our political system than the two steaming piles we are told we have to choose between and yet if voter turnout and popular vote mirror previous election cycles, 30% of eligible voters will choose our next egomaniac in chief. Consider the extremely low (historically the lowest) approval ratings of both candidates and you wonder when the majority will finally say, “To Hell with this two-party system that implies there is only yes or no, black or white to every issue!”

I’m not saying don’t vote for one of this froth-mouthed maniacs to be your next president, I’m saying don’t feel like you have to.

Our democracy is, at its base, to conform to the will of the people. Instead what we have is it forming to the will of the people who pay into it because of a worthless, lying old wive’s tale that voting for anyone other than the two is tantamount electing the other candidate. When instead it could be electing the appropriate candidate.

Want a true moderate? Don’t vote for the excrement put on a plate from a primary of right-wing or left-wing voters. Vote for a moderate.

TL;DR, vote your heart, not with fear. Our process is broken and playing the game of the people who broke it will not fix it.

Sorry, the garbage that “I’m voting for this pile of hot garbage because the other is scary” is the worst way to choose a candidate. You wouldn’t buy a car because it was the best of the two worst, you would keep looking for a car that was better for you.

RallyWrench > PotbellyJoe and 42 others 10/12/2016 at 15:09

2

So you’re saying, 30.25% of the time it works all the time? Alright alright alright.

Also, I would buy a car because it was the least worst of two, because I have horrible tastes in cars and no money for good ones. But voting? I think I’ll write someone in. Anything but two-party votes don’t matter here anyway, since it’s winner take all.

Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo > PotbellyJoe and 42 others 10/12/2016 at 15:11

0

Yes, well, it’s seven times less than last time.

Jcarr > PotbellyJoe and 42 others 10/12/2016 at 15:11

0

I’m very interested to see what the turnout numbers are this year. I wouldn’t be surprised if they were down across the board, but up significantly for third-party candidates.

for Michigan > PotbellyJoe and 42 others 10/12/2016 at 15:13

2

“But everyone knows that a third party vote is just a vote for the other party and will cause my party’s candidate to lose.” - Democrats and Republicans

I’d rather “throw away my vote” than be coerced into voting for someone I despise because I despise them less than the alternative.

CB > PotbellyJoe and 42 others 10/12/2016 at 15:14

0

When we had our election last year, voter turnout was somewhere around 70%, with our city being 78%. Maybe you’ll get similar high turnouts, albeit not for the main parties?

extraspecialbitter > Jcarr 10/12/2016 at 15:16

1

That’s what I thought was going to happen with Ross Perot...

(Note: I was a child at the time, and Ross Perot made me laugh because he looked and sounded funny.)

PotbellyJoe and 42 others > RallyWrench 10/12/2016 at 15:17

0

I think Mickey Mouse will have an all-time high for votes.

Andy Sheehan, StreetsideStig > PotbellyJoe and 42 others 10/12/2016 at 15:20

0

Every

clapping

gif.

I agree 100% and have been railing against voting afraid for well over a year. “Don’t throw away your vote,” they tell me. I tell them the same thing.

yamahog > PotbellyJoe and 42 others 10/12/2016 at 15:21

0

I appreciate your attempts to keep this non partisan, but I would hardly call Hillary Clinton the choice of “left-wing voters” in the primary. She’s certainly closer to moderate than Bernie was.

*Gently touches Birdie sticker, “See You Again” plays in the background*

PotbellyJoe and 42 others > extraspecialbitter 10/12/2016 at 15:24

2

During the NAFTA rigamarole and the discussions that surrounded it, Ross held up a newspaper that he complained was rife with propaganda for NAFTA and was wholly unfounded drivel.

The author of that op-ed was my International Business professor at Rutgers. He had a picture of that moment framed on his wall.

DipodomysDeserti > PotbellyJoe and 42 others 10/12/2016 at 15:26

2

I don’t work in statistics, but every presidential election I’m ashamed at the voting public’s lack of understanding in regards to how the electoral college works. The electoral college chooses our president, not the voting public. Nebraska and Maine are the only two states that award electors proportionally. So, unless a third party candidate has a chance of winning a majority in your state (which they don’t), then you really are throwing your vote away (unless you live in Nebraska or Maine).

The US doesn’t have a viable left-wing party. American Democrats would be considered conservatives in the rest of the 1st world. That’s why the only left wing candidate in the Democratic primary was an Independent.

bhtooefr > RallyWrench 10/12/2016 at 15:29

1

If a third party gets at least 5% of the presidential popular vote, they’ll get federal election funding for 2020.

If they get over 15% in selected polls, they’re required to be allowed into the debates.

PotbellyJoe and 42 others > yamahog 10/12/2016 at 15:30

0

K.

She’s equally disingenuous, IMO. When push comes to shove I don’t think Trump or Clinton would operate in anyone’s best interest but their own.

I’m full partisan in that I am fully partisan against both parties. If that could be construed as non-partisan, then it illustrates my point of the brokenness of our system.

