US 2024 Presidential Election

[tstorm823]

Hurdles to voting reduce turnout, and reduced turnout broadly benefits Republicans as most measures that reduce turnout impact demographics likely to vote Dem more than demographics likely to vote GOP.

Higher turnout, especially among the demographics most likely to be impacted by something like SAVE, benefits Dems.

There is no evidence that high turnout has benefitted Democrats or low benefitted Republicans. There is conjecture based on polling of non-voters, but there is no established trend demonstrating that effect in actuality. It's just one of those things people repeat without evidence.

That's where the Republicans are on democracy.

It isn't. That's where you are on Republicans, that's all it is. We had a major controversy with multiple lawsuits that could lead to issues because the laws were slightly ambiguous in the use of just the phrase "county board of elections", and you take the bill that would iron out the ambiguity as an attack on Democracy. That's a you problem.

 

[Silvanus]

"No, that's not even remotely close to what I'm arguing.

Judgements of evidential probability does not require that the phenomenon under observation be literally random."

I have already explained to you that the second sentence there is standalone.

Neither have you, that's the point.

I have demonstrated the constitution of the pool.

Even your own source acknowledges that, in the absence of anything else, that would be expected to benefit Dems. Their mapping shows this.

 

[tstorm823]

I have demonstrated the constitution of the pool.

Even your own source acknowledges that, in the absence of anything else, that would be expected to benefit Dems. Their mapping shows this.

And after explaining the model that leads to that assumption, follow it up with:
"Intuitions based on results like the above are no doubt responsible for the commonsense belief that, if nonvoters are more Democrat in their predilections than are voters, then raising turnout must help Democrats. However, that belief is wrong, as some reflection will reveal."

" Thus we see that even if the answer to question one is yes, whether the answer to question 3 is yes depends exactly how the turnout increase comes about. Even under the simplest possible assumptions given above – ones involving linear relationships, and a uniform distribution of voter characteristics – the way in which changes in h(v) are linked to changes in m and b is quite complex."

No, they did not say that would be expected. They say that belief is wrong even under the simplest possible assumptions. It's not a mathematically valid conclusion.

 

[Silvanus]

And after explaining the model that leads to that assumption, follow it up with:
"Intuitions based on results like the above are no doubt responsible for the commonsense belief that, if nonvoters are more Democrat in their predilections than are voters, then raising turnout must help Democrats. However, that belief is wrong, as some reflection will reveal."

" Thus we see that even if the answer to question one is yes, whether the answer to question 3 is yes depends exactly how the turnout increase comes about. Even under the simplest possible assumptions given above – ones involving linear relationships, and a uniform distribution of voter characteristics – the way in which changes in h(v) are linked to changes in m and b is quite complex."

Right, but I'm not saying raising turnout "must help Democrats", and have already acknowledged that the "how" obviously determines whether it does.

But we have no meaningful information on that "how". We are left with either random distribution beyond the known constitution of the pool, or the simplest possible assumptions. Which they state lead to a complex relationship.

And one in which the Dems benefit under more scenarios than they do not.

 

[tstorm823]

Right, but I'm not saying raising turnout "must help Democrats", and have already acknowledged that the "how" obviously determines whether it does.

But we have no meaningful information on that "how". We are left with either random distribution beyond the known constitution of the pool, or the simplest possible assumptions. Which they state lead to a complex relationship.

And one in which the Dems benefit under more scenarios than they do not.

So, how many qualifiers exactly will it take before you rescind "seems to benefit Democrats"? Like, you have to put a bunch of asterisks just to maintain the unevidenced assumption that polling data of nonvoters impacts the effect of increased voter turnout. Have you really thought this through? The only singular assumption that you are willing to take without unambiguous evidence is the idea that the opinions of people who end up voting when voting increases are causally related to the polling data from people who don't vote. Do you really not see the potential complete disconnect? Why do you just assume that individuals choosing to leave one subset of people to join another would have opinions be based on the group they are leaving behind?

 

[Silvanus]

So, how many qualifiers exactly will it take before you rescind "seems to benefit Democrats"? Like, you have to put a bunch of asterisks just to maintain the unevidenced assumption that polling data of nonvoters impacts the effect of increased voter turnout.

Yes, qualifiers are required in any assessment of evidential probability.

If i roll a die, i'll judge the probability of an outcome based mostly on the number of possible outcomes. I might add a dozen qualifiers and asterisks about how it might potentially be determined instead by wind or weighting or whatever. But i have no meaningful data on how those would affect it, so we're back to: Its likelier to land 1-4 than it is 5-6*.

