4 ms·
> Not really. Once the models project that it's basically impossible (...) It's only "basically impossible" if the amount of votes to be counted are still enou
by barumi 6y ago
> Not really. Once the models project that it's basically impossible (...)
It's only "basically impossible" if the amount of votes to be counted are still enough to sway an election.
You should think things through and pay attention to the unwanted consequences of these sort of claims. We're living a development where half the US population is complaining about voter fraud and conspiracies to withheld their candidate from their rightful place in the US's regime. It makes no sense to argue in favor of taking shortcuts in the election process citing arcane arguments and models, each of which unverifiable and impenetrable to the common man, and expect it to simply accept an outcome that is dictated by you and not verifiable by them.
If you want a country to accept election results, the results need to be obvious and above any scrutiny. In the case of elections, you only get there if all votes are counted and any shred of doubt is rendered an impossibility. Otherwise all you get is conspiracy theories, dissent and erosion of any faith on the democratic nature of a system.
- esoterica 6y ago> You should think things through and pay attention to the unwanted consequences of these sort of claims. Who is "you" here? The media organizations are the one making the calls and defining the processes for doing so, not some random on HN. > It makes no sense to argue in favor of taking shortcuts in the election process citing arcane arguments and models, The media calling the election is not part of the formal election process. If the media calls the election wrongly they just get humiliated when the final results come in and they are proven wrong. The media doesn't decide the election result.
- plussed_reader 6y ago"Dewey Defeats Truman"
- stu2b50 6y agoI mean they will count all the ballots, this is just the DDs of the major news groups seeing that its statistically improbable (like, less than 3 std devs) and projecting the winner.
- barumi 6y ago> I mean they will count all the ballots, this is just the DDs of the major news groups seeing that its statistically improbable (like, less than 3 std devs) and projecting the winner. We're talking about people who spread conspiracy theories on how the big media companies are manipulating the public into stealing an election. Seeing media companies announce that the opposing candidate has won even though the race is exceptionally close, votes are still being counted, and it's still theoretically possible to see their own candidate win.... That just contributes to fuel the conspiracy theories that are being fabricated to delegitimize the election results.
- thekyle 6y agoClearly you disagree with the methodology used by decision desks, however, what /u/stu2b50 said is absolutely the way they have worked in real life for many years. The purpose of a decision desk is to project who will win each election as soon as possible using all available data. They don't need all the votes to be in if they believe the remaining votes skew towards a particular candidate based on polling. Of course, in the end it is the votes that decide who wins not the decision desks, but most often there is no difference between the two outcomes.