I’m not a Bernie fan either, but I enjoyed him making Clinton have to resort to sliminess to get her party’s nomination. Considering how she’s practically been this somehow maligned, yet anointed, successor since 2000.

Textured Soy Protein > PotbellyJoe and 42 others 10/12/2016 at 15:31

0

I’m voting for the candidate whose positions on issues more closely line up with my own, even though this candidate has their fair share baggage. I may not be super enthusiastic about this candidate, but I would be mostly fine with them as president. I also happen to think the other one is scary.

Who am I voting for?

PotbellyJoe and 42 others > DipodomysDeserti 10/12/2016 at 15:34

0

Except that if voter turnout hovers around 50% there would be sufficient untapped voters, or complacent voters toeing a party line to win the votes of the electoral college.

So technically it’s the same argument.

Though popular vote may not dictate the victor, the electoral college does follow the 51 popular votes.

PotbellyJoe and 42 others > Textured Soy Protein 10/12/2016 at 15:37

1

DipodomysDeserti > PotbellyJoe and 42 others 10/12/2016 at 15:37

0

Though popular vote may not dictate the victor, the electoral college does follow the 51 popular votes.

What?

PotbellyJoe and 42 others > DipodomysDeserti 10/12/2016 at 15:39

0

There are 51 popular votes that the electoral college should, in theory, follow. Not a national popular vote.

extraspecialbitter > PotbellyJoe and 42 others 10/12/2016 at 15:39

0

that’s awesome

OPPOsaurus WRX > PotbellyJoe and 42 others 10/12/2016 at 15:51

0

don;t our votes not really even count due to the electoral college

PotbellyJoe and 42 others > OPPOsaurus WRX 10/12/2016 at 15:58

0

The popular vote doesn’t, but your vote does count towards your state’s election of the candidates.

RutRut > yamahog 10/12/2016 at 16:05

0

As a right winger, she definitely wasn’t my choice. I blame you left wingers for Hillary, you can blame us right-wingers for Trump. Would have been much happier with Bernie vs. Kasich, as much as I fundamentally disagree with Bernie’s views and agenda I at least thought he was respectable and would have been a decent president, even if not in my interests.

DipodomysDeserti > PotbellyJoe and 42 others 10/12/2016 at 16:05

0

There are 51 popular votes that the electoral college should, in theory, follow. Not a national popular vote.

Either I’m really not understanding what you’re trying to say, or you have absolutely no idea how the electoral college works.

There are no 51 popular votes of any kind. There are 538 electors in the electoral college. States receive the same number of electors as the number of congressional reps and senators they have. All the states except Nebraska and Maine are winner take all. Whoever wins 270 electoral votes becomes the president. While Puerto Ricans are American citizens, they aren’t allowed to vote for the presidency.

PotbellyJoe and 42 others > DipodomysDeserti 10/12/2016 at 16:09

0

Should I use Wikipedia to better illustrate? Is that a better way to convey my point that it is a series of 51 elections?

“Except for Maine and Nebraska, all states have chosen electors on a “winner-take-all” basis since the 1880s.That is, each state has all of its electors pledged to the presidential candidate who wins the most votes in that state.”

Better?

Aaron M - MasoFiST > PotbellyJoe and 42 others 10/12/2016 at 16:24

0

All right, I’ll bite.

What’s your amazing plan to increase voter turnout? Since you work in statistics, do you happen to know the standard deviation of voter turnout in presidential elections in the United States?

Berang > PotbellyJoe and 42 others 10/12/2016 at 16:33

1

I think my favorite stupidity is people blaming the 2.7% of votes that went to Nader for giving George the presidency. But they don’t even think about the 49-50% of people who didn’t even vote. Coupled with the trend of republicans winning when voter turnout is low, it should be pretty obvious the problem wasn’t third party voters, but lazy asses who didn’t even go to the polls.

But put it that way and you can’t shovel any simple minded“throwing your vote away” propaganda to scare people out of voting who they want to vote for.

PotbellyJoe and 42 others > Aaron M - MasoFiST 10/12/2016 at 16:35

1

59% with a stdev of 11%.

I’m not policy, just stating facts from data. The fact is that if enough of the ~60% unsatisfied with their party’s candidate joined with a significant portion of the 45% non-voting public, the two parties would be in considerable trouble.

Aaron M - MasoFiST > PotbellyJoe and 42 others 10/12/2016 at 16:45

0

And what policy change would come about that would make that change happen? The current system is predicated on low voter turnout; hell, certain policies and choices are designed literally to discourage people from voting.

Then there’s the megaphone effect...there’s nowhere near that many people dissatisfied enough to vote more often than they do, let alone put in the work necessary to build a third party. On the internet, though, talk is cheap. People who don’t care don’t say anything.

