Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Art of Elections Forecasting

Posted by timothy on from the can-we-get-a-point-spread-in-vegas? dept.

ideonexus writes "Years ago Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight.com, a blog seeking to educate the public about elections forecasting, established his model as one of the most accurate in existence, rising from a fairly unknown statistician working in baseball to one of the most respected names in election forecasting. In this article he describes all the factors that go into his predictions. A fascinating overview of the process of modeling a chaotic system."

11 of 101 comments (clear)

  1. Educating the Public? by newcastlejon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I hope that includes "don't vote according to forecasts". I mean, it'd be nice if more people voted for the candidate they actually want instead of the one they think will win.

    --
    If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
    1. Re:Educating the Public? by khallow · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I hope that includes "don't vote according to forecasts". I mean, it'd be nice if more people voted for the candidate they actually want instead of the one they think will win.

      An educated public would realize that voting for who you want in today's election environment is not optimal strategy.

  2. It's all about the money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ever since the Republican members of the supreme court overturned our campaign finance laws, elections have become an epic bribe-fest where money almost always wins.

    You tell me which side is outspending the other 10-1 and I'll tell you who is most likely to win the election.

    Let's just save ourselves alot of time and aggravation, and ask the America's 10 most bigoted and bribe-happy billionaires who they would like to win.

    1. Re:It's all about the money by XanC · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Even if what you say about 10-1 outspending is true (and it probably is), you haven't established causation, only correlation. Wouldn't you expect a better, winning candidate to be able to get more money as well as more votes than the other guy?

    2. Re:It's all about the money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Democracy = one man one vote.

      Capitalism = one dollar one vote.

      Only an idiot or a libertarian (but I repeat myself) fails to understand that you can't "vote with your wallet" unless everyone has about the same size wallet.

    3. Re:It's all about the money by robinsonne · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You can say "correlation != causation" all you want, but the simple thing is more $$$ = more advertising, and the more advertising = more votes. IOW more $$$ = more votes.

    4. Re:It's all about the money by GoodNewsJimDotCom · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Oftentimes the guy who gets the bribes(campaign contributions) is the guy more willing to do what is asked of him. The road to increasing political power is less of who is best for the people, but who continually returns good for their campaign contributors. The more you help those who bribe you, the more money they're willing to give you.

      --
      God spoke to me
    5. Re:It's all about the money by bit+trollent · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Wouldn't you expect a better, winning candidate to be able to get more money as well as more votes than the other guy?

      Not if the better candidate is advocating against the billionaire's personal interests (such as paying his share of taxes) while the corrupt candidate obeys his billionaire owner.

    6. Re:It's all about the money by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You can say "correlation != causation" all you want, but the simple thing is more $$$ = more advertising, and the more advertising = more votes. IOW more $$$ = more votes.

      To a certain extent, this is true.

      It must be remembered, however, that there are other ways to "advertise".

      The "incumbent advantage" is an obvious one - it's pretty easy to get your name in the news just by proposing a new law, even if you have no intention of following through on it. And the evening news is just more advertising for a candidate.

      Likewise, if a candidate is preferred by the various news organizations, he/she/it tends to get better coverage than a candidate that is actively disliked by the media. Again, free advertising....

      Do remember that it's actually pretty hard to limit campaign spending without tripping over the First Amendment (face it, if a candidate is rich enough, he can just buy a TV station and BECOME part of the media)....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    7. Re:It's all about the money by zill · · Score: 3, Insightful

      A corporation, not being human, has no claim to human rights.

      But the people who make up the corporation do, especially when those people have formed the corporation for the explicit purpose of exercising the right to free speech. As did Citizen's United.

      The people who make up the corporation have their rights, and they are welcome to exercise those rights to the fullest. However, they don't deserve extra rights just because they have more money.

      As an individual, I am allowed to donate $2500 to my favorite candidate. A single cent more and the feds haul me off to jail.

      But if I form a corporation, I can donate all the money I want to a super PAC. By forming a corporation, I suddenly have more free speech rights than anyone in the country who don't currently control a corporation.

      Sure, there are laws prohibiting super PACs from coordinating with campaigns, but the candidate can just have his lawyer form the super PAC and the communication between them will be protected by the attorney–client privilege. (for the interest of partisanship I won't name that candidate)

  3. Re:Doesn't Matter by Marcika · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Lieberman is no democrat. He sabotaged the public option for the republicans by joining the threatened filibuster. Thus no majority. Thus your point is moot, coward.