4 ms·
> Can you run the 2016 election 1,000 times and count the times Hillary wins? I assume you mean "in real life", but otherwise this seems to be close to their a
by Nition 3y ago
> Can you run the 2016 election 1,000 times and count the times Hillary wins?
I assume you mean "in real life", but otherwise this seems to be close to their actual methodology. You can see the outcome frequency charts under "What to expect from the Electoral College."[1]
[1] https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/#electoral-vote https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/...
- AlbertCory 3y ago> I assume you mean "in real life", but otherwise this seems to be close to their actual methodology So, the "actual methodology" is not real life, but some abstraction (like, "assume no friction or air resistance")?
- Nition 3y agoWell yes, I mean, all simulations are, right? You put as much real-life data in as you can, but everything's an abstraction unless you're the team from the Devs tv series.
- hnfong 3y agoThe actual election that happened is not a simulation, at least not the same kind of simulation that was run by Nate. That qualitative difference is fundamental. It suffers from the same problem when results of simulations are applied to the "real world". The quality of the simulation is paramount, and there's no way to determine whether the simulation is good enough besides assertions that the simulations are really sophisticated and Nate is very smart.