What A Difference 2 Percentage Points Makes | FiveThirtyEight - Polidicks

[QUOTE] Here’s the Electoral College map we’re going to end up with, assuming that every uncalled state goes to the candidate leading in the vote count there as of 4 p.m. Eastern time on Wednesday. There’s a sea of red for President-elect Donald Trump. He earned 306 electoral votes and became the first Republican since 1988 to win Michigan, Wisconsin or Pennsylvania. [. . .] One fact that doesn’t fit very well into this narrative is that Clinton leads in the popular vote count. She should eventually win the popular vote by 1 to 2 percentage points, and perhaps somewhere on the order of 1.5 million to 2 million votes, once remaining mail-in ballots from California and Washington are counted, along with provisional ballots in other states. But ignore that for now — elections, after all, are contested in the Electoral College. (Hence the name of this website.) So here’s another question. What would have happened if just 1 out of every 100 voters shifted from Trump to Clinton? That would have produced a net shift of 2 percentage points in Clinton’s direction. And instead of the map you see above, we’d have wound up with this result in the Electoral College instead: [IMG]https://s16.postimg.org/7ji5ah63p/screen_shot_2016_11_09_at_4_10_35_pm.png[/IMG] Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Florida flip back to Clinton, giving her a total of 307 electoral votes. And she’d have won the popular vote by 3 to 4 percentage points, right where the final national polls had the race and in line with Obama’s margin of victory in 2012. [. . .] In light of Trump’s narrow victory, these arguments sound extremely unconvincing. But they’re exactly what we would have been hearing if just 1 out of 100 voters had switched from Trump to Clinton. So consider that there might be at least partial truth in some of these points. Likewise, if Clinton had just that small, additional fraction of the vote, people would be smugly dismissing the arguments in the first set of bullet points — even though they, too, would have been just 2 percentage points away from seeming incredibly prescient. Interpretation of the polling would also have been very different. If Clinton had done just 2 points better, pollsters would have called the popular-vote margin almost on the nose and correctly identified the winner in all states but North Carolina.[/QUOTE] [URL="http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-a-difference-2-percentage-points-makes/"]FiveThirtyEight[/URL]

What's the point of this article? Yes wow if you take votes from one side and give it to the other, the other side gets more votes and will win swing states.

[QUOTE=Mr_Razzums;51345722]What's the point of this article? Yes wow if you take votes from one side and give it to the other, the other side gets more votes and will win swing states.[/QUOTE]I think it's making a point about the normal margin of error with polling and how large of a difference it made in this election. [editline]10th November 2016[/editline] iirc 1-2% is usually a common margin of error for decently-done polls.

It's also talking about the winner takes all system that the US states have in place I believe

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51345781]It's also talking about the winner takes all system that the US states have in place I believe[/QUOTE] It's a winner takes whatever really, a lot of it is dependent on the state. Some are winner take all, some are proportionate to the popular vote, some states require that the electorate vote with the winner of the popular vote, others can have their electorate vote against the popular. It's a ball of fuck really.

[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;51345936]It's a winner takes whatever really, a lot of it is dependent on the state. Some are winner take all, some are proportionate to the popular vote, some states require that the electorate vote with the winner of the popular vote, others can have their electorate vote against the popular. It's a ball of fuck really.[/QUOTE] I know I'm stating the obvious here but balls of fuck are not good things for governments generally

I think we should just get rid of the electoral college system in general. Not just because I disagree with the results of this election, but it should be whoever gets the most amounts of votes from any part of the country Might even increase turnout since some republican who lives in Cali or NY might feel like their vote actually matters rather than stay home because the state will go blue for the electoral college. Same for democrats in red states.

[QUOTE=SelfishDragon;51345950]I think we should just get rid of the electoral college system in general. Not just because I disagree with the results of this election, but it should be whoever gets the most amounts of votes from any part of the country Might even increase turnout since some republican who lives in Cali or NY might feel like their vote actually matters rather than stay home because the state will go blue for the electoral college. Same for democrats in red states.[/QUOTE] The electoral college system is perfectly fine, the only problem I have with it is that California has an absurd amount of votes, if it wasn't a winner take all system, then maybe every democrat who ever ran wouldn't get an automatic +55 every four years.

