2022 Midterm Elections - Results and Post Mortem

[lpetrich]

Yes, that can indeed be done, but it will be a sizable list. One needs every permutation of candidates, both complete and incomplete, and the count of them goes as the factorial of the number of candidates: O(N!) for N candidates.

For three candidates, the number of permutations is 3*2*1 = 6. For filling out only two ranks, it's 3*2 = 6. For filling out only the top one, it's 3. They add up to 15.

For four candidates, the numbers are 24, 24, 12, 4, adding up to 64.

Most other methods require only O(N) or O(N²) intermediate-count values.

 

[lpetrich]

To clarify, it would be nice if one can do partial sums, and then add those sums without having all the ballots on hand. What sort of summable aggregates of the ballots can one create?

For N candidates with N ballot entries all filled out, the summable-aggregate size for instant-runoff voting is N! since one needs every permutation of candidate. Its asymptotic limit is Stirling's formula, N^N*e^-N*sqrt(2*pi*N).

For filling out only to n entries, the SAS is N*(N-1)*...*(N-n+1) with asymptotic limit Nⁿ for large N.

If one uses a partial ranking ballot, with n candidates out of N, then the asymptotic limit its summable aggregate size (SAS) for large N is O(Nⁿ).

Adding up over partially filled in ballots does not change these asymptotic limits, count <= N for a full ballot and count <= n for a partial ballot with size n.

-

Many methods have smaller SAS's.

First-past-the-post or plurality voting - vote for one candidate and that's it - has a summable aggregate of the total for each candidate, giving size N.

Alternatives like approval voting - may vote for more than one candidate - and rated / range / score voting - like approval but one can make partial votes - have the same summable aggregate.

Turning to ranked ballots, one can turn them into rated ones with the Borda count: first preference is N, second is N-1, .... Or one can make this number relative to the number of candidates that one has voted for.

There is a big class of methods that turns the ballots into a virtual round-robin contest, taking the rankings or ratings, counting up how each candidate does against each other candidate, and adding them up in a "Condorcet matrix". This is a summable aggregate, and it has size N². There are a variety of methods that use this matrix, and some of them get a bit complicated.[/sup]

 

[Jayjay]

Yes, that can indeed be done, but it will be a sizable list. One needs every permutation of candidates, both complete and incomplete, and the count of them goes as the factorial of the number of candidates: O(N!) for N candidates.

For three candidates, the number of permutations is 3*2*1 = 6. For filling out only two ranks, it's 3*2 = 6. For filling out only the top one, it's 3. They add up to 15.

For four candidates, the numbers are 24, 24, 12, 4, adding up to 64.

Most other methods require only O(N) or O(N²) intermediate-count values.

That's why we invented computers. To take care of the thinky-makes-brain-hurty stuff. And to make sandwiches.

(Still working on the latter.)

In this case, there are four candidates. And possible write-ins, but I think according to the rules the write-ins are considered only in the first round of counting so they could be lumped together in one category rather than consider every possible write-in candidate separately.

So I think the number of combinations is manageable.

 

[bilby]

That's why we invented computers. To take care of the thinky-makes-brain-hurty stuff.

Which is great, if the objective is to get an accurate answer.

But that's not the objective of an election. The objective in an election is to get an acceptable answer - to elevate to power an individual or group, in such a way as to avoid further attempts to seize power by the losers.

This implies that accuracy is less important than transparency. An electoral system can get away with occasionally picking a mathematically sub-optimal winner; It cannot get away with it being difficult for the voters to comprehend why and how the winner was chosen.

Electoral systems don't need to be fair; They need to be comprehensible and transparent. The rules can get away with producing arbitrary results that are clearly biased away from public opinion; But they cannot get away with producing results that a typical voter cannot confirm for themselves to be in accordance with those rules.

The point of elections is not to accurately reflect the aggregate opinions of the voters. It is to avoid civil war.

That's why it's so incredibly dangerous for anyone to claim that there's widespread election fraud. Picking a clear and unquestioned winner is more important than picking the right winner (despite the obvious fact that routinely picking the wrong winner could itself lead to questioning of that winner's legitimacy).

