NATO during a Trump Presidency: Stay, Pay, or why don't you all just f-f-fade away?

[Sarmatian]

This is an inane assertion.
Strategic voting would actually be far more prevalent in a straight popularity vote. The Electoral College makes it somewhat more difficult to reform the vote in general, but this would still require an amendment. On the other hand, reforming the way that Electors are selected in a given State is much easier as a result of the Electoral College.

Rubbish. There are examples where dark horse candidates managed to get to the second round. EC ensures that, even if a candidate is doing particularly well (for an underdog), he or she has absolutely no chance to gain even a single electoral vote, thus ensuring status quo.

It also ensures there is no point to actually take other candidates seriously. There were four presidential candidates, and there were three presidential debates involving only two candidates. It means the only voice that is heard is the voice of the establishment of two major parties.

As to what the Electoral College was supposed to do and how it works now, the tripartite relationship between the people, States and Federal Government has been far more substantially altered. It still does, however, maintain one of the important functions it was designed for, being the insurance that all States have some degree of representation.

It doesn't even do that.

It actually ensures that a lot of time is devoted to issues in swing states, while bigger states who vote consistently red or blue are overlooked. Climate change might be a more serious issue in California than in Wisconsin, but no one really pays attention to California because it all goes to Democrats.

It also serves to reinforce existing biases and prejudices. Republicans can ignore issues of Californians because they know they're gonna lose there. They can get 10% more of the vote in California and it doesn't matter. In case of a popular vote, just a 5% better result means over 2 million votes more.

Just getting rid of winner takes all system would be a step in the right direction. Than all states would be important and candidates would be forced to devote time and resources to address all issues, not just focus in key swing states.

[Gilrandir]

Correct. Polling services rarely make firm predictions or take stances. They give their customers - for example news media - interpretations of collected data, and what the customers do with this data and other forms of information are their own responsibility.

Even if it is an erroneous interpretation/collected data?

[TBFProgrammer]

Rubbish. There are examples where dark horse candidates managed to get to the second round.

I have no idea what you're talking about with "second round," please clarify. Also an arguably "dark horse" candidate just won the election.

It also ensures there is no point to actually take other candidates seriously. There were four presidential candidates, and there were three presidential debates involving only two candidates. It means the only voice that is heard is the voice of the establishment of two major parties.

No, that's got nothing to do with the Electoral College and everything to do with the (two-party owned) debate commission.

It doesn't even do that.

Some. If Republican or Democrat policies start being seriously questionable for a State where they currently have a lock, they become swing States.

Just getting rid of winner takes all system would be a step in the right direction. Than all states would be important and candidates would be forced to devote time and resources to address all issues, not just focus in key swing states.

Yes, getting rid of the winner takes all system would be a step in the right direction. This step is much easier to take (two States have a version of it in place) with a State level vote determining electors. That's what I was getting at in my post. Without the Electoral College, any change would require a blind (untested) Constitutional Amendment. However, with the current Federal system, States can experiment with different ways to decide how the votes of that State are assigned, without the need for such a difficult process.

[Montmorency]

Even if it is an erroneous interpretation/collected data?

If you make it into an issue of certainty, then you will always be disappointed because certainty is never available for any system or discipline: yes.

[Gilrandir]

Brexit polls were within the error margin for a whole week leading up to the actual vote. They didn't miss, you read them wrong.

Election polls actually did put the US election on the knife's edge on election day, with the momentum in Trump's direction.

Yet somehow the results of both came as a shock which means (roughly) no one expected those, mostly because of the polls.

If you make it into an issue of certainty, then you will always be disappointed because certainty is never available for any system or discipline: yes.

My issue is not certainty, but responsibility and business reputation - someone must confess they did a lousy job interpreting/collecting data and apologize.

As for inavailability of certainty for anything - you gotta be kidding. Next thing you gonna say is that there is no certainty whether God exists or not.

[Husar]

My issue is not certainty, but responsibility and business reputation - someone must confess they did a lousy job interpreting/collecting data and apologize.

Or the people who voted Trump but refused to share that information with them need to apologize.
Or the people who created an atmosphere in which Trump voters did not reveal their choice in a secret ballot beforehand need to apologize.

[Montmorency]

someone must confess they did a lousy job interpreting/collecting data and apologize.

