|
Same. I was kind of busy running around like a headless chicken at that time getting a job, so I wasn't up to date on the full nonsense going on within the Republican party. edit: Oh boy, that page snipe. Aschlafly posted:Bonus points: If the Republicans had used one of these methods during the primary, there'd be no Trump. jeebus bob posted:Interesting. Prove it please. Not saying you can't... I just want to see it explained. Ramos has a new favorite as of 19:06 on Feb 6, 2017 |
# ? Feb 6, 2017 19:04 |
|
|
# ? Mar 29, 2024 06:55 |
|
Most Republican voters did not want Trump. They wanted someone other than Trump and would have been likely to rank Trump as their last or near-last choice. The policy distinctions between (e.g.) Rubio, Cruz, Christie, and Jeb! were not as acute as the distinction between any of them and Trump. A ranked voting system would have allowed them to make it clear that Trump was, for the majority of Republicans, at the bottom of the barrel, shutting out his candidacy early. The lack of any kind of ranked voting system allowed Trump to win by splitting the votes of competing candidates. For example, consider the Iowa Caucus results, where Trump managed to get about 24% of the vote. If there had been only two candidates, Trump and Not-Trump, Trump would have been crushed. His second place finish was due to vote-splitting among the other candidates. Aschlafly has a new favorite as of 19:28 on Feb 6, 2017 |
# ? Feb 6, 2017 19:26 |
|
Aschlafly posted:Most Republican voters did not want Trump. They wanted someone other than Trump and would have been likely to rank Trump as their last or near-last choice. The policy distinctions between (e.g.) Rubio, Cruz, Christie, and Jeb! were not as acute as the distinction between any of them and Trump. A ranked voting system would have allowed them to make it clear that Trump was, for the majority of Republicans, at the bottom of the barrel, shutting out his candidacy early. Trump actually did reasonably well in second choice rankings. Only Cruz did better. He might still have won with ranked vote, and if he didn’t, Cruz would have. Ranged voting could have been a different story.
|
# ? Feb 6, 2017 19:38 |
|
Are you sure? This graph shows him getting a lot of first- and last-place rankings and not much else.
|
# ? Feb 6, 2017 19:40 |
|
Aschlafly posted:Are you sure? This graph shows him getting a lot of first- and last-place rankings and not much else. It varied wildly with time/place/pollster, but even with that data: Trump 1: 36.96 Trump 2: 10.47, running total: 47.43 Trump 3: 5.96, running total: 53.39 Cruz 1: 17.79 Cruz 2: 20.38, running total: 38.17 Cruz 3: 11.76, running total: 49.93 That’s not quite how an IRV winner is determined, but whatever. Platystemon has a new favorite as of 20:10 on Feb 6, 2017 |
# ? Feb 6, 2017 19:50 |
|
Aschlafly posted:
Much like the popular vote vs. electoral college debate, any discussion about "what would have happened if" assumes that Trump would have run the same exact campaign even if the rules of the game were radically different. In the actual campaign, Trump focused on one opponent at a time. He went after Jeb first, and then when Jeb was done with he focused on Rubio and then Cruz in turn. This was obviously enormously effective, but there's no reason to think he'd have done the exact same thing if the voting method was entirely different. Phanatic has a new favorite as of 19:54 on Feb 6, 2017 |
# ? Feb 6, 2017 19:50 |
|
Aschlafly posted:Are you sure? This graph shows him getting a lot of first- and last-place rankings and not much else.
|
# ? Feb 6, 2017 19:50 |
|
If anything, I think that that FairVote page illustrates what’s wrong with ranked voting. It’s silly for Cruz to come from behind and win by a hair only because a bunch of voters rank him second to last rather than last. So what if a lot of people hate him slightly less? They still hate him an awful lot, and I don’t think that ought to make up for his massive shortfall in first‐place rankings. Platystemon has a new favorite as of 20:08 on Feb 6, 2017 |
# ? Feb 6, 2017 20:01 |
|
mobby_6kl posted:Based on that poll Zodiac would've won but by just over a percentage point which is still way too scary. President Cruz is scarier than President Trump. I know that’s an unpopular opinion now because President Trump is a concrete evil and President Cruz an abstract one, but it remains true.
|
# ? Feb 6, 2017 20:04 |
|
Platystemon posted:It’s silly for Cruz to come from behind and win by a hair only because a bunch of voters rank him second to last rather than last. Same thing could be said about Trump, with some modifications. Besides, to some extent that's what first past the post entails: two choices, and the one most people hate the least gets elected. This is why I'd favor a Condorcet method like Schulze: if there is a candidate that would beat every other candidate one-on-one, it will find that candidate. That seems like as reasonable a compromise as any.
|
# ? Feb 6, 2017 20:22 |
|
Here is a graph about thread quality related to election and trump talk.
|
# ? Feb 6, 2017 20:42 |
|
During the AV referendum in the UK in 2011, a lot of the debate was centred over whether it would benefit the far-right BNP. The No side said that "BNP voters would get multiple votes!". The Yes side countered that the BNP actually opposed AV because they tended to win council by-elections by splitting the vote. (in one case local to me, the BNP won by a whisker, almost certainly because a spat in the local Labour Party ended up with two Labour members standing).
