5 ms·
Now that you bring that up, if we had a 100% accurate poll that would be really good for productivity wouldn't it? Perhaps it wouldn't give voters the same feel
by unwoundmouse 6y ago
Now that you bring that up, if we had a 100% accurate poll that would be really good for productivity wouldn't it? Perhaps it wouldn't give voters the same feeling of self-determination but it'd save a lot of resources in fundraising, going out to vote, counting votes
- bigbubba 6y agoThe sensation of self determination is the entire point of democracy though. We don't use democracy because we think masses of people are particularly wise; we use these systems because they feel more fair than the alternatives and that perception of fairness produces good results (peaceful power transitions.)
- jedberg 6y agoI mean technically the election is a 100% accurate poll. You get data from every voter. To run a 100% accurate poll would require you to sample every voter, so it would literally be an election.
- lordnacho 6y ago> I mean technically the election is a 100% accurate poll. You get data from every voter. Actually an election is literally a poll in the sense of a sample, you are counting people at "polling stations" in order to gauge the public mood about who should be president. When you see it that way, Nate Silver is predicting a sample of an unknown distribution, the "true" distribution of people's preferences. The fact that you can only make one officially binding sample ("the voters") is a practicality, as is the fact that there's an electoral college that means votes have different values. The fact that turnout matters is another issue, a statistician might call it a sampling problem.