5 ms·

This is extremely predictable though, because a sizable segment of Facebook users did not trust the outcome of the 2016 election. Why would it be any different

This is extremely predictable though, because a sizable segment of Facebook users did not trust the outcome of the 2016 election. Why would it be any different in 2020?

tomrod 6y ago
People trust the outcome generally, whether they like it or hate it. The folks aren't trusting the inputs. 2020 is not 2016. Polling is suggesting a large shift. That may cause distrust in the outcome itself if the outcome doesn't align to polling due to voter suppression efforts and other possible issues.
- tehjoker 6y ago
  Just saying, only ~1/3 of the population votes. These elections are already illegitimate if you believe that they're supposed to express some kind of will of the majority. Additionally, the only areas of real contestation are suburban areas filled with reactionaries and relatively wealthy people. Dems have a lock on cities, Rs have a lock on rural areas. EDIT: Those of you downvoting, I think it's amusing that you think that clicking a button on a website will make this idea disappear, because I'm just stating reality. Try thinking about why America is so messed up if you're scared by de-legitimizing the elections system.
  - tomrod 6y ago
    All of these presume low shifts in the Overton window, which may or may not currently hold true. Further, 1/3 of the population voting may be "rational" (folks figure their individual votes don't sway things or are uninformed and don't care to take the time), may be due to suppression (gerrymandering, ID hurdles for non-evident potential problems), or other factors.
    - tehjoker 6y ago
      You're right that anything can happen in this election, but reduced participation is a long term trend. If people think their votes don't matter in an alleged democratic system, that's a huge problem for its legitimacy. If they're uninformed, it's because they probably think that their vote doesn't matter or there's no good information for them. Both are troubling.
  - Izkata 6y ago
    > Just saying, only ~1/3 of the population votes. It's a little over 1/2 for presidential elections (over 2/3 in some states). Midterm elections are what's around 1/3. http://www.electproject.org/home/voter-turnout/voter-turnout-data http://www.electproject.org/home/voter-turnout/voter-turnout...
    - tehjoker 6y ago
      Thanks! EDIT: I would point out that this means that every four years, about 25% of the population picks the president. Ideally, we would be somewhere north of 40%. This bare majority participation occurs admist one of the biggest extended and hyped media events in the world. Other countries routinely get above 60-70% participation with far less nonsense.
      - erichocean 6y ago
        I live in California. My preferred candidates win the vote almost 100% of the time no matter if I vote or not. That's true in many, many states. Not voting is pretty rational for most people. (I still vote anyway, mostly out of habit, even though I know it makes no earthly difference whatever to the outcome.)
  - lallysingh 6y ago
    Why does low voter participation de-legitimize the election? Separately, if you're in a city, and are a D, why vote? Similarly in rural for an R?
    - ciarannolan 6y ago
      > [...] if you're in a city, and are a D, why vote? Good point. No reason voting in CA, NY, or other states since your vote is basically meaningless. > Similarly in rural for an R? Same as above. Maybe the electoral college isn't really that democratic if millions more people end up voting for the "loser" of an election.
      - erichocean 6y ago
        > Maybe the electoral college isn't really that democratic Presumably you know this, but it's not supposed to be democratic. That's literally why it exists, to curb majority rule by cities at the expense of rural voters, who occupy the majority of the land and—more importantly—are cannon-fodder for our military and thus need a seat at the table if we city-goers hope to continue sending them off to die.
        ciarannolan 6y ago
        > Presumably you know this, but it's not supposed to be democratic. Yes, that's why it's bad. I don't think occupying a lot of land or joining the army at a higher rate entitles rural voters to more power than anyone else. If we're going down the route of determining whose vote should count for more, those two qualities seem to be near the bottom of the list.
        erichocean 6y ago
        And yet, we wouldn't have formed a nation at all without that compromise. Still, it's hard to know if the founders made the right decision. We could just go back on our agreement. After all, people in flyover country are just a minority with little economic power and very little representation. I doubt anyone that matters would care if they have what little power they do have reduced.
- jfengel 6y ago
  Is the polling really all that different from this point in 2016? As I recall, in 2016, the eventual winner was way down in the polls right up until election day.
  - creato 6y ago
    By the time of the election, the polls had narrowed considerably. There were a lot of clowns with predictions of 99% chances and whatnot, but people that actually understood statistics and polls had the race a lot closer to a coin flip at the time of the election (IIRC 60-40 odds).
    - Tempest1981 6y ago
      FiveThirtyEight had Trump at 29%. Most others had him at 1-15%. Betting markets had him at 18%. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-fivethirtyeight-gave-trump-a-better-chance-than-almost-anyone-else/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-fivethirtyeight-gav...
    - erichocean 6y ago
      > There were a lot of clowns with predictions of 99% chances and whatnot Is that what we're calling the New York Times these days? How the might have fallen…
loopz 6y ago
If people suspect fraud and did nothing about it, they don't deserve to live in a free democratic society, and won't.
shostack 6y ago
But wouldn't these people still exist and not trust the outcome regardless? I wonder what the media consumption of these individuals looks like beyond Facebook.