[QUOTE=Numpers;51346128]The electoral college system is perfectly fine, the only problem I have with it is that California has an absurd amount of votes, if it wasn't a winner take all system, then maybe every democrat who ever ran wouldn't get an automatic +55 every four years.[/QUOTE] Why should California get less, though? If your only argument is "but they always vote democrats" then maybe that has nothing to with you wanting to make the process more democratic. Edit: I just went and checked, even though I was sure it was the case, but as I think most people already knew, Californians have some of the fewest electoral votes per capita. A vote from a person in Wyoming means 4 times as much as a vote from someone in Florida. What's your argument for giving them even less?

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;51346144]Why should California get less, though? If your only argument is "but they always vote democrats" then maybe that has nothing to with you wanting to make the process more democratic.[/QUOTE] I didn't say California should get less, I said it shouldn't be a winner take all system. California is a huge state with many different cultures, yet it all gets lumped together into one giant ball. If (for voting purposes only) the state were broken into different pieces, then more voices could actually be heard.

[QUOTE=Numpers;51346162]I didn't say California should get less, I said it shouldn't be a winner take all system. California is a huge state with many different cultures, yet it all gets lumped together into one giant ball. If (for voting purposes only) the state were broken into different pieces, then more voices could actually be heard.[/QUOTE] How about we did that for all the states. You do know Trump won Florida by a margin of one or a couple of percent. That way he got 28(?) votes in the electoral college. If you don't care about that, you're just mad that the Democrats happen to hold California.

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;51346175]How about we did that for all the states. You do know Trump won Florida by a margin of one or a couple of percent. That way he got 28(?) votes in the electoral college. If you don't care about that, you're just mad that the Democrats happen to hold California.[/QUOTE] I'm only talking about California here, because it is basically an outlier compared to other states. There's too big of a gap in electoral votes compared to any other state.

[QUOTE=Numpers;51346213]I'm only talking about California here, because it is basically an outlier compared to other states. There's too big of a gap in electoral votes compared to any other state.[/QUOTE] "There's too big a gap" - compared to what? California has the largest population of any state in the US. You aren't making any arguments here, you're just saying "it's too big!" like we're in one of those Chinese cartoons.

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;51346237]"There's too big a gap" - compared to what? California has the largest population of any state in the US. You aren't making any arguments here, you're just saying "it's too big!" like we're in one of those Chinese cartoons.[/QUOTE] This is actually kinda frustrating what you're doing here. You're not reading what I'm writing, you're just picking out certain words and arguing against that, so let me clarify and rephrase: California is a huge, diverse state compared to every other state in the U.S. The Electoral College works perfectly fine for every other state in the union, but for California, due to the sheer population size and density, it actually kinda hinders certain people's voice due to the winner take all system. If California used a different system, then it wouldn't always be a solid blue +55 for the democratic party during the presidential elections. I don't really have anything else to say, so I'm not going to make any more replies.

It sounds like you should support abolishing the Electoral College as it would end the issue of people's votes being hidden as no Electoral College would mean the vote would be a straight election contest throughout the States - where every vote would matter no matter where it was made.

[QUOTE=Numpers;51346283]The Electoral College works perfectly fine for every other state in the union,[/QUOTE] No, it doesn't. That's the whole point. Texas has tons of Democrats, but never enough to overcome the Republican hold on the state. New York is more than just NYC, and everything outside of King County, WA is Republican. The Electoral College distorts results everywhere it's used, you can't say that the distortion in California is too big without saying that distortion anywhere is too big without being arbitrarily discriminatory.

