Trump Gets Convention Bounce, Drawing Polls To Dead Heat
Campin_Cat
Veteran
Joined: 6 May 2014
Age: 62
Gender: Female
Posts: 25,953
Location: Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.
Well, since this is the first time addressing you, I have to first say, thank your for a great site for ASD people!
Also, I did receive some PMs about the moderation here, so it's good you're stepping in.
Thanks.
However, Mr. Silver uses the word "winning".
Mr. Silver says: "Trump would be a narrow favorite, with a 57 percent chance of winning the Electoral".
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ele ... dead-heat/
I quoted Mr. Silver, so it seems like interpretation is not relevant.
Right, the issue is not with the word "winning." It's about the fact that he'd be winning something that doesn't actually exist.[/quote]
Yes, and that's why Mr. Silver used the term "would be"----as in, "if the election were held, TODAY, the figures 'would be'", not ARE (as LoveNotHate has already stated).
Regardless, it still doesn't that, IMO, a moderator shouldn't be CHANGING a user's words just because, seemingly, they don't like / agree-with, what was said----and, this is not the first time it's happened (other times, words have been changed, just because the moderator [different moderator] had a different opinion). Everybody has an opinion, and that's totally great----it is NOT great, however, to CHANGE somebody's words!!
If he hasn't misquoted the source, then why does a moderator need to alter anything?
If the person he quoted is wrong the onus is on the source and we are free to discuss, debate and debunk it. While it isn't, it just seems like sour grapes from moderation in a thread that doesn't support their candidate.
I'm not stating it is, but that's how it looks.
EDIT: Expanding on the above person's post, I don't see how changing somebody's words is any better than misquoting somebody. Do as I say not as I do?
_________________
Yours sincerely, some dude.
LNH did misquote the source. The original title was "Nate Silver: "Trump has a 57% chance of winning the election"" (or perhaps "of becoming President"). That's a made-up quote.
The same way that killing in self defence is different to murder.
I also made it clear that I'd changed the title, and in doing so I didn't misrepresent what anyone had said or thought.
The largest part of the moderator role is changing people's words in order to reduce conflict, mostly by just deleting them. In this case, I changed words because this forum has recently been full of mutual unpleasantness, with both Trump supporters and detractors going for each other's throats and making up all kinds of rubbish. The last thing we need is another thread full of this stuff, based on a lie dressed up as a truth by a forum troll specifically to inflame conflict. Well, I stopped that... but seem to have opened a whole other can of worms.
Would it be better if I just locked threads saying things like "Gandhi: Trump is a fascist" or "Obama: Hillary should go to prison"? Or would it be better to just let the two sides bash it out and then take action after the fact?
LNH did misquote the source. The original title was "Nate Silver: "Trump has a 57% chance of winning the election"" (or perhaps "of becoming President"). That's a made-up quote.
That's precisely what he said.
Mr. Silver says: "Trump would be a narrow favorite, with a 57 percent chance of winning the Electoral College".
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ele ... dead-heat/
Winning the electoral college means the candidate wins the election.
"The United States Electoral College is the institution that elects the President and Vice President of the United States every four years."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral ... ted_States)
It's an election, which is a school yard fight for voting-age adults, obviously things are going to be heated. My point is that I think as long as things don't turn personal, the community itself does a good job finding and correcting false statements. I'd also like to add one thing to consider: when you change a post, people see "power" at play, and people tend to not like power over them-- it forces people to tune out what your intentions are, because they only see the power in action. Point being, had I or another random poster went after the article, and not a moderator, that message would have been much more effective because the audience will view a regular poster as more trustworthy than a moderator-- the audience shares the same power level as a regular poster, but not the same power as a moderator.
Moderation is a double-edge sword-- it gives you power in the group, but it also separates you from the group. It's a tough job, and one where many times the only options are poor options. I don't envy you, and I'm not attacking you, I'm merely pointing out some of the issues at play here that I don't think you see-- a critique to help make you a better moderator, not an attack against your authority.
It's really the Electoral College, though. That's what it's called.
We're the only country, I believe, where a plurality of the popular vote does not guarantee that one wins the election.
We are a most anomalous country because:
1. We don't have national health insurance, like virtually all other "First World" countries
2. We have the Electoral College.
We're the only country, I believe, where a plurality of the popular vote does not win you the election.
The issue is not what's called.
The issue is that I did not misquote Mr. Silver, because when someone has a 57% chance of winning the electoral college, by logic, they have a 57% chance of winning the election.
Actually that's not true at all. Why? Because the electors in the electoral college are just like super-delegates in the party primaries-- they aren't bound to vote the way the citizens they represent voted, they could easily just say "f**k it I'm electing Mickey Mouse" and that would be legal by the Constitution.
Actually that's not true at all. Why? Because the electors in the electoral college are just like super-delegates in the party primaries-- they aren't bound to vote the way the citizens they represent voted, they could easily just say "f**k it I'm electing Mickey Mouse" and that would be legal by the Constitution.
You are correct, and the best argument I have seen so far, however, your point is not consistent with Mr. Silver's quotation.
Mr. Silver says "57% chance of winning the electoral college".
Winning means, after all the votes are counted, who has the most.
So, "throw away" electoral votes are irrelevant, because the 57% regards winning.
Last edited by LoveNotHate on 28 Jul 2016, 8:58 am, edited 1 time in total.
Actually that's not true at all. Why? Because the electors in the electoral college are just like super-delegates in the party primaries-- they aren't bound to vote the way the citizens they represent voted, they could easily just say "f**k it I'm electing Mickey Mouse" and that would be legal by the Constitution.
You are correct, and the best argument I have seen so far, however, your point is not consistent with Mr. Silver's quotation.
Mr. Silver says "57% chance of winning the electoral college".
Winning means, after all the votes are counted, who has the most.
So, Mr. Silver is not considering "throw away" electoral votes.
Thus, I still content I did not misquote him.
I'm not arguing the quote, I'm arguing the underlying principle. People seem to think their vote is what elects the president, IT IS NOT. When one votes in a presidential election they are voting for an elector to vote for president. The elector is not even a proxy for your vote, the elector has free discretion to do as they please. I only bring this up to remind people of the fact that we're not a democracy, we're a republic, and in a republic the citizenry actually has very little power itself, it is only allowed to vote on "representation" which may or may not actually "represent" what the citizenry wants.
Supposedly, that's for our own good.
Supposedly, that's for our own good.
That would be Plato's claim, then again, Plato never saw a republic only a direct democracy. I'm not sure the American public could handle actual democracy myself, but people still need to realize that they have very, very little power in the institution itself. I mean, we have this guise of democracy with elections and what not, but when it comes down to brass tacks, we have a shadowy junta in the background that can legally overturn said election results-- and most people don't realize that.
edit: I'm also avoiding Nate Silver's article, which I know is the topic, mainly because I view the thread as already being tainted-- of which I've made my views clear already and don't want to discuss further.
Similar Topics | |
---|---|
Former PM Brian Mulroney is dead at 84 |
29 Feb 2024, 9:40 pm |
Joe Lieberman first Jewish VP candidate is dead |
27 Mar 2024, 7:13 pm |
Malanie popular hippie era singer dead at 76 |
26 Jan 2024, 5:52 am |
Donald Trump Likely Going To Prison |
29 Feb 2024, 1:04 am |