This is extremely predictable though, because a sizable segment of Facebook users did not trust the outcome of the 2016 election. Why would it be any different in 2020?

tomrod 6y ago

People trust the outcome generally, whether they like it or hate it. The folks aren't trusting the inputs. 2020 is not 2016. Polling is suggesting a large shift. That may cause distrust in the outcome itself if the outcome doesn't align to polling due to voter suppression efforts and other possible issues.

tehjoker 6y ago
Just saying, only ~1/3 of the population votes. These elections are already illegitimate if you believe that they're supposed to express some kind of will of the majority. Additionally, the only areas of real contestation are suburban areas filled with reactionaries and relatively wealthy people. Dems have a lock on cities, Rs have a lock on rural areas. EDIT: Those of you downvoting, I think it's amusing that you think that clicking a button on a website will make this idea disappear, because I'm just stating reality. Try thinking about why America is so messed up if you're scared by de-legitimizing the elections system.
- tomrod 6y ago
  All of these presume low shifts in the Overton window, which may or may not currently hold true. Further, 1/3 of the population voting may be "rational" (folks figure their individual votes don't sway things or are uninformed and don't care to take the time), may be due to suppression (gerrymandering, ID hurdles for non-evident potential problems), or other factors.
  - tehjoker 6y ago
    You're right that anything can happen in this election, but reduced participation is a long term trend. If people think their votes don't matter in an alleged democratic system, that's a huge problem for its legitimacy. If they're uninformed, it's because they probably think that their vote doesn't matter or there's no good information for them. Both are troubling.
- Izkata 6y ago
  > Just saying, only ~1/3 of the population votes. It's a little over 1/2 for presidential elections (over 2/3 in some states). Midterm elections are what's around 1/3. http://www.electproject.org/home/voter-turnout/voter-turnout-data http://www.electproject.org/home/voter-turnout/voter-turnout...
  - tehjoker 6y ago
    Thanks! EDIT: I would point out that this means that every four years, about 25% of the population picks the president. Ideally, we would be somewhere north of 40%. This bare majority participation occurs admist one of the biggest extended and hyped media events in the world. Other countries routinely get above 60-70% participation with far less nonsense.
    - erichocean 6y ago
      I live in California. My preferred candidates win the vote almost 100% of the time no matter if I vote or not. That's true in many, many states. Not voting is pretty rational for most people. (I still vote anyway, mostly out of habit, even though I know it makes no earthly difference whatever to the outcome.)
- lallysingh 6y ago
  Why does low voter participation de-legitimize the election? Separately, if you're in a city, and are a D, why vote? Similarly in rural for an R?
  - ciarannolan 6y ago
    > [...] if you're in a city, and are a D, why vote? Good point. No reason voting in CA, NY, or other states since your vote is basically meaningless. > Similarly in rural for an R? Same as above. Maybe the electoral college isn't really that democratic if millions more people end up voting for the "loser" of an election.
    - erichocean 6y ago
      > Maybe the electoral college isn't really that democratic Presumably you know this, but it's not supposed to be democratic. That's literally why it exists, to curb majority rule by cities at the expense of rural voters, who occupy the majority of the land and—more importantly—are cannon-fodder for our military and thus need a seat at the table if we city-goers hope to continue sending them off to die.
      - ciarannolan 6y ago
        > Presumably you know this, but it's not supposed to be democratic. Yes, that's why it's bad. I don't think occupying a lot of land or joining the army at a higher rate entitles rural voters to more power than anyone else. If we're going down the route of determining whose vote should count for more, those two qualities seem to be near the bottom of the list.
        erichocean 6y ago
        And yet, we wouldn't have formed a nation at all without that compromise. Still, it's hard to know if the founders made the right decision. We could just go back on our agreement. After all, people in flyover country are just a minority with little economic power and very little representation. I doubt anyone that matters would care if they have what little power they do have reduced.
jfengel 6y ago
Is the polling really all that different from this point in 2016? As I recall, in 2016, the eventual winner was way down in the polls right up until election day.
- creato 6y ago
  By the time of the election, the polls had narrowed considerably. There were a lot of clowns with predictions of 99% chances and whatnot, but people that actually understood statistics and polls had the race a lot closer to a coin flip at the time of the election (IIRC 60-40 odds).
  - Tempest1981 6y ago
    FiveThirtyEight had Trump at 29%. Most others had him at 1-15%. Betting markets had him at 18%. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-fivethirtyeight-gave-trump-a-better-chance-than-almost-anyone-else/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-fivethirtyeight-gav...
  - erichocean 6y ago
    > There were a lot of clowns with predictions of 99% chances and whatnot Is that what we're calling the New York Times these days? How the might have fallen…

loopz 6y ago

If people suspect fraud and did nothing about it, they don't deserve to live in a free democratic society, and won't.

shostack 6y ago

But wouldn't these people still exist and not trust the outcome regardless? I wonder what the media consumption of these individuals looks like beyond Facebook.