The only singular assumption that you are willing to take without unambiguous evidence is the idea that the opinions of people who end up voting when voting increases are causally related to the polling data from people who don't vote. Do you really not see the potential complete disconnect? Why do you just assume that individuals choosing to leave one subset of people to join another would have opinions be based on the group they are leaving behind?

Are you seriously contending that someone who describes themselves as Democratic-affiliated is not more likely to vote for the Democrats than the Republicans?

 

[Agema]

It isn't. That's where you are on Republicans, that's all it is.

I'm just taking what high-ranking Republican politicians, allies and media say seriously. As you're voting for them, beneath all the bullshit you spew out here to try to make yourself look reasonable, that's what you're voting for.

I do give allowances that voting for someone doesn't necessarily translate to supporting every policy they advocate: you might just think that Trump's overt desire to rig democracy in his favour is worth the price to evict immigrants, and oppress transexuals and homosexuals. Except that you've never given any evidence that you do have much belief in democracy. You pretty much never seem to defend democratic principles for their own sake, and regular as clockwork you can be found vigorously defending Trump administrations' many authoritarian and anti-democratic behaviours no matter how questionable. It's kind of a giveaway.

 

[tstorm823]

Are you seriously contending that someone who describes themselves as Democratic-affiliated is not more likely to vote for the Democrats than the Republicans?

Someone who is a non-voter isn't voting for either by definition. If that person becomes a voter, their political circumstance has changed, practically the only thing we know about them is that their political circumstance has changed, it is an unbased assumption to presume their pre-existing opinions are preserved across that change. The very cause of that change could be the changing opinion.

There are some situations where the logic checks out: if non-home owners are disproportionately non-white, and you increase the percentage of people who own a home, the natural expectation is that the percentage of home-owners becomes less white. That is not a certainty, there are still questions of how the increase in home ownership came about that could make that not be the case, but it's a reasonable expectation, in large part because people aren't changing their race.

There are some situations where the logic does not check out at all: if the non-religiously affiliated disproportionately don't believe in God, and the percentage of people who are religious increases, it is not the natural expectation that the percentage of religious people who believe in god goes down. If they still didn't believe in God, they wouldn't have converted, converts are more likely to have serious faith in God than the people who were just in a religion already. In this case, people are explicitly changing their opinions, it would be unreasonable to expect their pre-existing opinions to carry over.

Funny enough for a conversation on this site, the most directly comparable analogy I can think of is video game opinions. Imagine polling that said that the disproportionate majority of people who don't have a gaming system preferred PlayStation. If there is a sudden increase in the percentage of people who own gaming systems, should we expect the market share of PlayStation to increase? There is one element of logic that would expect that to be what they are buying because that's what they previously said they preferred. There is another element of logic that would say that their previous preference was not enough to convince them to buy a console. When they said they preferred PlayStation, they weren't buying at all, so clearly their opinions have been changed by something. If that something is the release of the Nintendo Wii, it's not gonna benefit PlayStation.

You are considering this like the first possibility, you are seeing voting like its this thing everybody wants to do but some people are locked out of, and if you let them it, they're still exactly the same except they are voting. But people aren't locked out of voting, it's actually very easy, unless you go to a busy precinct specifically when everyone gets out of work, and then its roughly as difficult as riding a rollercoaster. Most people who don't vote are just choosing not to, and it is silly to assume their opinions remain the same when suddenly they choose to start voting.

Let's look at the same statistic from two different perspectives:
1) You are seeing the idea that people who don't vote are more likely to support Democrats, so if more of them voted, we expect be greater vote share for Democrats.
But there's also this:
2) People who support Democrats are less likely to vote, so if more people are voting, we can expect the population to be less supportive of Democrats.

When they weren't voting, they supported Democrats, but that also means that when they previous supported Democrats, they weren't voting. What political engagement got them to vote is important, and the question you need to answer is why you would expect the outcome of that engagement to be different than the existing population of voters. If there were a trend in election results demonstrating Democrats doing better in high turnout elections, you'd have your case to support your assumption, but that doesn't exist. Data suggests that an expanded pool of voters tends to follow the same voting pattern as the pre-existing pool of voters, it seems to me the most reasonable assumption given all we know is that people engaging in politics are more alike than the people who aren't, regardless of how long they've engaged in it.

