Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

and_dont_blink t1_ix6a2bz wrote

Uh this is I believe two races going to Dems by a single vote. Statistically that feels a little weird...

Edit: why this is statistically so weird, because I'm getting caught up in some downvoting.

34

TheOtherMark t1_ix6bcl8 wrote

Given Southington's political compass this isn't that surprising, but Poulos worked hard on his campaign and it's good to see it paid off. Also glad I convinced my family to vote this year.

Now if only we didn't delegate library power away from the library...

EDIT: It's a figure of speech guys, relax.

45

TankGirlwrx t1_ix6e1al wrote

Oh dammit, the library measure didn’t pass? I was so focused on finding out if Poulos won in the recount I forgot to check the other ballot measure outcomes.

At least the state passed early voting!

edit: I realize after discussion that passing in this case is the undesired outcome if we want the library to be run/managed by the library staff.

7

TheOtherMark t1_ix6evbs wrote

I haven't been able to find the other ballot measure outcomes. My brother told me Question 4 did pass but I haven't found proof. As this sub discussed, voting "yes" was a bad idea.

article on the question

discussion thread

7

TankGirlwrx t1_ix7u0gq wrote

Honestly, that question was so poorly worded and probably on purpose. Thanks for the links

It’s weird that the “yes” signs had the love your library slogan on them, and unlike others I saw them next to all sorts of other political signs. I feel like I voted the wrong way now, and I’m pissed they worded that question the way they did

6

TheOtherMark t1_ix83ims wrote

The Republicans who want more control over the library wanted it to be confusing so they can override your critical thinking and vote their way. They love those lawn signs because they remove all nuance from the equation. "The library told me to vote yes? Good enough for me!" But if you research the town charter and state statutes, and you consider what the question asks you to change from the status quo, a reasonable voter probably doesn't come to the conclusion they want.

No matter how you voted on the question, this is a good experience and a valuable lesson. You went out and voted, that's good. Now you have to become an informed voter.

4

TankGirlwrx t1_ix83y99 wrote

The frustrating thing is I usually consider myself informed! This question was a surprise to me like the day before election day and honestly, I probably should have just not filled that one in, knowing I didn't have enough info. I find it fairly difficult to find good info on local referendums though (which is probably also by design in this town...)

5

TheOtherMark t1_ix8868r wrote

Then you're already doing better than half of Southington. XD

I usually look up the sample ballot by the end of October and spend an afternoon figuring out how I want to vote on everything. The real ballots rarely (but can) change by election time. The library question did have me dig deeper than normal, but the town charter and CT laws are all available online. And I guess if all else fails, you could always ask reddit (and deal with all that entails lol).

2

TankGirlwrx t1_ix8daul wrote

I do wish I hadn't missed the thread here before the election, that would have been helpful! Thanks for the kind words :)

2

AugustusPompeianus t1_ix8id2x wrote

The library is place to go for access for good quality news while allowing patrons access to internet and books of all opinions.

Librarians (or their board of directors) have the opinions they have for a good reason.

It's a sad hill to die on to regulate libraries.

2

frissonFry t1_ix7zu8y wrote

People did choose the worst option, but I can't find the article now. It was fairly easy for me to find only a few days after the election though.

2

and_dont_blink t1_ix6hbss wrote

>Given Southington's political compass this isn't that surprising

It should be surprising, statistically the odds of a race coming down to one vote is exceptionally small -- and the larget larger the township the more unlikely. It happening twice is weird. It happening for the same party is another layer.

−11

enigma7x t1_ix6nf8a wrote

I mean, in other parts of the country these right races went to the other party. It just shows how tight things were in this midterm. The liberal candidates managed to squeak out just enough more voters in a couple of contests here - and Connecticut is by default more liberal than conservative. Pretty sure the republican state senator in my district won by a margin of dozens? There were tons of close races in the state.

11

and_dont_blink t1_ix6rftw wrote

>I mean, in other parts of the country these right races went to the other party.

Yes, this was a contested race but...

> It just shows how tight things were in this midterm.

It does, but it's statistically really unlikely it is to win by one vote, especially in a larger election. Here's a list of super-close votes that have occurred across the country from 1800 to 2010, and note this election had 10,593 votes cast.

You'll notice that most of those are not one-vote wins, but a few hundred or two votes and (a) It isn't that many (b) the majority are much smaller votes (c) they're having to fudge, e.g. "1.1 votes per precinct across the election" (d)

Two races winning by one vote for the same party is like winning the powerball multiple times. Statistically possible but surprising as hell.

−5

enigma7x t1_ix7m3b0 wrote

It's definitely a pretty wild thing to happen. All the more reason to vote - local politics offers a lot more opportunity for your vote to count for something.