...i just realized why that website is called 538

[QUOTE=Numpers;51346283]This is actually kinda frustrating what you're doing here. You're not reading what I'm writing, you're just picking out certain words and arguing against that, so let me clarify and rephrase: California is a huge, diverse state compared to every other state in the U.S. The Electoral College works perfectly fine for every other state in the union, but for California, due to the sheer population size and density, it actually kinda hinders certain people's voice due to the winner take all system. If California used a different system, then it wouldn't always be a solid blue +55 for the democratic party during the presidential elections. I don't really have anything else to say, so I'm not going to make any more replies.[/QUOTE] Actually I think I got your standpoint right on the money. You say that California is huge and "diverse", but you have the exact same problem if you go to Texas (a safe red state) or Florida (a swing state) - each of those states have less electoral college votes, but at the same time, Democrats got a much higher vote share in both of those states than the Republicans making in California - in my eyes making those more "diverse" - yet they got no electoral votes. Collectively, those two states have [B]57[/B] electoral votes that the Republicans won with with barely more votes than the Democrats. The Democrats won 55 electoral college votes with more than 60% of the vote. You can't just look at California in isolation and say "why are those 30% Republicans not being represented" without going to other, smaller, but still very large states like Texas and go "Why are those 43% Democrats not being represented?". Or question why Florida, which is the single most important swing state, could let 100% of the votes go to Trump when Hillary got only 1.3% less than him. Either you have to explain to me why those states (or other large states) are inherently different than California, or you're being a big hypocrite.

Nate Silvers trying to salvage whatever credibility he still has, too bad his career is going to recede harder than his hairline.

[QUOTE=Sovietzek;51346334]Nate Silvers trying to salvage whatever credibility he still has, too bad his career is going to recede harder than his hairline.[/QUOTE] Do you have an actual argument that shows that he's a big idiot that knows nothing, or are memes the best you can do?

[QUOTE=Sovietzek;51346334]Nate Silvers trying to salvage whatever credibility he still has, too bad his career is going to recede harder than his hairline.[/QUOTE] I don't see what credibility he has lost. They acknowledged all the time that Trump had a huge chance of winning - that's why in the last week or so they gave Clinton a 60% chance of winning and Trump a 40% chance of winning. We are in the world where the 40% chance event happened. I feel people misunderstand probability. An event that has a 60% chance of happening won't happen all the time. Conversely, an event that has a 40% chance of happening can happen. So, 538 were correct.

[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;51346345]I don't see what credibility he has lost. They acknowledged all the time that Trump had a huge chance of winning - that's why in the last week or so they gave Clinton a 60% chance of winning and Trump a 40% chance of winning. We are in the world where the 40% chance event happened. I feel people misunderstand probability. An event that has a 60% chance of happening won't happen all the time. Conversely, an event that has a 40% chance of happening can happen. So, 538 were correct.[/QUOTE] Nate Silver even gave a 10% chance of Hillary winning the popular vote, but losing the electoral college. Which is what happened. He has been way more prudent than anyone else, even calling out HuffPo for simply taking the polls at face value. And for some reason he still gets shit on because he gave a subjective chance of Trump winning (back in the spring, when basically anyone thought it impossible) of 1%. People don't want to learn.

[QUOTE=Numpers;51346128]The electoral college system is perfectly fine, the only problem I have with it is that California has an absurd amount of votes, if it wasn't a winner take all system, then maybe every democrat who ever ran wouldn't get an automatic +55 every four years.[/QUOTE] The primary purpose of the electoral college is to prevent an incompetent/criminal president from ascending to the throne. In that purpose, it has failed, and should be either removed completely or changed entirely.