 

[Silvanus]

Someone who is a non-voter isn't voting for either by definition. If that person becomes a voter, their political circumstance has changed, practically the only thing we know about them is that their political circumstance has changed, it is an unbased assumption to presume their pre-existing opinions are preserved across that change. The very cause of that change could be the changing opinion.

There are some situations where the logic checks out: if non-home owners are disproportionately non-white, and you increase the percentage of people who own a home, the natural expectation is that the percentage of home-owners becomes less white. That is not a certainty, there are still questions of how the increase in home ownership came about that could make that not be the case, but it's a reasonable expectation, in large part because people aren't changing their race.

There are some situations where the logic does not check out at all: if the non-religiously affiliated disproportionately don't believe in God, and the percentage of people who are religious increases, it is not the natural expectation that the percentage of religious people who believe in god goes down. If they still didn't believe in God, they wouldn't have converted, converts are more likely to have serious faith in God than the people who were just in a religion already. In this case, people are explicitly changing their opinions, it would be unreasonable to expect their pre-existing opinions to carry over.

Funny enough for a conversation on this site, the most directly comparable analogy I can think of is video game opinions. Imagine polling that said that the disproportionate majority of people who don't have a gaming system preferred PlayStation. If there is a sudden increase in the percentage of people who own gaming systems, should we expect the market share of PlayStation to increase? There is one element of logic that would expect that to be what they are buying because that's what they previously said they preferred. There is another element of logic that would say that their previous preference was not enough to convince them to buy a console. When they said they preferred PlayStation, they weren't buying at all, so clearly their opinions have been changed by something. If that something is the release of the Nintendo Wii, it's not gonna benefit PlayStation.

You are considering this like the first possibility, you are seeing voting like its this thing everybody wants to do but some people are locked out of, and if you let them it, they're still exactly the same except they are voting. But people aren't locked out of voting, it's actually very easy, unless you go to a busy precinct specifically when everyone gets out of work, and then its roughly as difficult as riding a rollercoaster. Most people who don't vote are just choosing not to, and it is silly to assume their opinions remain the same when suddenly they choose to start voting.

Let's look at the same statistic from two different perspectives:
1) You are seeing the idea that people who don't vote are more likely to support Democrats, so if more of them voted, we expect be greater vote share for Democrats.
But there's also this:
2) People who support Democrats are less likely to vote, so if more people are voting, we can expect the population to be less supportive of Democrats.

When they weren't voting, they supported Democrats, but that also means that when they previous supported Democrats, they weren't voting. What political engagement got them to vote is important, and the question you need to answer is why you would expect the outcome of that engagement to be different than the existing population of voters. If there were a trend in election results demonstrating Democrats doing better in high turnout elections, you'd have your case to support your assumption, but that doesn't exist. Data suggests that an expanded pool of voters tends to follow the same voting pattern as the pre-existing pool of voters, it seems to me the most reasonable assumption given all we know is that people engaging in politics are more alike than the people who aren't, regardless of how long they've engaged in it.

The issue with all of this is that you're treating non-voting as a fundamentally distinct category of people, rather than an action (or lack of action). A "non-voter" may be ideologically refusing to vote for categorical reasons... or they may simply not be terribly motivated this election. We don't know. Literally the only thing we do know about them is that they're describing themselves as politically aligned with the Democrats. Its irrational to therefore conclude they're just as likely to ignore their own stated inclination or switch it for unknown, speculative reasons.

Treat voting as the action it is. Someone who just didn't get a console last gen, but still says they prefer Playstation, is more likely to get Playstation next gen. Or: someone says they prefer Tesco to Sainsbury, didn't go grocery shopping last week, but will next week... will probably go to Tesco.

 

[tstorm823]

You pretty much never seem to defend democratic principles for their own sake, and regular as clockwork you can be found vigorously defending Trump administrations' many authoritarian and anti-democratic behaviours no matter how questionable. It's kind of a giveaway.

You think anything Trump does is definitionally undemocratic. It's impossible to defend a single thing he does and not have you see it that way. You have a problem.

 

[tstorm823]

Its irrational to therefore conclude they're just as likely to ignore their own stated inclination or switch it for unknown, speculative reasons.

They previously didn't vote, their previous inclination was to not vote, and now they've switched for unknown reasons. You're dismissing something that precisely follows the only thing that we do know. It's irrational to just assume their political inclinations stayed constant when the only thing you know of the situation is that related inclinations changed.

