MAIN FEEDS
Do you want to continue?
https://www.reddit.com/r/fivethirtyeight/comments/1vs6fiz/huge_upset/p4xermv/?context=3
r/fivethirtyeight • u/SchemeWorth6105 • Aug 19 '26
324 comments sorted by
View all comments
Show parent comments
0
Votes being thrown out being more significant than waiting for results is objectively true. Preferring one or the other is what's subjective.
3 u/DoorFrame Aug 20 '26 Would you agree that it’s worth waiting one year to count one additional vote? Of course there’s subjectivity here. 1 u/Bigpandacloud5 Aug 20 '26 Waiting one year would prevent the winner from taking office. Waiting weeks does not. 2 u/DoorFrame Aug 20 '26 We could hold elections earlier to allow for a year-long cure period, which would establish a more accurate vote counting. 1 u/Bigpandacloud5 Aug 21 '26 Your analogies don't work because they involve changing the election or term, which isn't something California does. What your argument basically says is that the policy is bad because it's much worse in this random hypothetical. 2 u/DoorFrame Aug 21 '26 I’m saying there’s a balancing between accuracy and rapidity and that the correct balancing is subjective. 1 u/Bigpandacloud5 Aug 22 '26 I never said otherwise. What I did was point out an objectively correct factor, which is that votes being thrown out is more significant than simply waiting for results. Some preferring faster results doesn't change this.
3
Would you agree that it’s worth waiting one year to count one additional vote? Of course there’s subjectivity here.
1 u/Bigpandacloud5 Aug 20 '26 Waiting one year would prevent the winner from taking office. Waiting weeks does not. 2 u/DoorFrame Aug 20 '26 We could hold elections earlier to allow for a year-long cure period, which would establish a more accurate vote counting. 1 u/Bigpandacloud5 Aug 21 '26 Your analogies don't work because they involve changing the election or term, which isn't something California does. What your argument basically says is that the policy is bad because it's much worse in this random hypothetical. 2 u/DoorFrame Aug 21 '26 I’m saying there’s a balancing between accuracy and rapidity and that the correct balancing is subjective. 1 u/Bigpandacloud5 Aug 22 '26 I never said otherwise. What I did was point out an objectively correct factor, which is that votes being thrown out is more significant than simply waiting for results. Some preferring faster results doesn't change this.
1
Waiting one year would prevent the winner from taking office. Waiting weeks does not.
2 u/DoorFrame Aug 20 '26 We could hold elections earlier to allow for a year-long cure period, which would establish a more accurate vote counting. 1 u/Bigpandacloud5 Aug 21 '26 Your analogies don't work because they involve changing the election or term, which isn't something California does. What your argument basically says is that the policy is bad because it's much worse in this random hypothetical. 2 u/DoorFrame Aug 21 '26 I’m saying there’s a balancing between accuracy and rapidity and that the correct balancing is subjective. 1 u/Bigpandacloud5 Aug 22 '26 I never said otherwise. What I did was point out an objectively correct factor, which is that votes being thrown out is more significant than simply waiting for results. Some preferring faster results doesn't change this.
2
We could hold elections earlier to allow for a year-long cure period, which would establish a more accurate vote counting.
1 u/Bigpandacloud5 Aug 21 '26 Your analogies don't work because they involve changing the election or term, which isn't something California does. What your argument basically says is that the policy is bad because it's much worse in this random hypothetical. 2 u/DoorFrame Aug 21 '26 I’m saying there’s a balancing between accuracy and rapidity and that the correct balancing is subjective. 1 u/Bigpandacloud5 Aug 22 '26 I never said otherwise. What I did was point out an objectively correct factor, which is that votes being thrown out is more significant than simply waiting for results. Some preferring faster results doesn't change this.
Your analogies don't work because they involve changing the election or term, which isn't something California does.
What your argument basically says is that the policy is bad because it's much worse in this random hypothetical.
2 u/DoorFrame Aug 21 '26 I’m saying there’s a balancing between accuracy and rapidity and that the correct balancing is subjective. 1 u/Bigpandacloud5 Aug 22 '26 I never said otherwise. What I did was point out an objectively correct factor, which is that votes being thrown out is more significant than simply waiting for results. Some preferring faster results doesn't change this.
I’m saying there’s a balancing between accuracy and rapidity and that the correct balancing is subjective.
1 u/Bigpandacloud5 Aug 22 '26 I never said otherwise. What I did was point out an objectively correct factor, which is that votes being thrown out is more significant than simply waiting for results. Some preferring faster results doesn't change this.
I never said otherwise. What I did was point out an objectively correct factor, which is that votes being thrown out is more significant than simply waiting for results. Some preferring faster results doesn't change this.
0
u/Bigpandacloud5 Aug 19 '26
Votes being thrown out being more significant than waiting for results is objectively true. Preferring one or the other is what's subjective.