DaMoon

Jun 17 2010
caterpillarcowboy:

peterfeld:

newsweek:

(via nicksummers)
Some nice reporting here from Nick

This is a good overview of academic theories concerning “low-information voting” (voting in contests with unfamiliar candidates) but it leaves out the most glaringly obvious explanation, that a sufficient number of voters actually thought “Alvin Greene” was the R&B legend Al Greene (ballot listings might call for the formality of a full name). One voter actually said that to a reporter. And with voters knowing zero about Rawl, that could be enough to swing an 18-point margin Greene’s way.
Another thing to add to this article: political scientists (like all social scientists) who identify rules will point out that there is a probability model for any outcome. Just as one out of 20 polls will produce erroneous results beyond the margin of error, a certain (low) percentage of no-information elections will produce results as bizarre as this one. Think of all the no-information races where both (or more than one) of the candidates are nominally qualified - the outcome is just as random but it isn’t noticed. (Aside from the many no-information races that actually produce a decent result.)  It probably happens more often than we notice, since winning candidates as glaringly inarticulate as Greene are rare - he was a perfect storm, an utter rando with a semi-famous-sounding name and an equally unknown opponent in a two-way race for a high-profile office.


This event was foreshadowed by the fantastic Eddie Murphy movie, The Distinguished Gentleman.  If you have not seen it, watch it and you will understand.

caterpillarcowboy:

peterfeld:

newsweek:

(via nicksummers)

Some nice reporting here from Nick

This is a good overview of academic theories concerning “low-information voting” (voting in contests with unfamiliar candidates) but it leaves out the most glaringly obvious explanation, that a sufficient number of voters actually thought “Alvin Greene” was the R&B legend Al Greene (ballot listings might call for the formality of a full name). One voter actually said that to a reporter. And with voters knowing zero about Rawl, that could be enough to swing an 18-point margin Greene’s way.

Another thing to add to this article: political scientists (like all social scientists) who identify rules will point out that there is a probability model for any outcome. Just as one out of 20 polls will produce erroneous results beyond the margin of error, a certain (low) percentage of no-information elections will produce results as bizarre as this one. Think of all the no-information races where both (or more than one) of the candidates are nominally qualified - the outcome is just as random but it isn’t noticed. (Aside from the many no-information races that actually produce a decent result.)  It probably happens more often than we notice, since winning candidates as glaringly inarticulate as Greene are rare - he was a perfect storm, an utter rando with a semi-famous-sounding name and an equally unknown opponent in a two-way race for a high-profile office.

This event was foreshadowed by the fantastic Eddie Murphy movie, The Distinguished Gentleman.  If you have not seen it, watch it and you will understand.

Comments (View)
blog comments powered by Disqus
Page 1 of 1
s