 

[Agema]

You think anything Trump does is definitionally undemocratic. It's impossible to defend a single thing he does and not have you see it that way. You have a problem.

Setting a mob on Congress over losing an election is definitely undemocratic. Phoning state officials to demand, cajole, threaten them into magicking up 10,000+ votes to overturn the state's election result is undemocratic. A deliberate strategy of undermining public faith in election integrity for political gain is undemocratic. Using state power to push media control to one's allies, or to threaten and suppress criticism of media freedom, is undemocratic. Use state power to threaten companies, universities, law firms, etc into alignment with his views is undemocratic. Attacking judges, all the way to SCOTUS, for not letting his administration do everything he wants is undemocratic, even outright saying they're supposed to be loyal to him for appointing them. Usurping Congressional powers and deleting Congressional oversight is undemocratic.

And thus that's your track record on this forum: a tireless defence of authoritarianism.

 

[BrawlMan]

‘We want change but not like this’: Iranians describe daily life under air attack

Tehran residents try to stay safe from bombing and cling to their livelihoods as war stretches into third week

www.theguardian.com

 

[Hades]

‘We want change but not like this’: Iranians describe daily life under air attack

Tehran residents try to stay safe from bombing and cling to their livelihoods as war stretches into third week

www.theguardian.com

Turns out Trump ended up being the lifeline of the Iranian regime just when the population got sick of em. Oops

 

[tstorm823]

Setting a mob on Congress over losing an election is definitely undemocratic. Phoning state officials to demand, cajole, threaten them into magicking up 10,000+ votes to overturn the state's election result is undemocratic. A deliberate strategy of undermining public faith in election integrity for political gain is undemocratic. Using state power to push media control to one's allies, or to threaten and suppress criticism of media freedom, is undemocratic. Use state power to threaten companies, universities, law firms, etc into alignment with his views is undemocratic. Attacking judges, all the way to SCOTUS, for not letting his administration do everything he wants is undemocratic, even outright saying they're supposed to be loyal to him for appointing them. Usurping Congressional powers and deleting Congressional oversight is undemocratic.

And thus that's your track record on this forum: a tireless defence of authoritarianism.

This is a tirade of pure delusion.

 

[Silvanus]

They previously didn't vote, their previous inclination was to not vote, and now they've switched for unknown reasons. You're dismissing something that precisely follows the only thing that we do know.

Their inclination on whether to vote has changed. You are then extrapolating from that that their other inclinations-- such as political preference-- have switched, despite them still self-describing themselves as Democratic. Its just another baseless speculation, of unknown relevance or impact, to add to the pile.

 

[bluegate]

This is a tirade of pure delusion.

Got nothing to say about all the things mentioned in Agema's post then? Figures.

 

[tstorm823]

Got nothing to say about all the things mentioned in Agema's post then? Figures.

We've discussed most of those things at length already. Putting them in a list doesn't change their truth value.

Their inclination on whether to vote has changed. You are then extrapolating from that that their other inclinations-- such as political preference-- have switched, despite them still self-describing themselves as Democratic...

No. Actually, double no.

You are asserting that they won't change, or at least that not changing is the best possible assumption. I'm telling you that there is no evidence that is the case.

But also, you don't know if they still describe themselves as Democratic after they start voting. You're just making that bit up.

 

[Silvanus]

But also, you don't know if they still describe themselves as Democratic after they start voting. You're just making that bit up.

Because "after they start voting" is a counterfactual.

We know how they identify at the time of the election in question. 2024, Democratic by ~60-40. So you believe the same person would state, "i prefer the Democrats", then decide to vote that same year and be just as likely to put Republican?

 

[tstorm823]

We know how they identify at the time of the election in question. 2024, Democratic by ~60-40. So you believe the same person would state, "i prefer the Democrats", then decide to vote that same year and be just as likely to put Republican?

I believe there is a valid rationale that new people joining that voting population are most likely to reach the same positions as other voters. I do not think that polling people who don't have the intention or desire to vote has any logical bearing on the effect of increased turnout.

Given the data from elections we have, I think that if there are those who would like to vote but couldn't and are enabled by efforts to increase turnout, they tend to match the opinions of the people who are voting better than those who choose not to. And if you were to increase turnout by tapping into those who actively choose not to, you have to necessarily change their positions to get them involved, which makes it illogical to assume they are maintaining their positions.

If there were a trend that elections with higher turnout swung for Democrats, that would be a different story.