The rules need to be set in stone well in advance of the voting; And the counting of the votes needs to be not only in accordance with those rules, but obviously and demonstrably in accordance with them, in a way simple enough for the vast majority of people to confirm to their own satisfaction. The choice of an equitable set of rules to begin with, is very much a secondary consideration.

 

[Jayjay]

That's why we invented computers. To take care of the thinky-makes-brain-hurty stuff.

Which is great, if the objective is to get an accurate answer.

But that's not the objective of an election. The objective in an election is to get an acceptable answer - to elevate to power an individual or group, in such a way as to avoid further attempts to seize power by the losers.

This implies that accuracy is less important than transparency. An electoral system can get away with occasionally picking a mathematically sub-optimal winner; It cannot get away with it being difficult for the voters to comprehend why and how the winner was chosen.

Electoral systems don't need to be fair; They need to be comprehensible and transparent. The rules can get away with producing arbitrary results that are clearly biased away from public opinion; But they cannot get away with producing results that a typical voter cannot confirm for themselves to be in accordance with those rules.

The point of elections is not to accurately reflect the aggregate opinions of the voters. It is to avoid civil war.

That's why it's so incredibly dangerous for anyone to claim that there's widespread election fraud. Picking a clear and unquestioned winner is more important than picking the right winner (despite the obvious fact that routinely picking the wrong winner could itself lead to questioning of that winner's legitimacy).

The rules need to be set in stone well in advance of the voting; And the counting of the votes needs to be not only in accordance with those rules, but obviously and demonstrably in accordance with them, in a way simple enough for the vast majority of people to confirm to their own satisfaction. The choice of an equitable set of rules to begin with, is very much a secondary consideration.

I'm not convinced that waiting for two weeks to count the votes is more transparent or convincing to the public that everything is going by the book. If anything, if I was skeptical of the instant runoff system, it would make me more suspicious. What are those election officers doing with the ballots for two whole weeks?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yes, that can indeed be done, but it will be a sizable list. One needs every permutation of candidates, both complete and incomplete, and the count of them goes as the factorial of the number of candidates: O(N!) for N candidates.

For three candidates, the number of permutations is 3*2*1 = 6. For filling out only two ranks, it's 3*2 = 6. For filling out only the top one, it's 3. They add up to 15.

For four candidates, the numbers are 24, 24, 12, 4, adding up to 64.

Most other methods require only O(N) or O(N²) intermediate-count values.

That's why we invented computers. To take care of the thinky-makes-brain-hurty stuff. And to make sandwiches.

(Still working on the latter.)

In this case, there are four candidates. And possible write-ins, but I think according to the rules the write-ins are considered only in the first round of counting so they could be lumped together in one category rather than consider every possible write-in candidate separately.

So I think the number of combinations is manageable.

Not only is it not a big deal to deal with a number of bins at this level, but it's actually the simplest way to do it.

To cross off names from the list you must either store that information or recalculate it (discard any name for a candidate that has been eliminated) for each ballot. Using the bin approach you have the table of possible combinations which almost always is far less than the number of ballots and thus far less data to manipulate.

 

[lpetrich]

In Alaska, they are still waiting for all the ballots to be collected. I don't know if they do ballot aggregation, counting up by ranking. In the meantime, IRV results are in from Maine. In ME-01, Chellie Pingree D won a first-round majority, while in ME-02, the election went

Candidate	First round	Transfer	Second round
Jared Golden D	48.2%	+4.9%	53.1%
Bruce Poliquin R	44.9%	+2.0%	46.9%
Tiffany Bond I	6.9%	-6.9%

So TB's voters preferred JG to BQ 5 to 2.

 

[senor boogie woogie]

"Slight change"??

The J6 Committee uncovered and published details of a major plot of treason and sedition.

If the House changes hands — putting some of those very traitors in a position of power — much of the J6 work will be undone. Instead expect the House to focus on trumped-up "scandals" and the impeachment of Joe Biden. There may even be more hearings on Benghazi.

And the Rs will use devices like the Debt Ceiling to hold the country hostage.

