181 points

Abolish the Electoral Collage.

permalink
report
reply
89 points

That ain’t gonna happen.

That said, we can make it irrelevant with The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. It’s 77% the way there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

I love the concept of it, but the thing about the NPVIC is that it’s 0% of the way there until it’s 100% of the way there. So while 77% seems like we’re close, and there is legislation pending that could get us to 95%, the only reason it seems to be going forward steadily is that it does nothing unless you go all the way.

The moment there is the prospect of legislation in a state that would get that last 5%, not only will that legislation be fought tooth and nail, but every state that has already entered the compact will have to fight like hell to keep it in place, not once but constantly forever. Because if you’re just over the threshold then almost any state backing out of the compact will nullify the whole thing again.

It seems too fragile to be a workable solution. But I guess I don’t see anything wrong with trying!

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
*

Many states will be incentivized to keep the compact passes because it means the election stops focusing on a handful of swing states.

Every presidential campaign will have to adopt a 50 state strategy, meaning a lot of states will receive political attention they never get because they aren’t swing states.

The legislation has to all-or-nothing precisely because of the effect on political attention. If a state awarded its delegates by national popular vote before the magic 270 was reached then politicians can win that state by maximizing their votes in other states so they would be incentivised to put more focus on the states that aren’t signed up if they expect to win the popular vote, reducing the political attention paid to signatories.

When the 270 mark is passed, it has the effect of making every vote equal everywhere.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Very interesting, I had never heard of this.

permalink
report
parent
reply
57 points

Or Electoral College even.

I would like to see what an Electoral Collage looks like.

permalink
report
parent
reply
22 points

You don’t have one in your Democracy Scrapbook?

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

Mom went authoritarian on me when I cut up her Electoral magazines.

permalink
report
parent
reply

It’s what Trump tried to make with his fake idea.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

I thought that’s what the Republicans were trying to make with all those weird gerrymandered districts.

permalink
report
parent
reply
18 points

This is what we should’ve spent every waking moment doing since 2016. Why do we distract so easily…

permalink
report
parent
reply
18 points
  • 2000
permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Singular prints only

permalink
report
parent
reply
179 points

Just a reminder to not be complacent.

permalink
report
reply
110 points

Here’s hoping Trump pulls a Biden tomorrow.

permalink
report
reply
134 points

Or a James Earl Jones. I’m not picky.

permalink
report
parent
reply
77 points

Oh god, this is how I find out!!!

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

You really maxed out the comedic value of the shenanigan though, so there’s that!

permalink
report
parent
reply
36 points

Too soon.

permalink
report
parent
reply
22 points

For once, it might actually be too soon.

permalink
report
parent
reply
18 points

Too Soon! (I just read about JEJ)

permalink
report
parent
reply
18 points

Sad about JEJ. But maybe a rule of 3s that takes out Trump wouldn’t be the worst outcome.

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

I’m almost certain JEJ would be happy to take the bastard out with him

permalink
report
parent
reply
53 points
*

The problem was that Biden was actually trying to say something complicated and he got tripped up. Trump has always spoken at a kindergarten level because he knows he has nothing to say.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Sure. He did get tripped up though, and he end Ed up looking like an idiot. That said, it was for the best. Harris is an infinitely better candidate.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

The question was if Trump was going to do the same.

permalink
report
parent
reply
68 points

Who is this guy and how serious should we take this information? This is by far the highest number I’ve seen for Trump so far.

permalink
report
reply
83 points

He’s quite a well known pollster. Up until recently he was responsible for Five Thirty Eight, but it got sold and he left.

He got the 2016 election wrong (71 Hilary, 28 trump) He got the 2020 election right (89 Biden, 10 Trump)

Right and wrong are the incorrect terms here, but you get what I mean.

permalink
report
parent
reply
67 points

He didn’t get it wrong. He said the Clinton Trump election was a tight horse race, and Trump had one side of a four sided die.

The state by state data wasn’t far off.

Problem is, people don’t understand statistics.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-14 points
*

If someone said Trump had over a 50% probability of winning in 2016, would that be wrong?

permalink
report
parent
reply
56 points

He works for Peter Theil now, so I take everything he says with a huge grain of salt.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-14 points

Because of Polymarket? Not everything is a conspiracy.

permalink
report
parent
reply
20 points

Because Peter Thiel is a right-wing billionaire piece of shit whose little bitch boy is J. D. Vance.

permalink
report
parent
reply
34 points

Polling guru Nate Silver and his election prediction model gave Donald Trump a 63.8% chance of winning the electoral college in an update to his latest election forecast on Sunday, after a NYT-Siena College poll found Donald Trump leading Vice President Kamala Harris by 1 percentage point.

He’s just a guy analizing the polls. The source is Fox News. He mentions in the article that tomorrow’s debate could make that poll not matter.

Should you trust Nate or polls? They’re fun but… Who is answering these polls? Who wants to answer them before even October?

So yeah take it seriously that a poll found that a lot of support for Trump exists. But it’s just a moment of time for whoever they polled. Tomorrow’s response will be a much better indication of any momentum.