What's a little bizarre is your inability to accept that it happened without casting any doubt on it. Crazy things happen all the time. I'm sure this won't be the last close local election in Connecticut and I imagine they go the other way too.

Instead of being suspicious about it, why not transfer that energy into your preferred local candidate next time? Get out a canvas or phone bank for them.

13

and_dont_blink t1_ix7qxhz wrote

>It's definitely a pretty wild thing to happen.

We agree!

>What's a little bizarre is your inability to accept that it happened without casting any doubt on it.

If you read the actual chain enigma7x, I was responding to someone saying it wasn't surprising at all -- then listed out why it was. Please don't turn this into something it isn't or say I said something I didn't.

In fact in your other comment, you're saying it isn't weird at all. It's super damned weird, that's all.

2

enigma7x t1_ix86r4o wrote

It is wild and dramatic, but really not that weird at the local level. My comment still stands.

A lot of your comments in this thread make you sound very suspicious of the process. I am not sure if that was your intention, but a lot of them are reading that way, and after 2020 and Jan 6th I am always going to be critical of that tone.

4

and_dont_blink t1_ix873dc wrote

>A lot of your comments in this thread make you sound very suspicious of the process.

Could you point to them enigma7x?

From where I'm standing, it's someone putting words in someone's mouth and attempting to bully them into not participating in the subreddit for a simple statement, while saying different things in different comments. It's not really cool dude.

What comments in this thread did I make that made me sound very suspicious of the process?

2

asimplescribe t1_ix88zre wrote

The reason you keep pointing out how weird it is and adding nothing to discussion is because you want to raise controversy with a group that has problem accepting election results.

1

and_dont_blink t1_ix89sz6 wrote

No, again, the reason I keep pointing it out is because I said it was weird, and then responded to someone saying "It's not weird" and "it's not a surprise."

I have no issue with someone going "Yeah it's super weird, this is why votes matter" but I have an issue with someone denying basic probabilities or claiming I said something I didn't say.

1

enigma7x t1_ix89qal wrote

>It should be surprising, statistically the odds of a race coming down to one vote is exceptionally small -- and the larget larger the township the more unlikely. It happening twice is weird. It happening for the same party is another layer.

This comment's entire thesis is that it's unlikely because it benefitted one party over another. This makes me suspicious because realistically if you find this occurrence weird, it should be weird even if D won one and R won the other. It's all so statistically improbable right? So you seem a little fixated on the outcome here. It makes me wonder if we would be seeing this thread at all if the R candidates had won the close election instead. You can say what you want in reply to this, but given your fixation its a suspicion that immediately comes to mind and that's really all that is relevant here.

>You'll notice that most of those are not one-vote wins, but a few hundred or two votes and (a) It isn't that many (b) the majority are much smaller votes (c) they're having to fudge, e.g. "1.1 votes per precinct across the election" (d)Two races winning by one vote for the same party is like winning the powerball multiple times. Statistically possible but surprising as hell.

You seem very interested in putting on the appearance of approaching this rationally and statistically - but then in these comments you cite a source of close elections and your entire argument is essentially "but I feel like this isn't convincing." I am highly suspicious of people making feelings based argument. You then make a statistical assertion with absolutely no evidence. If you want to liken close elections occurring to the probability of winning the power ball multiple times the onus is on you to show that this is a meaningfully equivalent statement. The fact that you didn't just leaves me to think that the math hasn't actually been done. If that is the case, then you said this with the intention of being hyperbolic. If you are being hyperbolic, then you are doing it because you're trying to rile up an emotional response to your statement instead of a rational one. This leaves me suspicious.

Then the entire parent comment here in the first place is just a classic "begging the question." If you don't want to look like you're begging the question, then you could have simple said "Wow, thats two elections going the way of the same party by 1 vote this year. I wonder what the probability is on that?" The things we say and the way we present ourselves matter. Your initial comment, as it is presented, is draped in a tone of suspicion. Maybe english isn't your first language, maybe there is a bunch of other explanations for that - but you should know that you sound, in tone, one or two comments away from being an election denier. The bedrock for the rhetoric is there, and the thought patterns are there. Do with that what you will.

EDIT: To any readers just know that this poster blocked me. I have no idea how they replied and the fact that they blocked me despite putting in the effort above is a large tell. They are arguing in this thread in bad faith and the moment they were challenged they folded and blocked me to protect their own feelings. Don't buy in to any arguments coming from this poster - they are trying to stoke flames of conspiracy.

1

and_dont_blink t1_ix8ejbr wrote

>This comment's entire thesis is that it's unlikely because it benefitted one party over another.

No, it was about the statistical odds of it occurring at all -- that it benefited one party added a whole other layer. It's pretty clear right there in the comment, and I think you know that enigma7x
.