The "Big Red Wave" didn't happen, but loss of the House is still disastrous. (Fivethirtyeight.com isn't updating its Election results. What is the present status of the 18 undecided House seats?)

Not disasterous. The House will keep Joe Biden from forwarding any more ridiculous inflationary laws to the American people, basically his idiocy is chained for two more years. How horrible this senile old man has ran the country since 2021. Think about him when you are paying $5 plus for a gallon of gasoline or people this winter have to choose from heating their homes and eating.

Donald Trump never told anyone to invade the Capitol Building on January 6th. He called for peaceful protest outside the building. The crowd did what they did on their own volition. It is on Youtube, where did Trump ever tell this mob to do this? I will give you this, Trump has a big mouth and doesnt except defeat gracefully. But this never happened, despite all the biased Trump hating press who says otherwise.

Benghazi is old news, but it is another of an Obama era failure of not getting the embassy workers the hell out of the building and safely out of Libya. Obama's intelligence (or the lack of his own arrogance) shouldhave gotten the people the hell out of there weeks before) Hillary Clinton was the Secretary of State and completely failed in her duties. Failed. Not to mention that it was the United States under Obama that caused with the military of the USA and NATO to cause the instability of that nation we still see to this day (plus the millions of illegals running from Africa into Europe). What was Hillary's response? Basically, who cares what happened there.

Look at the Trey Dowdy (who I wish would run for President, instead of quitting to work for FOX. Cant blame him much, he probably thought he was too honorable to work in that vipers nest any longer and FOX paid much more money) grilling Hillary on that shit she caused. She again, doesnt care. You villify Republicans but ignore the corpses of the ineptness of the Democratic Party?

Unfortunatly, Impeaching Biden for being an idiot wont work. If Biden could be removed, we are left with a cackling, ignorant flip flopper woman who slept her way to the top like a cocaine addicted starlet. What has Harris ever done at all? It is unfair that the conservative media have said that she has never been to the Southern Border. She doesnt need to go. She is the Vice President. Being the Vice President is the easiest job in Washington. The VP doesnt even have to show up for shit. The VP has one constitutional duty, to break ties in the Senate. Harris can sit at home, smoke weed all day, watch Dr Phil and have her nails done at the Vietnamese nail shop down the street. Biden as the Commander and Chief of our armed forces has the duty to go to the Southern border and make himself explain why millions of foreign invaders, many carrying drugs, gang members like MS-13 and probable terrorists from Muslim countries can come across like shit through a seeve. Maybe you dont care, until your child dies of Fentanyl or another narcotic. But you will still blame Trump. OK.

 

[Elixir]

The House will keep Joe Biden from forwarding any more ridiculous inflationary laws to the American people

Idiocy.
Biden must be more powerful than God, to be able to “forward laws” that cause inflation in every Country on the planet.
Leave it to the Republican traitors to make up impossible lies, and to American morons to swallow them whole.

 

[lpetrich]

NY Dem Chair Jay Jacobs under fire for David Duke analogy - 2021 Oct 18

“Let's take a scenario, very different, where David Duke, you remember him, the grand wizard of the KKK, he moves to New York, he becomes a Democrat, he runs for mayor in the city of Rochester, which is a low primary turnout and he wins the Democratic line. I have to endorse David Duke? I don't think so,” Jacobs said. “Now, of course, India Walton is not in the same category, but it just leads you to that question, is it a must? It's not a must. It’s something you choose to do. That's why it's an endorsement. Otherwise, they call it something else, like a requirement.”

• Then State Senator Alessandra Biaggi tweeted - “Comparing the endorsement of India Walton to endorsing David Duke of the KKK is outrageously racist. You need to resign - today.”
• Senator Chuck Schumer released statement - “The statement was totally unacceptable and the analogy used was outrageous and beyond absurd.”
• State Attorney General Letitia James tweeted - “I fundamentally reject the likening of India Walton, an inspiring Black woman committed to public service, to David Duke, one of the most prolific racists of our time. There can be no place for such rhetoric in New York.”
• Working Families Party head Sochie Nnaemeka - “The comparison was so perverse and it only speaks to the fact that for a working class, a woman of color, to be taken seriously, you have to engage in these grand hypotheticals rather than just engage in support.”