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;51346333]Actually I think I got your standpoint right on the money. You say that California is huge and "diverse", but you have the exact same problem if you go to Texas (a safe red state) or Florida (a swing state) - each of those states have less electoral college votes, but at the same time, Democrats got a much higher vote share in both of those states than the Republicans making in California - in my eyes making those more "diverse" - yet they got no electoral votes. Collectively, those two states have [B]57[/B] electoral votes that the Republicans won with with barely more votes than the Democrats. The Democrats won 55 electoral college votes with more than 60% of the vote. You can't just look at California in isolation and say "why are those 30% Republicans not being represented" without going to other, smaller, but still very large states like Texas and go "Why are those 43% Democrats not being represented?". Or question why Florida, which is the single most important swing state, could let 100% of the votes go to Trump when Hillary got only 1.3% less than him. Either you have to explain to me why those states (or other large states) are inherently different than California, or you're being a big hypocrite.[/QUOTE] Likewise I've crunched some numbers for my home state. The greater Atlanta area, which made up ~40% of the votes for the whole state, overwhelmingly voted for Hillary. Yet in the end 1.6+ million peoples votes did not matter one bit and our 16 electoral votes went to Trump. You gotta draw a line in the sand somewhere and "it's big and diverse" isn't a good reason at all if you're ignoring the same exact situation elsewhere. Numpers if you think California is too diverse come visit me in Georgia. I'll walk you around Midtown and later introduce you to a fellow in the boonies who just the other day told me how close he was to "beating up a nigger outside of Kroger"

[QUOTE=DOG-GY;51346472]Likewise I've crunched some numbers for my home state. The greater Atlanta area, which made up ~40% of the votes for the whole state, overwhelmingly voted for Hillary. Yet in the end 1.6+ million peoples votes did not matter one bit and our 16 electoral votes went to Trump. You gotta draw a line in the sand somewhere and "it's big and diverse" isn't a good reason at all if you're ignoring the same exact situation elsewhere. Numpers if you think California is too diverse come visit me in Georgia. I'll walk you around Midtown and later introduce you to a fellow in the boonies who just the other day told me how close he was to "beating up a nigger outside of Kroger"[/QUOTE] Basically it goes for the whole country. Most of the time you don't actually have red and blue states, you have blue (major) cities and red everything else.

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;51346501]Basically it goes for the whole country. Most of the time you don't actually have red and blue states, you have blue (major) cities and red everything else.[/QUOTE] Clearly our only option to save our perfectly working Electoral College is to have separate electoral votes for cities and rural areas. This is not a form of gerrymandering. This is not a form of gerrymandering. This is not a form of gerrymandering. Eventually we will split and create the United Cities of America and the United Bumfucks of America. Only then can we become great again.

[QUOTE=DOG-GY;51346545]Clearly our only option to save our perfectly working Electoral College is to have separate electoral votes for cities and rural areas. This is not a form of gerrymandering. This is not a form of gerrymandering. This is not a form of gerrymandering. Eventually we will split and create the United Cities of America and the United Bumfucks of America. Only then can we become great again.[/QUOTE] I definitely wasn't arguing in favour of the electoral college. Proportional votes all around would be the best solution if you want to keep the electoral college's skewing factor in favour of small states. Personally I'd drop that as well and just go to a full-on popular vote for the presidency.

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;51346605]I definitely wasn't arguing in favour of the electoral college. Proportional votes all around would be the best solution if you want to keep the electoral college's skewing factor in favour of small states. Personally I'd drop that as well and just go to a full-on popular vote for the presidency.[/QUOTE] I agree 100%

[QUOTE=Numpers;51346128]The electoral college system is perfectly fine, the only problem I have with it is that California has an absurd amount of votes, if it wasn't a winner take all system, then maybe every democrat who ever ran wouldn't get an automatic +55 every four years.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Numpers;51346162]I didn't say California should get less, I said it shouldn't be a winner take all system. California is a huge state with many different cultures, yet it all gets lumped together into one giant ball. If (for voting purposes only) the state were broken into different pieces, then more voices could actually be heard.[/QUOTE] I don't understand why the electoral college needs to be maintained. In its current form with a winner-takes-all system, minority political groups in a state have no power. If it were made strictly proportional, then you might as well go the whole way with a direct popular vote. A voter in a small state shouldn't have 3-4x the voting power of a Californian.

[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;51345936]It's a winner takes whatever really, a lot of it is dependent on the state. Some are winner take all, some are proportionate to the popular vote, some states require that the electorate vote with the winner of the popular vote, others can have their electorate vote against the popular. It's a ball of fuck really.[/QUOTE] all but two are winner take all, and nebraska is two seperate states electoral wise while maine is proportional