This is the first thing I learned studying policy, and it was made even more clear when I became a policy analyst...the vast majority of people aren’t internet commenters. You can get people to pay attention, to some degree, when their taxes go up, or when they are now able to get health insurance...80% of the country doesn’t care what quantitative easing is, and some of the people who do care still don’t understand what it is. Facebook posts are easy, and indeed, Facebook has had one of the largest single-point impacts on voter turnout since the service came about. But by and large people don’t care.

Look at the data. The three highest turnout years recorded were 1960, 1964, and 1968. Why? Two words: Nuclear war. That’s the level people operate on. Anything less pressing than that, and you’re spitting in the ocean.

PotbellyJoe and 42 others > Aaron M - MasoFiST 10/12/2016 at 16:56

0

Sure, and as you’ll see in my rant I’m not saying people need to care, I’m saying the status of the two-party system is hinged on the myth that they are the only ones worthy of your vote. The math bears out that this is fundamentally untrue.

Past that, it’s marketing to get people to actually vote their will or to vote at all. Like you said, there needs to be some impetus behind the turnout or else people find ‘better things to do.’

Berang > DipodomysDeserti 10/12/2016 at 16:56

0

Oh gosh. Not this nonsense.

First you presume a third party voter expects their candidate to win. Second you suppose that if their candidate doesn’t win, their vote is thrown away. Which is rather a ridiculous way to look at it. In that way anybody who votes for a candidate that doesn’t win is “throwing their vote away”.

Many people vote third party as a protest vote, or a vote of no confidence in the big two candidates. In which case, it is not throwing a vote away, as the voter has used their vote how they see fit. If one views the elections as game, where winning is the only thing on the line, then I suppose they may consider this use of a vote as a throw away. But even then, if the major parties see that a third party is stealing their votes, they will try to get get those voters back, so a protest vote also has some utility. Look at how quickly the GOP responded to the threat of Tea Party voters (hell, look at how Trump has played them). I’m not saying it’s a good thing they lured them back - but it is a thing. Third party votes do have effects beyond who wins or loses the current election.

Aaron M - MasoFiST > PotbellyJoe and 42 others 10/12/2016 at 17:01

0

I mentioned going out and building a third party because at this point that’s essentially what you’d need to do. The Green Party holds positions too far left for 85% of the country, no one knows what the Reform party is (Perot’s party after the 92 election), the Libertarian party is economically untenable, and the Tea Party are all Republicans now. The RNC and DNC are private organizations, so if you want entree into the process, you need to build it yourself. And hey- Bernie Sanders came closer than pretty much anyone in a very long time, but at the same time laid bare the liabilities of trying to co-opt an organization that doesn’t want you there.

yamahog > PotbellyJoe and 42 others 10/12/2016 at 17:04

0

I’m just saying that politically she’d be considered almost right of center.

Berang > Aaron M - MasoFiST 10/12/2016 at 17:10

0

What’s that thing Australia does?

deekster_caddy > Aaron M - MasoFiST 10/12/2016 at 17:30

0

How is Libertarian economically untenable? Their goal is to reduce federal spending, but having a Libertarian president isn’t going to do that by itself. It’s still congress and the senate that needs to decide to spend less money.

It’s not like voting in a few Libertarians is going to instantly turn the country into the CHAOS PARTY like many people think. Real change takes time. It’s about changing the message. It’s about time more people got involved and truly understand how awful two points of view are when there are so many different subjects.

Aaron M - MasoFiST > deekster_caddy 10/12/2016 at 18:05

0

Johnson’s spending proposals would reduce GDP by 3-5%. What people tend to forget is that for all the pissing and moaning about government spending, it has a GDP multiplier of more than one, so outright cutting of programs would harm more than help. A more detailed waste reduction program could possibly be a good thing, but no one has produced one.

Beyond that, Johnson’s (and most libertarians’) grasp on macroeconomics borders on the terrifying. The sort of changes Johnson proposes for the Fed would destabilize our currency to the point of having international consequences.

It’s likely that many of these proposals wouldn’t come to pass, but pretty much nothing Gary Johnson says on the side of the economy makes a lick of sense. It’s just that by having logical stances on things people understand (like marijuana and marriage equality), he gets to sidestep the fact that his entire economic platform makes no sense and is actively harmful to the health of the economy. So while real change takes time...let’s not change into something worse than what we already have.

Aaron M - MasoFiST > Berang 10/12/2016 at 18:08

0

Compulsory elections. Problem is, you can’t have compulsory elections and voter suppression at the same time...too many people benefit from policies within the US designed to prevent people from voting.

deekster_caddy > Aaron M - MasoFiST 10/13/2016 at 13:14

0

I don’t disagree - but also remember that they would only be able to move so much in that direction, and they know it. I’ve listened to interviews with Johnson - he knows it. Nobody wants to be the bad guy to cut services, but somebody has to start cutting costly services in a reasonable fashion. The federal government wasn’t meant to be everybody’s financial support system.

I also prefer the Libertarians view on social issues. The government should not be making decisions for my well-being. The republicans have way too much religion influencing their motives.