2

SeanFromQueens t1_ix89t7x wrote

In 2016 Democratic Iowa Caucus, there were handful of ties that were decided by coin flip

>The Des Moines Register has identified six coin flips through social media and one in an interview with a caucus participant. Of those seven, Clinton was the apparent winner of six. It's unknown if there is any overlap between the coin flips identified by the Register and the coin flips the state party confirmed.

So in a small enough election the possibility of a one vote margin of victory or a tie goes up exponentially. The statistics of even distribution (such as coin flips) need a large number of attempts made and there aren't enough ties and 1 vote victory margins for that to be expressed, it's just more likely in smaller elections.

5

and_dont_blink t1_ix8ebeb wrote

....this is about something very, very different even if it's implied there were six ties and they flipped a coin:

>Here’s what happened in Ames, according to David Schweingruber, an associate professor of sociology at Iowa State University (and Sanders supporter) who participated in the caucus:
A total of 484 eligible caucus attendees were initially recorded at the site. But when each candidate’s preference group was counted, Clinton had 240 supporters, Sanders had 179 and Martin O’Malley had five (causing him to be declared non-viable).
Those figures add up to just 424 participants, leaving 60 apparently missing. When those numbers were plugged into the formula that determines delegate allocations, Clinton received four delegates and Sanders received three — leaving one delegate unassigned.
Unable to account for that numerical discrepancy and the orphan delegate it produced, the Sanders campaign challenged the results and precinct leaders called a Democratic Party hot line set up to advise on such situations.
Party officials recommended they settle the dispute with a coin toss.

1

SeanFromQueens t1_ix8hysd wrote

But much like the presidential votes determined by the US House (which appeared in your list of really close elections), when it's such a small number of voters it's more likely to be single digit margin of victory. Statistics would also make it likely with enough small elections, that resulted in a narrow or tied election there would a close to 50-50 break out, but only if there were thousands of instances. Most smaller elections are lopsided making the number of instances to occur take hundreds of years to see the result of near even outcomes. It's likely there will be drastic changes in partisan make up or demographic shifts or even electoral reform that would avoid the enough occurrences to have that result.

2

enigma7x t1_ix6n0jj wrote

It isn't weird at all. The more local the elections get, the more each individual vote counts.

18

Darondo t1_ix9ami0 wrote

It really isn’t at all.

Winning by exactly one vote isn’t any less likely than winning by exactly 158 votes. But no one bats an eye at that just because it’s less close, despite it having the same statistical likelihood.

There are republicans that won by tight margins too. Not everything is a conspiracy you weirdo.

1

and_dont_blink t1_ix9b2za wrote

>Winning by exactly one vote isn’t less likely than winning by exactly 100 votes.

Yes, it is. It's math and basic statistics.

>Not everything is a conspiracy you weirdo.

Nobody said it was a conspiracy, why are you calling names about something that was never said Darondo?

1

Darondo t1_ix9c8il wrote

Basic stats? Show me then.

0

and_dont_blink t1_ix9f24r wrote

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2016/11/here-are-the-chances-your-vote-matters.html

As you'll see, the larger the number the less likely it becomes. That's whether your vote matters, but for the purposes of this it can be whether any particular vote will break the tie. It's why in the list I gave before, single-vote wins are exceptionally rare and when they do occur it's generally in smaller votes.

Can you show me yours?

2

Darondo t1_ix9iqn0 wrote

This link doesn’t show any math at all.

In a random election, a dead heat is statistically the most probably outcome. Yes it’s highly unlikely with a large number of voters, but not more so than any other exact outcome.

It’s just coin flip probability. Here is the math.

2

and_dont_blink t1_ix9jx89 wrote

You,'re right, I misread what you originally wrote, sorry about that.

So why bring up winning by one vote vs an arbitrary number you have picked beforehand if they are both astronomically rare? What is the point?

2

Darondo t1_ix9mhpd wrote

Right, I think there is no point. An outcome is what it is. A virtually tied election isn’t statistically less likely (or statistically weirder) than any other exact arbitrary outcome.

I (mis)interpreted your original comment as a suggestion of potential election fuckery. Apologies if that’s not what you were getting at.

1

and_dont_blink t1_ix9ndgn wrote

>A virtually tied election isn’t statistically less likely (or statistically weirder) than any other exact arbitrary outcome.

Well we just know that's not true, it's powerball level odds to pick a random number and hit it. Winning the lottery is weird. Winning it twice is spooky. Winning it twice at the same gas station is weird asf.

>I (mis)interpreted your original comment as a suggestion of potential election fuckery. Apologies if that’s not what you were getting at.

Nah, tho even if I did think that I wish people would chill in the name calling and acting like that it isn't going to change minds yah know?

