3 ms·

why is the popular vote even measured (other than narrative construction)? it’s not a target, it is not optimized for, therefore it seems to me that it is meani

why is the popular vote even measured (other than narrative construction)? it’s not a target, it is not optimized for, therefore it seems to me that it is meaningless: there is no possible relevant conclusion that can be derived from its analysis

mdp2021 2y ago
I'd say the opposite: with a parties system you should count the popular vote because what people are doing is voting for a part; if people were voting for electors (which is a more adherent to fact possibility in other systems) then you should focus on data reflecting that - but it does not seem the case in this context. The «relevant conclusion that can be derived» from the popular vote is "more people voted for this part rather than the other, and how much". It seems indicative. That it may not reflect the "electoral vote" is actually a "problem" of Political Science.
mytailorisrich 2y ago
The popular vote is the most important metric to gauge the democratic choice of the people, that's the most relevant conclusion that may be in an election. In most democracies that would be it, but it so happens that the quirks of the US system mean that it is not what matters to elect the President.
- Arnt 2y ago
  Personally, I only know about one democracy where the popular vote is used to determine the outcome of elections. The others I know all use something moderately different. My home, for example, has two kinds of weighing, one for regional balance and the other is too complicated to explain now. Various kinds of regional balance are common, I think.
  - mytailorisrich 2y ago
    Off the top of my head I can't think of another democracy in which the executive can be appointed with fewer votes that the other parties/candidates, either systemically or realistically. In the US this has happened several times in living memory. But that's not the point. The point is that in general and in terms of democracy and democratic mandate obviously the popular vote is the most important metric. That's the point of democratic elections.
    - Arnt 2y ago
      I agree that the popular vote is a key metric, extremely important, perhaps even more than maintaining a close relationship between those elected and the voters, which is often the goal of the balancing rules. As for an example, look at Germany before 2011 or Britain even now. (If you're not familiar with Germany, it used to allocate about half of the Bundestag seats in a manner like the British, and the Bundestag elects the government. In 2011 the system was modified to keep the distorting effects small. I glanced at a random wikipedia page now, for 1994, and the winning coalition got 47.5% of the votes and 51.1% of the seats.)
DemocracyFTW2 2y ago
> there is no possible relevant conclusion that can be derived from its analysis ...except for "majority of voters" maybe?
- dustingetz 2y ago
  the measurement outcome is downstream of the campaign strategy which is downstream of the rules for measuring the winner. If you change the way you measure the winner, the campaign strategies will change (billion dollar business!), which changes the measurement outcome. Changing the way an experiment is measured without accordingly updating its methodology, is unscientific.
  - mdp2021 2y ago
    You are confusing «measuring the winner» and "establishing the winner". And making the "measurement" a reflection of the "establishing procedure" in fact voids the meaning of said measurement. Intrinsically it was there; by reducing it to the establishing procedure you have simply voided a meaning you do not see. (But more to the issue, your parallel with "scientific experiments" requires much more justification.)
- verdverm 2y ago
  because it doesn't effect the outcome, many people don't vote in states where it won't change the results

mdp2021 2y ago

I'd say the opposite: with a parties system you should count the popular vote because what people are doing is voting for a part; if people were voting for electors (which is a more adherent to fact possibility in other systems) then you should focus on data reflecting that - but it does not seem the case in this context. The «relevant conclusion that can be derived» from the popular vote is "more people voted for this part rather than the other, and how much". It seems indicative. That it may not reflect the "electoral vote" is actually a "problem" of Political Science.

mytailorisrich 2y ago

The popular vote is the most important metric to gauge the democratic choice of the people, that's the most relevant conclusion that may be in an election. In most democracies that would be it, but it so happens that the quirks of the US system mean that it is not what matters to elect the President.

Arnt 2y ago
Personally, I only know about one democracy where the popular vote is used to determine the outcome of elections. The others I know all use something moderately different. My home, for example, has two kinds of weighing, one for regional balance and the other is too complicated to explain now. Various kinds of regional balance are common, I think.
- mytailorisrich 2y ago
  Off the top of my head I can't think of another democracy in which the executive can be appointed with fewer votes that the other parties/candidates, either systemically or realistically. In the US this has happened several times in living memory. But that's not the point. The point is that in general and in terms of democracy and democratic mandate obviously the popular vote is the most important metric. That's the point of democratic elections.
  - Arnt 2y ago
    I agree that the popular vote is a key metric, extremely important, perhaps even more than maintaining a close relationship between those elected and the voters, which is often the goal of the balancing rules. As for an example, look at Germany before 2011 or Britain even now. (If you're not familiar with Germany, it used to allocate about half of the Bundestag seats in a manner like the British, and the Bundestag elects the government. In 2011 the system was modified to keep the distorting effects small. I glanced at a random wikipedia page now, for 1994, and the winning coalition got 47.5% of the votes and 51.1% of the seats.)

DemocracyFTW2 2y ago

> there is no possible relevant conclusion that can be derived from its analysis ...except for "majority of voters" maybe?

dustingetz 2y ago
the measurement outcome is downstream of the campaign strategy which is downstream of the rules for measuring the winner. If you change the way you measure the winner, the campaign strategies will change (billion dollar business!), which changes the measurement outcome. Changing the way an experiment is measured without accordingly updating its methodology, is unscientific.
- mdp2021 2y ago
  You are confusing «measuring the winner» and "establishing the winner". And making the "measurement" a reflection of the "establishing procedure" in fact voids the meaning of said measurement. Intrinsically it was there; by reducing it to the establishing procedure you have simply voided a meaning you do not see. (But more to the issue, your parallel with "scientific experiments" requires much more justification.)
verdverm 2y ago
because it doesn't effect the outcome, many people don't vote in states where it won't change the results