Election 2020

[Nonlinear_Zero-Sum]

I thought this thread was about probabilities. Now we are in my old stomping grounds, poly sci.

Y’know, I’d also thought that this thread was about Probability (even after its promotion to ‘General Thread’), but naively hadn’t realized that uncertainty had been already squeezed out of the Election 2020 process by well-funded, well-coordinated efforts to “fortify the outcome”. Live and learn, c'est la vie...

From a poly-sci standpoint, does eliminating uncertainty in elections “protect democracy”..? Asking for a friend.

 

[noetsi]

Democracy probably will not exist much longer in the US barring major changes.

It requires too much effort that the public will no longer provide.

Much of the public no longer participates and those that do hate each other to much for democracy to survive.

A non-authoritarian system can not survive when compromise is impossible and violence is inherent in the system. We are too angry to do anything.

Legitimacy of the political system and government it relies on has largely collapsed.

The economic changes of the last 40 years mean the middle and lower class no longer have influence in the US. Elections are too expensive. They have generated tremendous anger by those displaced by the changes. This is much like the replacement of small farmers (that were the backbone of the Roman republic) by slave labor. This destroyed the republic, it is destroying our system as well.

So democracy is probably finished. Hail Hydra.

 

[Dason]

To be fair noetsi doesn't remember most of what we say so I wouldn't take their opinion on how things will play out too seriously

 

[noetsi]

It is always dangerous to let history guide you too much. But in this case history is a bit scary. Listening to people now reminds me too much of what I remember from the 1850's.

 

[Nonlinear_Zero-Sum]

So democracy is probably finished.

I’m afraid that you’re right. But now, there’s more direct ways to apply leverage than the obsolete ballot box to get what you want ... since who wants to revisit the convoluted, confusing fairy tale that was Election 2020 (2/19).

 

[Nonlinear_Zero-Sum]

#MABA ... Make America Bet Again on Presidential Elections

Americans have always loved to bet each other on upcoming events. Before the rise of organized team-sports leagues, betting on politics – especially Presidential elections -- was the game-in-town, outside the occasional boxing or wrestling match.

A paper on Historical Presidential Betting Markets (Rhode and Strumpf, Journal of Economic Perspectives, Spring 2004) reviews betting on Presidential elections from 1868 to 1940, back when pencil-and-paper and a telegraph (or newfangled 'telephone') were used to record and relay results, before the rise of instant mass communication and automation. This excerpt captures Americans’ collective enthusiasm in betting on who’s gonna be the next Prez:

The betting quotes filled the demand for accurate odds from a public widely interested in wagering on elections. In this age before mass communication technologies reached into America’s living rooms, election nights were highly social events, comparable to New Year’s Eve or major football games. In large cities, crowds filled restaurants, hotels, and sidewalks in downtown areas where newspapers and brokerage houses would publicize the latest returns and people with sporting inclinations would wager on the outcomes. Even for those who could not afford large stakes, betting in the run-up to elections was a cherished ritual. A widely-held value was that one should be prepared to “back one’s beliefs” either with money or more creative dares.​

Betting was so popular -- and political campaigns so efficient, apparently -- that the money wagered on the elections often rivaled the amount of total Presidential-campaign spending, nationwide. With Woodrow Wilson’s reelection in 1916, betting in New York alone was over 2X that of campaign spending (see below).

​

From a dog-that-did-not-bark standpoint, it is interesting that in this comprehensive overview, there were NO references to the underlying integrity of the election being questioned by either Party nor by the bettors. In contrast, with Election 2020, BOTH sides were concerned with election-result integrity: one side preemptively, the other side after the fact*.

* Keeping current with our new 'facts' ... since 2 + 2 = 5, et al, nowadays, it's unsurprising to learn that 46 = 44. Plus, ‘It takes a village’ to avert erroneous massive destruction (2/25; more here). A fortifying team effort, all around.​