3 ms·

One additional point that doesn't get much play in the debate about Nate Silver's numbers: political science, like economics, is a soft-science. You cannot 100%

by maaku 14y ago

One additional point that doesn't get much play in the debate about Nate Silver's numbers: political science, like economics, is a soft-science. You cannot 100% accurately predict the election based on polls, just as you cannot accurately predict market movements based on economic indicators. This is because the system is made up of self-aware human actors that respond to meta-information like Nate Silver's numbers. Even if the polls were 100% accurate in measuring voter sentiments, as soon as they are published they are picked up by political operatives and become part of the spin machine which changes those sentiments. But if you want to use polling data, Nate Silver is demonstrating the least-bad way to do it.

csense 14y ago
> This is because the system is made up of self-aware human actors that respond to meta-information like Nate Silver's numbers. The fact that agents use polling information to make decisions doesn't necessarily mean the system won't reach equilibrium. But I do think it's conceivable that one candidate's predicted overwhelming chance of victory might have a way of becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy in a close election. Ron Paul supporters presumably prefer Romney to Obama. In an election where it was reported that the race was close, they'd vote for Romney. But if it was reported that an Obama win was basically guaranteed, they might be willing to vote for the Libertarian Party or write-in Ron Paul (who isn't even running) as a protest vote. I really think our democracy would be healthier if we switched to an instant runoff system [1], but the Democrats and Republicans have a very strong incentive to unite against anything that could strengthen third parties. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting
- maaku 14y ago
  > But I do think it's conceivable that one candidate's predicted overwhelming chance of victory might have a way of becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy in a close election. It also has the possibility for the opposite by lowering turnout for the "winning" candidate. Why vote? Nate Silver already called the election, etc. There are other ways in which polling data itself can influence an election. It appears that Nate Silver did an great job early on at predicting the effect of changing demographics in swing states like Florida--which ended up giving the election to Obama. Hindsight being 20/20, if the Romney team had paid more attention to that (and perhaps compromised on things like immigration reform), things could have gone very differently.

by maaku 14y ago

csense 14y ago

> This is because the system is made up of self-aware human actors that respond to meta-information like Nate Silver's numbers. The fact that agents use polling information to make decisions doesn't necessarily mean the system won't reach equilibrium. But I do think it's conceivable that one candidate's predicted overwhelming chance of victory might have a way of becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy in a close election. Ron Paul supporters presumably prefer Romney to Obama. In an election where it was reported that the race was close, they'd vote for Romney. But if it was reported that an Obama win was basically guaranteed, they might be willing to vote for the Libertarian Party or write-in Ron Paul (who isn't even running) as a protest vote. I really think our democracy would be healthier if we switched to an instant runoff system [1], but the Democrats and Republicans have a very strong incentive to unite against anything that could strengthen third parties. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting

maaku 14y ago
> But I do think it's conceivable that one candidate's predicted overwhelming chance of victory might have a way of becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy in a close election. It also has the possibility for the opposite by lowering turnout for the "winning" candidate. Why vote? Nate Silver already called the election, etc. There are other ways in which polling data itself can influence an election. It appears that Nate Silver did an great job early on at predicting the effect of changing demographics in swing states like Florida--which ended up giving the election to Obama. Hindsight being 20/20, if the Romney team had paid more attention to that (and perhaps compromised on things like immigration reform), things could have gone very differently.