Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

and_dont_blink t1_ix6rftw wrote

Reply to comment by enigma7x in Democrat Chris Poulos Won His Connecticut House Race by a Single Vote by poliscijunki

>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