[Sosfbay-discuss] No great press out of Pennsylvania

[Gerry Gras]

Cameron L. Spitzer wrote:

<clip>


> 
> Never ascribe to malice what can be explained by ineptness.


I largely agree with this, with one minor difference.  Let me
explain.

First of all, I see a lot of dumb things that can be explained
by ineptness, but not by malice, (unless someone can be said to
be malicious towards oneself, which I am dubious of.)

The minor difference is that if I hear of something that could
be explained either by malice or be ineptness, I will not rule
out malice.  In most cases I presume ineptness is more likely
the problem, and I will act on the assumption that malice is
not the issue.  Furthermore, even in cases where malice is
possible and not proven or disproven, it usually does not help
to act upon the assumption that there is malice involved.  In
fact it is more likely to be counterproductive.


> Why does the Green Party of the US contract with spammer-for-hire
> Democracy In Action?  Because they don't know any better!
> Because they didn't think they could do the job themselves.
> Because Dem Inaction (funny name, eh?) told them what they
> wanted to hear.  Because DiA *asked for their business*.
> I'll bet JSM watches the secretary of state offices and
> pitches everybody who files that kind of papers.
> 
> 
> 
>>>I believe accepting the "spoiler effect" was the biggest
>>>strategic miscalculation in the history of the Green Party.
>>>  
>>>


 > Larry wrote:


>>What do you think can be done to stop this, Cameron? We have a flier in 
>>Santa Cruz County about the so-called "spoiler" effect, but what else is 
>>there?
>>
> 
> I don't know.  It's really hard to kill a superstition once
> it's established.  Superstitions work at a deep emotional level
> and are fairly impervious to mere logic and facts and common sense.
> We need an equally instinctive and emotional antidote argument.
> I don't have one.
> 
> But the least we can do is not *feed* it any more.  *Challenge*
> the assumption that there's any such thing as "spoiling,"
> every time it comes up.  It's a crackpot theory, after all.
> Demand that the crackpots who propose it either prove it or let
> it remain a question.  Don't let it be "a given."
> 
> There's one thing I've learned.  Don't argue the mathematics.
> The Age of Reason is *over*.  We are in a new Dark Ages.
> Look at how the propaganda system is getting away with demonizing and
> marginalizing scientists today.  When mathematics says one thing,
> and intuition and wishful thinking say something else, people
> "go with their gut."  Logic is so "bo-ring!" and science is a real
> buzz-killer.  Throw her in the water and if she floats, she's a witch.
> 
> Wrap that mathematical demand in a joke so it doesn't remind
> people of their geometry teacher.  "Gore stole all those votes
> from Nader, and then he didn't even use them."
> I think in this age of anti-rationality, that's about the best
> we can do.
> 
> 
> Cameron
> 


As someone with a math degree, I very much do not like the ideas
of "Don't argue the mathematics" and "The Age of Reason is *over*".
But I am not capable right now of arguing against them.  I am so
discouraged by all the irrational behavior I see by the Bush
Administration, Congress, the American public and be people all
around the world.  I am saying more and more often "the whole
world is insane".  So maybe we are in kind of Dark Ages.

Unfortunately this would be a very bad time for a Dark Ages.
With the world being so far from sustainable, we need to have
our wits about us to get through the coming bad times.  Does
the world have what it takes?  I don't know.  Maybe the world
is going through some kind of temporarily illness and the
fever will break soon.  Maybe not.

And then the question is "What is the best thing to do in
such dark times?"  I too do not have the answer, and am wrestling
with it.

...

One example of a story I like to tell about the spoiler effect
is one that I have told often with totally indeterminate results:

In 1980, I worked on the John Anderson for President campaign.
The Democratic candidate was Jimmy Carter running for reelection,
and the Republican candidate was Ronald Reagan.  Most of the time
I was working for Anderson in my home state of Massachusetts.
Here are some things I remember from the campaign...
(NOTE: Anderson ran as a Republican until about May, 1980, and
as an independent after that)
- Shortly before the Iowa caucus, a significant part of the New
   York Times, including the New York Times came out and said that
   Anderson was the best candidate, but did not have a chance.
   (I think that was because he had little name recognition, and
   not much money.)
- Around Jan. 1, 1980, Anderson was an "*" in the polls, i.e.
   polled at less than 1%.
- Anderson got 10% in the New Hampshire primary (first Tuesday
   in February), and then he got a LOT of media attention.
- In the Massachusetts primary, (first Tuesday in March),
   Anderson was in FIRST place until about 2:00 AM Wednesday morning,
   finally losing to Bush Senior)
- Shortly before the D and R conventions, some polling organization
   took a poll on two questions, "in a 2 way race between Carter or
   Anderson, who would you prefer" and "in a 2 way race between Reagan
   or Anderson, who would you prefer.  In response to one question,
   the two were tied, and in response to the other question, the
   two were close.
- In November Anderson got about 7% nationally and about 15% in
   Massachusetts.  I think he would have won Massachusetts except
   for the "spoiler" effect".
- During the runup to the November election, I met many people who
   said "A vote for Anderson is a vote for Reagan, so I am voting
   for Carter".  And I met many people who said "A vote for Anderson
   is a vote for Carter, so I am voting for Reagan".  I can't even
   tell you which statment I heard more often.  So what this means
   is that I could pick out three people, and all three would prefer
   Anderson, one would vote for Anderson, one would vote for Carter,
   and one would vote for Reagan, and therefore all 3 votes would
   cancel each other out.  ...  Does this make sense?  Clearly
   something is wrong somewhere.  It seems somewhat like the Escher
   paintings where you knew what you saw was impossible, but you
   could not point out where the flaw was.  So I KNOW the spoiler
   theory is wrong, but I can't seem to explain it.


NOTE: you can't say that the "spoiler" concept is completely wrong.
I remember a case where in the Democratic primary in Massachusetts,
there were 2 "liberal" candidates and one "conservative" candidate.
The "conservative" candidate got significantly less than 50%.  It
seems likely, but one never really knows that either liberal
candidate would have beat the conservative candidate.

But who was the spoiler for whom?  And isn't it really the
Winner Take All system that is largely to blame?

And .... well I guess that's more than enough for now.

Gerry