|
# ? Feb 6, 2017 21:12 |
|
Toys For Twats posted:Here is a graph about thread quality related to election and trump talk. I'm sorry conversation is not being suitably tailored to your tastes.
|
# ? Feb 6, 2017 21:40 |
|
Blue Footed Booby posted:I'm sorry conversation is not being suitably tailored to your tastes. Post less imo thanks
|
# ? Feb 7, 2017 01:53 |
|
How hawkish is Cruz? I'm surprised that I don't remember hearing the term Cruz Missile during the election
|
# ? Feb 7, 2017 02:14 |
|
Sentient Data posted:How hawkish is Cruz? I'm surprised that I don't remember hearing the term Cruz Missile during the election "I don't know if sand can glow in the dark but we're going to find out" is a real thing he said about Middle East policy.
|
# ? Feb 7, 2017 05:50 |
|
vyelkin posted:"I don't know if sand can glow in the dark but we're going to find out" is a real thing he said about Middle East policy. Someone tell Cruz that literally the first nuclear detonation demonstrated that sand cannot glow in the dark.
|
# ? Feb 7, 2017 05:55 |
|
Platystemon posted:Someone tell Cruz that literally the first nuclear detonation demonstrated that sand cannot glow in the dark. Well they obviously just didn't nuke it enough. The thing about Cruz is that he basically just declared victory on day one and assumed he was going to win. He postured and strutted around like a horny peacock and acted like he didn't have to put any effort in because he deserved to be president. Then, wouldn't you know it, he fell by the wayside in the face of people who actually did put effort in. That and the fact it was really quite absurd that he was gunning for president after burning every bridge he had both in the party and out of it. He was still a tea party darling but everybody else just plain loathed him. He did well early but burned out real fast.
|
# ? Feb 7, 2017 06:11 |
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:basically just declared victory on day one and assumed he was going to win. He postured and strutted around like a horny peacock and acted like he didn't have to put any effort in because he deserved to be president. There was a lot of that going around.
|
# ? Feb 7, 2017 06:27 |
|
Cruz in particular was looking forward to Trump’s inevitable and imminent dropout. We all know how that turned out.
|
# ? Feb 7, 2017 06:44 |
|
|
# ? Feb 7, 2017 06:47 |
|
Byzantine posted:There was a lot of that going around. There was but Cruz really had it the worst. Every other candidate at least acknowledged that the other candidates existed. Cruz just...didn't.
|
# ? Feb 7, 2017 07:27 |
|
From my Value Analysis/Engineering class last night.
|
# ? Feb 7, 2017 19:37 |
|
I'm the time axis.
|
# ? Feb 7, 2017 20:31 |
|
|
# ? Feb 7, 2017 21:23 |
|
yay autogenerated labels
|
# ? Feb 8, 2017 19:04 |
|
Brute Squad posted:From my Value Analysis/Engineering class last night.
|
# ? Feb 8, 2017 23:44 |
|
I might be completely off base because its a vector for some reason, but based on the lines going dashed to the left it seems to be the breakpoint of maximizing satisfaction with limited time available to invest. So you can half rear end delighters by taking advantage of its natural satisfying and that exponential zone, you use that time saved to make the expected bits hit expectations. And you just need to hit it right in the middle with the stuff inbetween.
|
# ? Feb 9, 2017 00:08 |
|
I may have posted this before about a year ago when I originally saw it, but I just came across this picture I had saved of a slide from a class I took while looking for something in my old "school" folder. It's from a quality engineering textbook
|
# ? Feb 9, 2017 01:57 |
|
What should I major in if I want to be paid disgusting amounts of money to draw graphs?
|
# ? Feb 9, 2017 03:10 |
|
I mean, to be fair, the thing it's modelling is fairly complicated but maybe just use more than one graph?
|
# ? Feb 9, 2017 03:11 |
|
https://twitter.com/samreidsays/status/829519548462268416
|
# ? Feb 9, 2017 03:53 |
|
Dreddout posted:What should I major in if I want to be paid disgusting amounts of money to draw graphs? Business management, preferably an MBA. B advised however that when presented with graphs like the above you'll have to nod and mumble admiration and agreement.
|
# ? Feb 9, 2017 03:54 |
|
Have they ever heard of the expression "damning with faint praise"
|
# ? Feb 9, 2017 03:56 |
|
I'm reasonably certain that I've never done any of those things either.
|
# ? Feb 9, 2017 14:52 |
|
Dreddout posted:What should I major in if I want to be paid disgusting amounts of money to draw graphs? A normal MBA on top of a business or communications undergrad will tell you more than you'd ever want to know about drawing bad graphs but no one will pay you for them unless you start sneaking them into the crema.
|
# ? Feb 9, 2017 15:19 |
|
The mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell.
|
# ? Feb 9, 2017 16:06 |
|
Hans Rosling died. his graphs and charts weren't awful, what's awful is that he's dead.
|
# ? Feb 10, 2017 02:41 |
|
stimulated emission posted:I may have posted this before about a year ago when I originally saw it, but I just came across this picture I had saved of a slide from a class I took while looking for something in my old "school" folder. I'm the human redources
|
# ? Feb 10, 2017 11:14 |
|
|
# ? Mar 29, 2024 06:55 |
|
Where's the Hitler column?
|
# ? Feb 10, 2017 13:26 |