JJ later apologized: “Using an extreme example of David Duke winning a primary, to make a logical point, even with stating twice the specific qualification that India Walton, was in a different category, was wrong. I should have used a different example, and for that, I apologize.”

 

[lpetrich]

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "NYS Dem party leadership ..." / Twitter

NYS Dem party leadership, which was gutted under Cuomo, stuffed with lobbyists, works to boost GOP, and failed to pass a basic state ballot measure to protect NY redistricting, must be accountable.

I called for Jay Jacob’s resignation a year ago and I still hold that position.

After leading the party to a catastrophic ballot measure loss that would’ve saved Dem House seats, the party chair (Jacobs) compared a Black woman Dem nominee to the KKK. He was protected.

Last night’s underperformance is a consequence of that decision.

Last night’s NY underperformance is a testament to years of prioritizing calcified machine politics and favoring over performance, strategy, & organizing.

To win from here, Jacobs must go and we must recenter the party to better value community leadership and small-d democracy.

Noting what JJ said last year about India Walton.

 

[blastula]

NY Dem Chair Jay Jacobs under fire for David Duke analogy - 2021 Oct 18

“Let's take a scenario, very different, where David Duke, you remember him, the grand wizard of the KKK, he moves to New York, he becomes a Democrat, he runs for mayor in the city of Rochester, which is a low primary turnout and he wins the Democratic line. I have to endorse David Duke? I don't think so,” Jacobs said. “Now, of course, India Walton is not in the same category, but it just leads you to that question, is it a must? It's not a must. It’s something you choose to do. That's why it's an endorsement. Otherwise, they call it something else, like a requirement.”

• Then State Senator Alessandra Biaggi tweeted - “Comparing the endorsement of India Walton to endorsing David Duke of the KKK is outrageously racist. You need to resign - today.”
• Senator Chuck Schumer released statement - “The statement was totally unacceptable and the analogy used was outrageous and beyond absurd.”
• State Attorney General Letitia James tweeted - “I fundamentally reject the likening of India Walton, an inspiring Black woman committed to public service, to David Duke, one of the most prolific racists of our time. There can be no place for such rhetoric in New York.”
• Working Families Party head Sochie Nnaemeka - “The comparison was so perverse and it only speaks to the fact that for a working class, a woman of color, to be taken seriously, you have to engage in these grand hypotheticals rather than just engage in support.”

JJ later apologized: “Using an extreme example of David Duke winning a primary, to make a logical point, even with stating twice the specific qualification that India Walton, was in a different category, was wrong. I should have used a different example, and for that, I apologize.”

She lost by 20 points to a write-in, the endorsement was irrelevant.

 

[lpetrich]

AOC: NY Democratic Party May Have Cost Democrats the House

Ryan Grim: What did you make of Biden’s press conference?

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: Well, I mean, I was able to catch the beginning of it, I think most of it. But I think it was smart for him to come out right away and to really continue and formalize what was already emerging as the narrative, which is that this was, despite Republicans potentially taking back the House by a very slim margin, to really cement this as a Democratic victory and not a Republican one. I think it was smart to do that. And I think it was quite notable that he mentioned young people and the climate crisis and youth turnout. I think it was just a smart thing to do in order to frame, overall, some of what we saw.

She says that she had a "front-row seat" and that "the way that those campaigns were run were different than the way a lot of winning campaigns across the country were run."

After noting a lot of Democrats campaigning on anti-defund-police messages, she noted

If we’re going to talk about public safety, you don’t talk about it in the frame of invoking defund or anti-defund, you really talk about it in the frame of what we’ve done on gun violence, what we’ve done to pass the first gun reform bill in 30 years. Our alternatives are actually effective, electorally, without having to lean into Republican narratives. So I think that was one prime mistake.

