4 ms·

While I readily admit to feeling like my comment could be seen as sealioning, but could you post some links and/or search terms I could use to try to research w

While I readily admit to feeling like my comment could be seen as sealioning, but could you post some links and/or search terms I could use to try to research why one might hold an opinion like this? I don't know whether to agree or disagree with this; I'm new enough to not have come across this particular opinion before (that I've noticed).

justinsaccount 3y ago
It's simple: Election forecasting is often used as a form of voter manipulation, if not outright suppression. People should vote for the candidate that they want to win, not the candidate that the tv says has a better chance of winning.
- fshbbdssbbgdd 3y ago
  Isn’t the 538 approach of rigorous modeling a lot less likely to be manipulation than than the often vibes-based approach it replaced? Their predictions are based on actual polling, so they won’t take a candidate with real support and propaganda the support away with their forecasts.
  - justinsaccount 3y ago
    What purpose does predicting the outcome of an election serve in a democracy?
    - fshbbdssbbgdd 3y ago
      People want predictions for various reasons, but in general, predictions are good for making plans and preparing for the future. Elections are just one of many examples of an outcome you might want to predict, alongside crop yields, population growth, product sales, etc. I don’t have any deep thoughts about how these predictions serve democracy, but if people are interested in that line of inquiry, they should go ahead and pursue it.
- jen20 3y ago
  This only works where there is a candidate you want to win, who possibly can win. For example, where I vote in the UK, there are only two choices: Conservative or Liberal Democrat. Which you vote for has more to do with which of those you dislike least and not which is preferable (which would, frankly, be a golden retriever in a rosette, who would be more effective than either party).
  - justinsaccount 3y ago
    > who possibly can win huh, who told you that, the people forecasting the election?
    - jen20 3y ago
      No, a basic understand of history. The last time someone that was not a member of the Conservative party, Liberal Democrat party, or one of the direct predecessors of these parties was 1857. If you count the Whigs as a predecessor of the Liberal party, that goes back to 1830, which is the earliest election listed on Wikipedia. It is safe to say that Bath will not be represented by someone who is not a member of one of those two parties any time soon, regardless of what forecasts may or may not say.
- tantalor 3y ago
  Making stuff up.
- tedunangst 3y ago
  Free speech, but not if it's consequential.
- saghm 3y ago
  Would this opinion still hold in places where voting is mandatory (or more precisely, not voting is penalized)? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_voting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_voting
TheAceOfHearts 3y ago
An attempt at a steelman argument is that it has the potential to influence the outcome by shifting voter attitudes. If we consider the 2016 election, since most predictions were leaning so heavily towards Hillary Clinton that might've caused her supporters to be less likely to go out and vote, thinking that she's already likely to win so there's no need for them to participate. If the messaging had been that the election is going to be extremely close and every single vote matters then you might've gotten improved voter participation. At least this is one variation of argument which I've encountered, but I'm not sure if there's strong empirical research to back up the claim. After the lesson of 2016, messaging about election participation for 2020 was much more active which lead to the highest voter turnout of the century. Edit: Upon further reflection, I'm actually not fully convinced of this line of thinking. Or at least I think it's not a fully accurate representation. We can also consider the other perspective in 2016, if Donald Trump supporters had thought the election was hopeless because of polling, they probably wouldn't have bothered to go vote. Although my understanding is that Republicans are already inherently less trusting of these kinds of systems, which might provide a plausible explanation for why they weren't as negatively affected.
jimmygrapes 3y ago
Generally it is something like "Candidate X is winning already, they don't need my vote to help so I'll save myself some and skip the voting process" or "Candidate Y is winning, there's no way my vote will change that, I won't even bother." Same argument for early reporting of early voting (early voting itself I got no problem with, but keep the ongoing tally quiet imo). The best case for maximum participation is when voters truly believe their vote may matter. We see this recently with nearly 49/51 splits in many elections over the last few years/decades. Some see this as polarization (and I often agree), but it can also be seen as a result of increased participation. Whether increased participation in democracy is ideal or not, well... "a republic [...] if you can keep it." [1] 1: https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/convention-and-ratification.html#obj8 https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/conv...

