4 ms·

> We also know that the winning margin of the 2016 election was only 79,316 votes[1]. The smaller the number, the less clearly one can point at a single cause

by aylmao 7y ago

> We also know that the winning margin of the 2016 election was only 79,316 votes[1]. The smaller the number, the less clearly one can point at a single cause though, right? I mean, to an extreme, say it had been a 1 vote difference. There's millions of factors that can make a vote happen or not (that one voter could've slept in because their alarm broke, that one voter could've gotten sick that day, etc). One vote is an extreme case, but for 80k I can think of a lot of factors that would normally be "small" but suddenly play a sizable amount of importance. - That's 80k Democrats who didn't go to vote. - That's well within the territory of gerrymandering. - That's a tiny fraction of the African American population, where Hillary was notoriously weak. - That's well within the viewership of many Fox News shows and segments. - As the article stated, you could fit these people in a mid-sized football stadium. That's within the territory of having a weak last month of campaign touring, or aggressively getting more rallies done. Just to mention a few. And yes, also means it COULD have been CA— perhaps they weren't as influential as they claimed but 80k is not a large number, they perhaps could've influenced that many people. I'm just wondering if there's a lot of attention being put on this factor, vs other factors that at this scale could've feasibly swayed in the election.

rjvir 7y ago
Many factors can influence an outcome. But it's reasonable to focus on the illegal (or just shady) ones. For instance, if a team loses a sporting event by 1 point, and their Gatorade was poisoned, it would be understandable to call out the Gatorade poisoning. Of course, many other things could have swung the outcome as well (random variance, wind, poor effort, etc).
- aylmao 7y ago
  > Many factors can influence an outcome. But it's reasonable to focus on the illegal (or just shady) ones. I disagree, let me illustrate with examples. The electoral college is a very legal and established process, but it has costed the US two out of the three latest presidential elections (not counting reelections), where the popular vote hasn't matched the result. As a foreigner it's crazy to think the fate of the country is essentially dependent on some random states. This also applies to other problems. Climate change— there's scandals like the Volkswagen emissions fiasco, but legal pollution far outweighs any other type of pollution. Drugs— cocaine and heroin are probably a big problem, but cigarettes and opioids cause more net deaths. Etc, etc. Sketchy issues will make flashier headlines, anger people more, and in general be more straightforward to digest as a problem. It is often the institutionalized factors that have broader impact although unfortunately they will also escape the public eye, precisely because everyone is just "used" to them. Back to this— if the electoral college didn't exist, the US wouldn't even be having this conversation! Trump did lose the popular vote! All of his tactics, misinformation, fear-mongering, etc. did not work in convincing most people in the US that he was a good option for president. He failed. Yet, it's crazy that that doesn't matter, and he could get the presidency even if he lost. Isn't it crazy that that hasn't yet been brought up? That we are here, trying to figure out if this micro-targeting could be to blame for influencing 80k people in 3 random states because these crazy rules say these people's vote matters disproportionally more than the majority vote in the country, instead of talking about the fact these are even the rules in the first place?
  - jdminhbg 7y ago
    > Isn't it crazy that that hasn't yet been brought up? I can guarantee you, as an American, that the topic of the electoral college has in fact been brought up. Many, many, many times. Here is a massive thread on HN within the past week on the subject: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20760649 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20760649
    - aylmao 7y ago
      Good to hear (:
  - caseysoftware 7y ago
    How many/which countries use direct democracy/popular vote at the national level? vs How many/which countries use a proxy votes/delegates at the national level that don't necessarily reflect the popular vote?
javagram 7y ago
“That's 80k Democrats who didn't go to vote. - That's well within the territory of gerrymandering” FYI gerrymandering doesn’t directly affect presidential or senatorial races except for two minor exceptions, Maine and Nebraska, which allocate electoral votes based on CD winners. Every other state including the decisive Midwest “blue wall” states has a winner take all allocation method which means Gerrymandering has no effect (unless you consider 19th century state borders to be gerrymandering!)
- selectodude 7y ago
  Gerrymandering is far more useful as a form of voter disenfranchisement. Voting districts can be messed with in subtle ways like having far more voting booths per capita in whiter areas, they can make people not show up to vote for president since their vote is legitimately not worth anything for everything downballot, etc. The best gerrymandering nowadays is to make people not bother to vote anymore.

by aylmao 7y ago

rjvir 7y ago

Many factors can influence an outcome. But it's reasonable to focus on the illegal (or just shady) ones. For instance, if a team loses a sporting event by 1 point, and their Gatorade was poisoned, it would be understandable to call out the Gatorade poisoning. Of course, many other things could have swung the outcome as well (random variance, wind, poor effort, etc).

aylmao 7y ago
> Many factors can influence an outcome. But it's reasonable to focus on the illegal (or just shady) ones. I disagree, let me illustrate with examples. The electoral college is a very legal and established process, but it has costed the US two out of the three latest presidential elections (not counting reelections), where the popular vote hasn't matched the result. As a foreigner it's crazy to think the fate of the country is essentially dependent on some random states. This also applies to other problems. Climate change— there's scandals like the Volkswagen emissions fiasco, but legal pollution far outweighs any other type of pollution. Drugs— cocaine and heroin are probably a big problem, but cigarettes and opioids cause more net deaths. Etc, etc. Sketchy issues will make flashier headlines, anger people more, and in general be more straightforward to digest as a problem. It is often the institutionalized factors that have broader impact although unfortunately they will also escape the public eye, precisely because everyone is just "used" to them. Back to this— if the electoral college didn't exist, the US wouldn't even be having this conversation! Trump did lose the popular vote! All of his tactics, misinformation, fear-mongering, etc. did not work in convincing most people in the US that he was a good option for president. He failed. Yet, it's crazy that that doesn't matter, and he could get the presidency even if he lost. Isn't it crazy that that hasn't yet been brought up? That we are here, trying to figure out if this micro-targeting could be to blame for influencing 80k people in 3 random states because these crazy rules say these people's vote matters disproportionally more than the majority vote in the country, instead of talking about the fact these are even the rules in the first place?
- jdminhbg 7y ago
  > Isn't it crazy that that hasn't yet been brought up? I can guarantee you, as an American, that the topic of the electoral college has in fact been brought up. Many, many, many times. Here is a massive thread on HN within the past week on the subject: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20760649 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20760649
  - aylmao 7y ago
    Good to hear (:
- caseysoftware 7y ago
  How many/which countries use direct democracy/popular vote at the national level? vs How many/which countries use a proxy votes/delegates at the national level that don't necessarily reflect the popular vote?

javagram 7y ago

“That's 80k Democrats who didn't go to vote. - That's well within the territory of gerrymandering” FYI gerrymandering doesn’t directly affect presidential or senatorial races except for two minor exceptions, Maine and Nebraska, which allocate electoral votes based on CD winners. Every other state including the decisive Midwest “blue wall” states has a winner take all allocation method which means Gerrymandering has no effect (unless you consider 19th century state borders to be gerrymandering!)

selectodude 7y ago
Gerrymandering is far more useful as a form of voter disenfranchisement. Voting districts can be messed with in subtle ways like having far more voting booths per capita in whiter areas, they can make people not show up to vote for president since their vote is legitimately not worth anything for everything downballot, etc. The best gerrymandering nowadays is to make people not bother to vote anymore.