Main Edition
US
FRUndercurrents
Happening today beneath the surface
Nate Silver projects Kamala Harris to lose election
The latest polls don't make good reading for Kamala HQ. Credit: Getty
Happening today beneath the surface
The latest polls don't make good reading for Kamala HQ. Credit: Getty
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeHow would Nate Silver know any better than I do? The future remains unpredictable on something like this. Giving 61% to 38% precision to this matchup is a fool’s game. All models are wrong. Ignore them. Don’t encourage the modelmakers.
That said, I did enjoy Nate Silver’s book The Signal and the Noise and am looking forward to the release of his new book On the Edge in two weeks. He does have a good feel for the logic of risk and uncertainty (though no one can match Nassim Taleb.)
I am always entertained by the concept of “the popular vote” in the USA.
The USA is not a unitary state, it is a federation of states. The idea that if all of the most populous state voted for Harris then she would have won the popular vote and therefore has some authority is preposterous. Try running it in Texas, or indeed any other state, and see how it flies.
Each state is an individual STATE, with individual governments and individual laws, although ultimately subject to Federal law. That each State is individual was confirmed by the Supreme Court correctly overturning Roe v Wade and thus confirming it was a STATE not a Federal matter, and each state has acted accordingly.
The electoral college is there precisely because the “popular vote” dominating would lead to mayhem.
There is no rational justification for the electoral college, and no reason federal offices should be held by minority elected candidates. All Americans are subject to federal law and we should ALL have an equal vote in determining who makes those laws. The electoral collage dangerously complicates our elections, routinely elects presidents who failed to win a majority of the votes, and perverts the process by ignoring the majority of the country as candidates campaign for votes in a small number of swing states.
And so much for States’ rights…
While you may not agree with it, there certainly is a rational justification for the Electoral College. As far as who makes the laws (i.e., Congress), more populated states have more representatives in the House than less populated states. Hence, more populated states have more Electoral College votes than less populated states. Every state has at least 3 votes in the Electoral College because every state has 2 senators and at least 1 Representative. Rationale for the Senate runs along the same lines as rationale for the Electoral College.
The Founding Fathers were very wise indeed.
Right, I am sure that you can come up with a better Constitution that will propel a country to world dominance and unequalled prosperity and it will last for 235 years.
I wait, in breathless anticipation.
Yes they were.
It is unfortunate that many of their rational Enlightenment principles are now being rejected, in favour of emotionalism and attempts to impose those judgments on the past.
I need to meet an AI who really gets me.
I suppose the last article draws out interesting questions, like how essential are your social needs (in the sense that they can possibly be served simply by meeting a set of essential criteria, and providing you with essential, definable stimulus, standards and responses), and to what extent are your social needs in fact dependant on indefinable, shifting networks of subjectivity and emergent properties from inimitable networks