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

analizing

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

I have shamed my family

permalink
report
parent
reply

Whi, is it not completeli spelled correctli?

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

It just seems strange because I don’t think that many people are on the fence. Perhaps I’m crazy, but I feel most people know exactly who they’re voting for already. Makes me wonder how valid this cross-section was that was used as the sample set. If it accurately represents the US, including undecided voters, then… 😮

permalink
report
parent
reply
17 points

but I feel most people know exactly who they’re voting for already

The cross-section of people you know are more politically off the fence than the entire nation. Those that aren’t online at all are also more undecided and less likely to interact with you.

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

I listen to those news things that interview people on the street and I’m amazed at how many are uninformed and can go either way.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

The issue isn’t really people on the fence for Trump or Harris but mainly with generating turnout. After Biden’s poor debate performance, people didn’t change their mind and decide to vote for Trump, they became apathetic and maybe wouldn’t show up to vote.

Harris doesn’t need to persuade people to abandon Trump, she needs to get people excited to show up to vote.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

He’s not polling, he is aggregating all of the polls into a prediction model. Either way it is just a snapshot in time.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

The key to doing statistics well is to make sure you aren’t changing the results with any bias. This means enough samples, a good selection of samples, and weighing the outcome correctly. Even honest polling in pre-election is hard to get right, and because of that it’s easy to make things lean towards results if you want to get certain results, or or getting paid to get those results.

There’s only one poll that matters, and that poll should include as large of a sample as possible, and be counted correctly. Even though some will try to prevent that from happening.

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

It’s a chance of winning, not a poll, so 64% is high but not insane. Silver is serious and it’s a decent model. Knowing the model there’s a pretty good chance this is a high point for Trump but it’s not like he’s pulling this out of nowhere, he has had similar models every election cycle since like 2008.

If it’s overstaying Trump it’s because his model is interpreting the data incorrectly because of the weirdness of this election cycle. I personally think that is likely the case here.

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points
*

This quote sums it up:

𝘾𝙝𝙖𝙨𝙚

@chsrdn

In the future we won’t elect presidents. We’ll have a primary, then Nate Silver will go into a spice trance and pick the winner.

3:41 AM · 7 nov 2012

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

That used to be true, but in recent years he has gotten a lot more conservative, so I personally take his predictions with a huge grain of salt.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
*

Yes, I kinda agree. Let’s see his model’s brier score in November :)

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points
*

This isn’t a poll. That’s why the number is so high. His model is also automatically depressing Harris’ numbers because of the convention right now. (It did the same thing to Trump after his convention)

Nate has been upfront in his newsletters about the factor dropping off the model after today, but then it’s also the debate. Things are likely to be far more clear going into the weekend because we’ll have post debate polling being published and no more convention adjustments.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

You shouldn’t take it seriously. The 24-hour news cycle depends on data like this. It just doesn’t tell us anything.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Their models have been really accurate for the last several election cycles. They’re part of fivethirtyeight.com

permalink
report
parent
reply
84 points

No, Nate is not part of 538 anymore. He now works for a crypto betting website partly owned by Peter Thiel.

I’ll let you decide how neutral that makes him.

permalink
report
parent
reply
35 points

Peter Thiel, the same guy who sold Republicans on JD the couch fucker Vance

permalink
report
parent
reply
33 points

He’s a degen gambler who admits in his book he was gambling up to $10k a day while running 538… It never made him go “huh maybe I fucked my employees because I’m a degen gambler.”

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Boo, what does this mean for 538?

permalink
report
parent
reply
19 points

Nate is not with 538 anymore. Disney didn’t renew his contract. However, he got to keep the model that he developed and publishes it for his newsletter subscribers. 538 had to rebuild their model from scratch this year with G Elliot Morris.

Now Nate hosts the podcast Risky Business with Maria Konnikova. The psychologist who became a professional poker player while researching a book. It’s pretty good.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Who is this guy and how serious should we take this information?

Well, he did predict Clinton would win in 2016 so there’s that.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-5 points

He’s renowned for being wrong for several previous elections

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points
*

All prediction models only give you odds, not flawless accuracy. He has been closer in every election than most everyone else in the prediction market.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-20 points

Who is Nate Silver? Really?

permalink
report
parent
reply
53 points

Hey man there is a mountain of people who don’t know things and are scared to ask. learning is always a good thing

permalink
report
parent
reply
18 points
permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points
*

Social media isn’t a search engine. If an article is referring to someone by name in the title, they almost certainly have a Wikipedia page the questioner could read rather than requesting random strangers on a message board provide answers for them (in the form of multiple answers of varying bias and accuracy).

Wanting to learn isn’t the problem, it’s not spending the tiniest bit of personal effort before requesting service from other people.

permalink
report
parent
reply
60 points
*

Ignore headlines

JUST VOTE

permalink
report
reply

News

!news@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

Community stats

  • 14K

    Monthly active users

  • 20K

    Posts

  • 525K

    Comments