Comments on: About the Meta-Analysis (FAQ) http://election.princeton.edu A first draft of electoral history Thu, 12 Nov 2009 02:35:25 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Sam Wang http://election.princeton.edu/faq/comment-page-1/#comment-2396 Sam Wang Sat, 15 Nov 2008 09:13:37 +0000 http://election.princeton.edu/?page_id=105#comment-2396 <b>Bjorn</b> - pacifier. Bjorn – pacifier.

]]> By: bjorn akerman http://election.princeton.edu/faq/comment-page-1/#comment-1515 bjorn akerman Fri, 31 Oct 2008 20:15:58 +0000 http://election.princeton.edu/?page_id=105#comment-1515 I value this site because you care enough to show us your past performance (2004), and because you extract sensible advice to any US citizen, democrat or republican. Mathematics for democracy !! As a Swedish citizen I cannot follow your advice, and out of this frustration I voted in the world-wide poll run by “the Economist” http://www.economist.com/vote2008/?a=true&cid=134&v=true Does this poll make any statistical sense, or is it just a pacifier for the rest of us 5.7 billion world citizens that cannot vote in the election that will affect us more than our own elections. I value this site because you care enough to show us your past performance (2004), and because you extract sensible advice to any US citizen, democrat or republican. Mathematics for democracy !!
As a Swedish citizen I cannot follow your advice, and out of this frustration I voted in the world-wide poll run by “the Economist”
http://www.economist.com/vote2008/?a=true&cid=134&v=true
Does this poll make any statistical sense, or is it just a pacifier for the rest of us 5.7 billion world citizens that cannot vote in the election that will affect us more than our own elections.

]]> By: Bill http://election.princeton.edu/faq/comment-page-1/#comment-1454 Bill Wed, 29 Oct 2008 23:13:35 +0000 http://election.princeton.edu/?page_id=105#comment-1454 Yet more evidence that your "split undecideds up 50:50" assumption is applicable in this election cycle as well (and builds credibility for its general applicability). http://www.pollster.com/blogs/undecided_voters_and_racial_at.php Though I wonder if its applicability is limited to the general election. In the Democratic primaries, the undecideds seemed to break very significantly for the same candidate in each state: Clinton. Yet more evidence that your “split undecideds up 50:50″ assumption is applicable in this election cycle as well (and builds credibility for its general applicability).

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/undecided_voters_and_racial_at.php

Though I wonder if its applicability is limited to the general election. In the Democratic primaries, the undecideds seemed to break very significantly for the same candidate in each state: Clinton.

]]> By: Mark http://election.princeton.edu/faq/comment-page-1/#comment-1431 Mark Wed, 29 Oct 2008 13:25:38 +0000 http://election.princeton.edu/?page_id=105#comment-1431 Your tools for letting the reader adjust for bias are the "Popular Meta-Margin" at the top of the page, and the +/- 2% maps for single state probabilities. Since you are a self-described geek and these use Java... you should replace that tool with a slider bar so the reader can adjust the bias to whatever level they wish. It would also link that presentation to the "Popular Meta-Margin". I think it would be a very interesting presentation, and certainly nothing that the other poll aggregation sites have. Your tools for letting the reader adjust for bias are the “Popular Meta-Margin” at the top of the page, and the +/- 2% maps for single state probabilities. Since you are a self-described geek and these use Java… you should replace that tool with a slider bar so the reader can adjust the bias to whatever level they wish. It would also link that presentation to the “Popular Meta-Margin”.

I think it would be a very interesting presentation, and certainly nothing that the other poll aggregation sites have.

]]> By: Chris http://election.princeton.edu/faq/comment-page-1/#comment-1097 Chris Wed, 15 Oct 2008 15:39:50 +0000 http://election.princeton.edu/?page_id=105#comment-1097 I noticed that in your blurb (right sidebar) you claim, "I suggest that the Meta-Analysis is a useful tool for gauging what moves voters." Do you think your data are suitable for econometric time series analysis; if so, have you considered any empirical models (cointegration /multiple time series or ARIMA-style intervention analysis)? Not to sound too much like the cynical social scientists (that pehaps I am) . . . Elections are well and good, but what I find really interesting is your proposition that meta analysis provides a tool to gauge what moves voters (in the aggregate, at any rate). I noticed that in your blurb (right sidebar) you claim, “I suggest that the Meta-Analysis is a useful tool for gauging what moves voters.”

Do you think your data are suitable for econometric time series analysis; if so, have you considered any empirical models (cointegration /multiple time series or ARIMA-style intervention analysis)?

Not to sound too much like the cynical social scientists (that pehaps I am) . . . Elections are well and good, but what I find really interesting is your proposition that meta analysis provides a tool to gauge what moves voters (in the aggregate, at any rate).