After criticizing Andrew Cuomo for putting into place a lot of supporters who rely on "lobbyists and big money", she noted about Jay Jacobs and a redistricting measure last year that

Republicans put millions of dollars into defeating the redistricting ballot measure last year that would have protected the map, that would have put us ahead. And so I really believe that we would have won Democratic seats, potentially gained Democratic seats in New York State, but Republicans put millions of dollars against this ballot measure, they organized against it, and the New York State Democratic Party didn’t drop $1 in making sure that we got this thing passed. And this was in an off-year election, this was in 2021. We could have done this. And the fact that that happened, and there still was no implication for the state [party], and for state party leadership. A lot of this was really about these calcified political machines being asleep at the wheel, and there being a complete lack of desire to hold any of it accountable.

Then describing the New York State Democratic Party as being very reliant on the governor, and wanting a more decentralized party.

You know, I can say: I’ve been in Congress for four years, I have never had a conversation with the New York State Democratic Party chair ever. In fact, he’s done nothing but attack progressive Democrats all across the state. What he has done is created an environment where the only, quote unquote, or the main, quote unquote, legitimate Democratic candidates worthy of support are those who fight both progressives and Republicans, which is clearly not a winning strategy, especially not in the state of New York. And so when he has invested so much energy into demoralizing the grassroots and making sure that a lot of this grassroots energy gets busted up all across the state, of course we’re going to see these margins swing towards Republicans.

So it's trying to do Clintonite centrism - "Third Way" and triangulation.

She then says "A lot of it is also driven by big money" and “There has been a multiyear strategy to try — it’s essentially been a campaign within the Democratic Party — to undermine progressive politics and try to mischaracterize it as toxic.”

She says "I personally do think that there should be a political cost to being heavily backed by big money." - I agree. Being dependent on others' money means owing them something. The Francis Bacon defense - "Sure I took their money, but I didn't let it influence me" - is very unconvincing.

"And we shouldn’t be shifting in a direction where the party or our party leadership becomes even more dependent on large donors and corporate backers, not less dependent, especially in a time when more Democrats are being elected independent of that and where the infrastructure for small-dollar fundraising has only grown and become more vibrant."

And I do hope that there is a reflection on being outwardly antagonistic towards a very enthused progressive base, especially one in which young people delivered these wins. If you look at the difference between Tim Ryan and John Fetterman, as races, some of the preliminary data is suggesting that they had the same turnout in almost every demographic except young people. And as we know, young people skew way progressive within the party. And so when you outwardly antagonize, and outwardly seek to belittle and distance oneself from progressive values, you demoralize your base.

If the Democrats win the House, they would win by a very narrow margin, and AOC recommended going all out on RvW, a $15 min wage, etc.

If the Republicans win the House, they would also win by a very narrow margin, and she recommended

I think we take advantage of the disorganization of the Republican caucus. I do not believe that Kevin McCarthy is a strong leader whatsoever. And I think we inflict a lot of pain on this. And either it becomes enough of a liability with them that they have to let something through because they’re just getting killed on this issue, or they lose in two years.

Then,

And I think we learned an economic lesson, which is that full employment is politically stronger than inflation, as opposed to when we were in the situation under Obama, where they tried the other tack and unemployment was punished much more severely. And so I think we learned that economic message on employment. I think we learned [the value of] a very strong message on abortion. And whether that means Biden leaning into his pen a little bit more on executive orders and other tools at his disposal, I think that that’s going to be very important, including the bully pulpit.

Then she talked about using discharge petitions on RvW codifications and the like. "And so part of me doesn’t want to — I want to make sure that we’re navigating this carefully. Because, like, motions to recommit, once one party kind of messes with it, it could create a precedent."

 

[crazyfingers]

The House will keep Joe Biden from forwarding any more ridiculous inflationary laws to the American people

Idiocy.
Biden must be more powerful than God, to be able to “forward laws” that cause inflation in every Country on the planet.
Leave it to the Republican traitors to make up impossible lies, and to American morons to swallow them whole.

There are two possibilities:

1: This is all Biden's fault
2: Something is going on that's not within Biden's direct control.

