- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
“Asked how many members of the House of Reps there were, Stein guessed 600-some before hosts corrected her.”
“Asked how many members of the House of Reps there were, Stein guessed 600-some before hosts corrected her.”
Exactly. In a fair and independent contest, the concept of a “spoiler” wouldn’t really exist. But given that the Presidency basically gets decided by a few million voters who live in swing states’ contested districts, it turns out it’s really easy for a niche candidate to derail the more likely ones just by trying to appeal specifically to them.
Nothing you can do about people like that shitting on your doorstep and running away other than to hose it down and hang up a sign that says “Please do not shit on porch”. We live in a post-truth society.
Framing this as only a small group of voters in swing states is stupid. No candidate can win with just a few million votes scattered across a handful of states.
You are taking something very minor and turning it into a major problem. Its like saying Hilary would have won if not for the last minute news reports about her emails or whatever it was, when she lost because she didnt appeal widely enough to the american people, and carried an awful attitude while doing it.
You’re not getting my point. I’m not saying someone can win with just a handful of voters from swing states, I’m saying that someone can stop another candidate from winning by courting those voters. Hence, a spoiler.
Sure that could happen, but then you never had those voters. At some point you have to lay the blame at the people who voted like this, if it happens.
This is like saying that getting a question wrong on a test can be the difference between pass and fail, and then picking a question at random and deciding to focus on that instead of the whole test.
You are right it could be enough people to match the difference in votes, but thats not the same as saying its essential we get that voter block no matter what. Theres a ton of things that make a difference, but its the collection of them that makes a candidate.
Your test analogy kind of proves the point, though. Say you have a 10 question test and 8 are very easy, and the last 2 are very difficult. In general, if you’ve done your homework, you should get most of the first 8. Whether or not you get a really good grade will depend more on the last 2. I think both parties are guilty of assuming they’ll get the first 8 correct no problem, but there is a tactically sound reason to focus on the last 2.
I’d argue they focus too little on the first 8 and too much on the last 2. Both would be an error in analysis of course.
Also it runs the risk of people applying statistics to individual cases, or groups too small to be statistically relevant.
I agree with you - and that’s why gerrymandering is a problem, because it makes the last 2 questions more valuable to study for. As for statistics, that’s for pollsters and analysts to work on.
If everyone knows gerrymandering is bad, why is it still allowed to happen?
Because a good chunk of the population doesn’t understand what it is and why it’s bad, and a serious percentage of politicians benefit from it.