Someone rigging elections and making it by one vote would be idiotic lol just like if they both won by 153. But it's weird asf

1

beazneaz t1_ix6ixld wrote

There was a lot of weird this round

−23

That_Guy381 t1_ix6w5i3 wrote

If you guys want evidence of how much Donald Trump has damaged trust in our democracy, look right at this comment

30

beazneaz t1_ixdotxd wrote

So basically, democracy is at work so don’t ask questions…. Seems legit.

1

beazneaz t1_ixaa1zv wrote

Lol this CT subreddit is a joke. AZ just took a week to count there votes and 100% of independent voters voted for Hobbs, the one in charge of elections. You would rather “smash” the other side into submission then show genuine concern for the democratic process. Hypocrites are the worst.

−1

That_Guy381 t1_ixact6v wrote

The rules in Arizona were put in by republicans.

>100% of independent voters voted for Hobbs

Source?

In any event, thanks for proving my point.

2

beazneaz t1_ixcj0mr wrote

Fetterman gets over 80% in the Philly district and you have ZERO questions. He can’t talk. Also a dead guy won. ZERO questions.

0

That_Guy381 t1_ixcr9uj wrote

I love how you move the goalposts, but in an effort to try to help you through your confusion, I’ll engage.

As for Fetterman, why would I have questions about a Democrat winning 80% of the vote in black majority city? Democrats have won philly overwhelmingly in every single election for decades.

Obama won 85% of the vote in Philadelphia, and over 99% in some wards.

Biden got 81%. Why is Fetterman winning 80% in any way shocking to you, considering this is how it has always been?

The dead guy? He ran essentially unopposed, only by a green party candidate. At best, the voters knew that he was dead and thought that it was better to have a special election than vote in a green party candidate. At worst, they didn’t know, and voted in a dead guy. In any event, this doesn’t at all point to any fraudulent voting.

So my assumption here is now that you’ve had 4 talking points debunked, you’re not going to respond to this comment. Hopefully it gets you to change your view, but I’m not counting on it.

1

beazneaz t1_ixdfzuw wrote

You’ll have to explain what goalposts I moved. I’m somewhat surprised you ventured so far to equate Obama or even Biden to Fetterman. You avoided my original reply about AZ since you are keeping score. Perhaps this can be a discussion without hostility? I think no matter where you fall on the political spectrum we can agree that the is a top-down, divide and conquer tactic at play. Our modes of information are weaponized against us. No one wins if we’re at each other’s throats.

1

That_Guy381 t1_ixewmd0 wrote

They’re both democrats - why wouldn’t I equate them? Haven’t you guys been calling Biden brain dead for the better part of 3 years? Why would Fetterman be any different?

I didn’t avoid your “questions” about Arizona. I answered one, and asked for a source on your other claim, which you failed to provide, hence moving the goal posts.

I guess I answered your questions about the dead guy, however, so that’s nice.

I’d love to have a discussion without hostility, but we have to exist in the same reality. Facts are facts, no matter your feelings, right?

Do you seriously think that Hobbs got 100% of the independents, and everyone’s ignoring that?

Why do you have questions about Fetterman, a democrat, winning 80% of the vote in Philadelphia, a city overwhelmingly won by Democrats, year after year, especially against a carpetbagging, anti abortion, snake oil doctor from Jersey?

You have literally zero evidence for you claims other than “feels”.

1

beazneaz t1_ixf4v2o wrote

I did provide a link about AZ, now if that post didn’t show up to you then that’s a different matter all together. Wouldn’t be the first time on Reddit. It’s true that we don’t exist in the same reality. Consider me like a Democrat from the early 2000s. I hate everything the Bush family represented. The D party, however, is unrecognizable today. As a matter of fact it’s just one big party in DC with some sort of overlords pulling the strings.

1

That_Guy381 t1_ixf5jcr wrote

The comment with your link to AZ didn’t show up, no. Do you mind DM’ing it to me?

Whether or not the D party unrecognizable has no bearing on our democracy.

1

zgrizz t1_ix7tfb5 wrote

You can't say negative things, or even say something that someone under the influence might take as negative, about Democrats here. You will be downvoted mercilessly by people who claim to practice 'tolerance'.

−28

the-crotch t1_ix85zbx wrote

You're wrong, and I'll prove it.

"Fuck Malloy."

12

im_intj t1_ix7v7b0 wrote

Correct

−16

Buy-theticket t1_ix8vjca wrote

There's no issue talking shit about dems.. watch, Joe Biden sucks and I only voted for him because he was the lesser evil.

The downvotes come in when you all start parroting lies and propaganda or making baseless claims based on how you feel vs reality.

6

im_intj t1_ix8wnau wrote

Previous comment from myself and other user prove otherwise. And if you give it enough time this comment as well.

−2

Buy-theticket t1_ix8yxyj wrote

No.. you're downvoted because you're lying and regurgitating propaganda about the poor oppressed conservatives.

Exactly as I said.

4