Inflation in countries around the world

View inflation rates for countries around the world.

www.officialdata.org

 

[Metaphor]

The House will keep Joe Biden from forwarding any more ridiculous inflationary laws to the American people

Idiocy.
Biden must be more powerful than God, to be able to “forward laws” that cause inflation in every Country on the planet.
Leave it to the Republican traitors to make up impossible lies, and to American morons to swallow them whole.

There are two possibilities:

1: This is all Biden's fault
2: Something is going on that's not within Biden's direct control.

Inflation in countries around the world

View inflation rates for countries around the world.

www.officialdata.org

Oh dear. ZIprHead earlier claimed that inflation was lower in the USA than in any 'modern country'.

 

[lpetrich]

Interviewer Ryan Grim:

Speaking of discharge petitions, on the stock trading ban, you had pushed a discharge petition, and then withdrew it after Pelosi promised to bring that to the floor. I’m sure you saw [Virginia Rep.] Elaine Luria, looks like [Iowa Rep.] Cindy Axne is trailing; both of them were kind of like public defenders of congressional stock trading and just got hammered for it during their campaigns.

Cindy Axne IA-03 lost 49.6% - 50.3%
Elaine Luria VA-02 lost 47.9% - 52.0%
Let's see if the Republicans do anything about that.

AOC said about that discharge petition that it was good for getting the attention of the leadership.

Then the Congressional progressives' petition about negotiating with Russia.

Well, to be clear, both the decision to publish that letter at that time and withdraw that letter at that time were decisions that we were not made privy to. But in terms of the content of the letter — like timing aside, in terms of the content of the letter — I believe that a lot of it is quite consistent with what we’ve also been hearing from former Obama administration officials, the Biden administration, and now even recently, there have also been, I believe, some developments coming out of Ukraine, indicating an openness to negotiate under certain preconditions. And I believe that progressives have always advocated to leaning on diplomatic solutions, we should continue to lean on that.

I think that the large asterisk is: Will Russia, is Russia, how can we bring Russia to the table without compromising Ukrainian sovereignty and just core principles of self determination?

Seems like a difficult task.

About abortion, she said that we should not be distracted into arguments about how far along in pregnancy abortion should be allowed, and instead focus on overall principles.

About running for leadership, she didn't have much to say.

 

[ZiprHead]

The House will keep Joe Biden from forwarding any more ridiculous inflationary laws to the American people

Idiocy.
Biden must be more powerful than God, to be able to “forward laws” that cause inflation in every Country on the planet.
Leave it to the Republican traitors to make up impossible lies, and to American morons to swallow them whole.

There are two possibilities:

1: This is all Biden's fault
2: Something is going on that's not within Biden's direct control.

Inflation in countries around the world

View inflation rates for countries around the world.

www.officialdata.org

Oh dear. ZIprHead earlier claimed that inflation was lower in the USA than in any 'modern country'.

Sorry. Most any...

 

[crazyfingers]

Oh dear. ZIprHead earlier claimed that inflation was lower in the USA than in any 'modern country'.

I didn't read what Zipr said. Though it's clear that the US is not an anomaly. Many developed countries have worse inflation than we do in the US. Some have lower. Without going though the math and deciding what is and is not to be counted as a developed or "modern" country, the US us pretty in the middle and it's clearly a global problem - not a problem that can be pinned on Biden.

 

[Metaphor]

Oh dear. ZIprHead earlier claimed that inflation was lower in the USA than in any 'modern country'.

I didn't read what Zipr said. Though it's clear that the US is not an anomaly. Many developed countries have worse inflation than we do in the US. Some have lower. Without going though the math and deciding what is and is not to be counted as a developed or "modern" country, the US us pretty in the middle and it's clearly a global problem - not a problem that can be pinned on Biden.

I agree.

 

[Elixir]

There are two possibilities:

1: This is all Biden's fault
2: Something is going on that's not within Biden's direct control.

Inflation in countries around the world

View inflation rates for countries around the world.

www.officialdata.org

When you put it like that, sheesh - of COURSE it's all Biden's fault! He heads up the GLOBAL conspiracy committee that controls GLOBAL inflation.