Slightly OT, but: The Brexit signaled the start of truly unexpected events. Italy, btw, is also having a referendum.
But here's the Dallas News endorsing Hilary .. first dem endorsment in over 70 years! http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/editorials/20160907-we-recommend-hillary-clinton-for-u.s.-president.ece l guess these are the years of Expect the Unexpected! -- Owen On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 8:39 AM, Steven A Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > I know we try to avoid getting into political discussions here, and that > is not what I'm trying t draw you into. Out of my infamous morbid > fascination, I *have* been following the presidential campaigns this past > year or more and in particular comparing the many running *polls* to the > *Iowa Electronic Markets* > > http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/ge > neral_election_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5952.html > > https://tippie.biz.uiowa.edu/iem/ > > It is most interesting to me how much the WTA vs the popular vote prices > in the IEM diverge. It definitely supports MY (reluctant) preferences in > this context, but it IS disturbing in a democracy that the representative > factor (electoral college in this case) seems to either magnify a small > lead, or even perhaps bias it? > > The polls seem to be somewhat "all over the place" which I suspect > reflects the methodology for sampling the population in each case. > Perhaps someone here has some professional experience with polling > methodologies or theory can illuminate a little? > > This has impact on the debates. At this point, it looks like the Libs and > the Greens will be shut out of the upcoming debates, in spite of the likely > absurdity of a Trump/Clinton debate, given their personal styles and > stances. 3rd party debaters would surely add some signal to what is likely > to be nearly purely noise otherwise? > > As a side note, I am disappointed with how little traction either Gary or > Jill are getting this time around. As UNpopular as both of the primary > candidates are, and as relatively acceptable (both Jill and Gary seem to > have serious intentions, serious campaigns and serious platforms) > candidates are, why don't we see higher/growing polling numbers? Is it the > ominosity of the elections themselves? Everyone is afraid of creating a > "spoiler"? > > This re-invigorates my interest in Ranked Voting Systems. Do we have any > Psephologists (pebble counters) in the house with insight into Ranked > Voting Systems? > > http://www.fairvote.org/ seems to be the main organization promoting RVS > at the national level but I don't see a roadmap of what it would take to > actually change our system to embrace this? > > > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