]]> By: Lee http://election.princeton.edu/faq/comment-page-1/#comment-1093 Lee Tue, 14 Oct 2008 17:19:08 +0000 http://election.princeton.edu/?page_id=105#comment-1093 Given the relative insensitivity of the median EV to the changing meta-margin at this point, do you have time to supply us with an ongoing historical meta-margin graphic? Thanks! Given the relative insensitivity of the median EV to the changing meta-margin at this point, do you have time to supply us with an ongoing historical meta-margin graphic? Thanks!

]]> By: Sam Wang http://election.princeton.edu/faq/comment-page-1/#comment-932 Sam Wang Thu, 09 Oct 2008 12:41:48 +0000 http://election.princeton.edu/?page_id=105#comment-932 Voter rights is an important topic. But I think that effectively, purges will not be a factor. All the maneuvering with regard to voter rolls and challenges are really useful at the margins, no more than 1 percent. That can make the difference in a very close race (think Florida 2000), but it’s rare. Voter rights is an important topic. But I think that effectively, purges will not be a factor. All the maneuvering with regard to voter rolls and challenges are really useful at the margins, no more than 1 percent. That can make the difference in a very close race (think Florida 2000), but it’s rare.

]]> By: Brian http://election.princeton.edu/faq/comment-page-1/#comment-921 Brian Thu, 09 Oct 2008 07:19:52 +0000 http://election.princeton.edu/?page_id=105#comment-921 How big a factor do you think voter purges will be in the upcoming election? I'm rather alarmed by today's NYT article: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/09/us/politics/09voting.html?partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all How big a factor do you think voter purges will be in the upcoming election? I’m rather alarmed by today’s NYT article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/09/us/politics/09voting.html?partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

]]> By: Sam Wang http://election.princeton.edu/faq/comment-page-1/#comment-896 Sam Wang Wed, 08 Oct 2008 13:56:17 +0000 http://election.princeton.edu/?page_id=105#comment-896 I don't "do" anything with it. The Meta-Margin is the shift that would bring the median EV count to 269. The probability of that particular event is quite small even when the Meta-Margin is zero. This is pretty much all I have to say on the topic! I don’t “do” anything with it. The Meta-Margin is the shift that would bring the median EV count to 269. The probability of that particular event is quite small even when the Meta-Margin is zero. This is pretty much all I have to say on the topic!

]]> By: Lee http://election.princeton.edu/faq/comment-page-1/#comment-894 Lee Wed, 08 Oct 2008 13:25:22 +0000 http://election.princeton.edu/?page_id=105#comment-894 In computing the meta-margin what do you do with the probability that falls to a 269-269 tie? Are you looking for the shift such that the total for 0-268 exactly balances the total for 270-538, as would be appropriate if the tie were resolved by a coin flip? My understanding is that the House of representatives gets to decide in the case of an electoral college tie that is not resolved by electoral college defectors. Each state's delegation votes to assign its state's one vote. You could assume that each representative votes along party lines, and thus determine which candidate would win such a tie breaker. If it is, say Obama, then I think the proper meta-margin is one that gives exactly 50% probability to the event that Obama has greater than or equal to 269 electoral college votes. But it could be more complicated. For instance, is it reasonable to assume that each representative of a state votes in accordance with the state's popular vote? That case can be solved with a bivariate polynomial: f(x,y) = \prod_{i=1}^{51} ((1-p_i) + (p_i * x^{EV_i} * y)) (Though if the District of Columbia does not participate in the tie breaker than it does not get the factor of y like the states do.) Assuming Cheney would vote for McCain, the polynomial terms for x^{269}*y^{k} for k at least 26 contribute to an Obama win, and the x^{269}*y^{k} terms for k no more than 25 contribute to a McCain win. In computing the meta-margin what do you do with the probability that falls to a 269-269 tie? Are you looking for the shift such that the total for 0-268 exactly balances the total for 270-538, as would be appropriate if the tie were resolved by a coin flip?

My understanding is that the House of representatives gets to decide in the case of an electoral college tie that is not resolved by electoral college defectors. Each state’s delegation votes to assign its state’s one vote. You could assume that each representative votes along party lines, and thus determine which candidate would win such a tie breaker. If it is, say Obama, then I think the proper meta-margin is one that gives exactly 50% probability to the event that Obama has greater than or equal to 269 electoral college votes.

But it could be more complicated. For instance, is it reasonable to assume that each representative of a state votes in accordance with the state’s popular vote? That case can be solved with a bivariate polynomial:

f(x,y) = \prod_{i=1}^{51} ((1-p_i) + (p_i * x^{EV_i} * y))

(Though if the District of Columbia does not participate in the tie breaker than it does not get the factor of y like the states do.) Assuming Cheney would vote for McCain, the polynomial terms for x^{269}*y^{k} for k at least 26 contribute to an Obama win, and the x^{269}*y^{k} terms for k no more than 25 contribute to a McCain win.

]]>