Yes, at various points the BBC, MSNBC, CNN, etc. have put up articles to that effect. For those who in the end predicted a close race, there isn't much to apologize for.

[Gilrandir]

Or the people who voted Trump but refused to share that information with them need to apologize.
Or the people who created an atmosphere in which Trump voters did not reveal their choice in a secret ballot beforehand need to apologize.

No. The polling gang (if they are such astute sociologists) should have known the nature of Trump supporters and should have predicted they are likely to behave like that. Otherwise they are not much of a catch (= do a lousy job).

[Husar]

No. The polling gang (if they are such astute sociologists) should have known the nature of Trump supporters and should have predicted they are likely to behave like that. Otherwise they are not much of a catch (= do a lousy job).

But when 10 people refuse to answer, how many should you assume to be Trump supporters? Surely it is possible to guess, but then polls would still be rather unreliable, no?

[Gilrandir]

Surely it is possible to guess, but then polls would still be rather unreliable, no?

That's what I've been saying.

[Sarmatian]

I have no idea what you're talking about with "second round," please clarify. Also an arguably "dark horse" candidate just won the election.

Most presidential elections have a two round system. A candidate has to win 50%+1 of the total votes to win. If no one achieves that in the first round (and usually no one does), there's a second round for the two candidates with most votes in the first round.

Trump wasn't really a dark horse or an underdog. It was just the EC system that made him such. Polls got it wrong in a few swing states and assumed he has almost no chance of winning the elections.

No, that's got nothing to do with the Electoral College and everything to do with the (two-party owned) debate commission.

It has nothing to do directly but indirectly... Why bother with anyone who doesn't have a chance to become president?

Some. If Republican or Democrat policies start being seriously questionable for a State where they currently have a lock, they become swing States.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

Yes, getting rid of the winner takes all system would be a step in the right direction. This step is much easier to take (two States have a version of it in place) with a State level vote determining electors. That's what I was getting at in my post. Without the Electoral College, any change would require a blind (untested) Constitutional Amendment. However, with the current Federal system, States can experiment with different ways to decide how the votes of that State are assigned, without the need for such a difficult process.

It's a system currently being employed in most of the world so it hardly untested.

[Husar]

That's what I've been saying.

What does/would it change then?
Why demand something from them that would not change much?

[Gilrandir]

What does/would it change then?
Why demand something from them that would not change much?

To acknowledge that polls are unreliable and one shouldn't pay attention to them.

[Montmorency]

To acknowledge that polls are unreliable and one shouldn't pay attention to them.

"To acknowledge that polls are unreliable and one who doesn't know how to use them shouldn't pay attention to them.

[Gilrandir]

"To acknowledge that polls are unreliable and one who doesn't know how to use them shouldn't pay attention to them.

You mean vast majority of people who were shocked by the results of US elections and Brexit referendum which proved to be so different from what polls had told them? Then why do we need polls if so many people "don't know how to use them"? To let people"who know how to use them" earn a good living?

[Montmorency]

You mean vast majority of people who were shocked by the results of US elections and Brexit referendum which proved to be so different from what polls had told them?

While polls vary in strength and methods can be improved, the real issue is motivated reasoning in treating with them. Those who thought to delineate a Clinton victory as a firm outcome (though it was never a far-fetched one, mind) are at fault for not examining the results on their most literal level or placing them within a context of other forms of information. There have for many years been complaints levied against news media of their most regular abuse of polls, that of creating a daily/weekly horse race for the candidates based on cursory display of figures - nevertheless, it's what we like to consume, even those who "should know better". Even those who complain.

Then why do we need polls if so many people "don't know how to use them"? To let people"who know how to use them" earn a good living?

Well, yes. That's why businesses pay for and conduct surveys and polls - because they are useful in a wide variety of applications, particularly consumer/market research.

[Gilrandir]

Well, yes. That's why businesses pay for and conduct surveys and polls - because they are useful in a wide variety of applications, particularly consumer/market research.

Despite the fact that polls do not represent the situation adequately? To let those who conduct them earn a good living disseminating the myth of how useful polls are?

[Montmorency]

Some argue that reliance on polls is bad because organizations will structure themselves around their epistemic inclusion, and so will tend to be harmful from the point of view that data accumulation has more capacity to blinker than enlighten. However, no one argues that a poll in itself cannot give insight on the views and practices of groups of people.

You have to bridge this gap between utility and infallibility.