justinsaccount 3y ago

It's simple: Election forecasting is often used as a form of voter manipulation, if not outright suppression. People should vote for the candidate that they want to win, not the candidate that the tv says has a better chance of winning.

fshbbdssbbgdd 3y ago
Isn’t the 538 approach of rigorous modeling a lot less likely to be manipulation than than the often vibes-based approach it replaced? Their predictions are based on actual polling, so they won’t take a candidate with real support and propaganda the support away with their forecasts.
- justinsaccount 3y ago
  What purpose does predicting the outcome of an election serve in a democracy?
  - fshbbdssbbgdd 3y ago
    People want predictions for various reasons, but in general, predictions are good for making plans and preparing for the future. Elections are just one of many examples of an outcome you might want to predict, alongside crop yields, population growth, product sales, etc. I don’t have any deep thoughts about how these predictions serve democracy, but if people are interested in that line of inquiry, they should go ahead and pursue it.
jen20 3y ago
This only works where there is a candidate you want to win, who possibly can win. For example, where I vote in the UK, there are only two choices: Conservative or Liberal Democrat. Which you vote for has more to do with which of those you dislike least and not which is preferable (which would, frankly, be a golden retriever in a rosette, who would be more effective than either party).
- justinsaccount 3y ago
  > who possibly can win huh, who told you that, the people forecasting the election?
  - jen20 3y ago
    No, a basic understand of history. The last time someone that was not a member of the Conservative party, Liberal Democrat party, or one of the direct predecessors of these parties was 1857. If you count the Whigs as a predecessor of the Liberal party, that goes back to 1830, which is the earliest election listed on Wikipedia. It is safe to say that Bath will not be represented by someone who is not a member of one of those two parties any time soon, regardless of what forecasts may or may not say.
tantalor 3y ago
Making stuff up.
tedunangst 3y ago
Free speech, but not if it's consequential.
saghm 3y ago
Would this opinion still hold in places where voting is mandatory (or more precisely, not voting is penalized)? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_voting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_voting

TheAceOfHearts 3y ago

An attempt at a steelman argument is that it has the potential to influence the outcome by shifting voter attitudes. If we consider the 2016 election, since most predictions were leaning so heavily towards Hillary Clinton that might've caused her supporters to be less likely to go out and vote, thinking that she's already likely to win so there's no need for them to participate. If the messaging had been that the election is going to be extremely close and every single vote matters then you might've gotten improved voter participation. At least this is one variation of argument which I've encountered, but I'm not sure if there's strong empirical research to back up the claim. After the lesson of 2016, messaging about election participation for 2020 was much more active which lead to the highest voter turnout of the century. Edit: Upon further reflection, I'm actually not fully convinced of this line of thinking. Or at least I think it's not a fully accurate representation. We can also consider the other perspective in 2016, if Donald Trump supporters had thought the election was hopeless because of polling, they probably wouldn't have bothered to go vote. Although my understanding is that Republicans are already inherently less trusting of these kinds of systems, which might provide a plausible explanation for why they weren't as negatively affected.

jimmygrapes 3y ago

Generally it is something like "Candidate X is winning already, they don't need my vote to help so I'll save myself some and skip the voting process" or "Candidate Y is winning, there's no way my vote will change that, I won't even bother." Same argument for early reporting of early voting (early voting itself I got no problem with, but keep the ongoing tally quiet imo). The best case for maximum participation is when voters truly believe their vote may matter. We see this recently with nearly 49/51 splits in many elections over the last few years/decades. Some see this as polarization (and I often agree), but it can also be seen as a result of increased participation. Whether increased participation in democracy is ideal or not, well... "a republic [...] if you can keep it." [1] 1: https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/convention-and-ratification.html#obj8 https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/creating-the-united-states/conv...