[FRIAM] high turnout and tight races?

[Steve Smith]

uǝlƃ ↙↙↙
>> My instinct is to go to "correlation" only when causal relations are
>> hidden, overly tangled, or demonstrably wrong.
> That's interesting. In all my hand-wringing arguments about the hyper-skepticism I adhere to, I don't think I've ever heard anyone express their objection to it like that: that conceptions of cause are preferable to conceptions of correlation. I think I tend the other way. Cause is a fiction useful for brainwashing engineers into great feats like colonizing Mars. But metaphysically, it's all ambiguous mush that you can knead into whatever you want if you're motivated enough.
I believe that 0th order, we (modern humans?) strongly seek causal
explanations... thus our plethora of (wrong but occasionally useful)
models and just-so-stories (are they  perhaps the same by different
names?)   I accept that 1st order, statistically trained/sophisticated
modelers understand that causality is a bit more precious or rare (or in
the extreme an entire fiction).   this is what I find fascinating about
Frank's Gilmore et. al. and Judea Pearl's work in teasing (implied?)
causality out of networks of correlation.   Perhaps all of life (most
measurably/notably/relevantly higher vertebrates) have no causal models
running in their neural systems, just correlation/associative networks
seeded with genetic adaptation (nature) and evolving/tuning/tweaking via
social/experiential adaptation) nurture. 
>> Given that we only have
>> a presidential election every 12 years and have had only 45 elected
>> presidents, and a much shorter record (150 years?) of turnout, it seems
>> we *could* do some kind of exhaustive analysis (and perhaps some
>> have).   In any given election from say 2000-2020 we have our own
>> personal experiences and opinions to draw on (and make the process less
>> objective?)
> One of the papers I skimmed talked about the significant difference between national and state/local elections. Nick's mention of "small sample theory" threw me for a loop because most of what I saw focused on larger datasets than what we have for presidential elections. The assumptions about dimension reduction and population biases are massive statements of ignorance. I can't even imagine leaping by faith from correlation to cause. Even the relatively validated partisan effect Gary mentioned seems suspicious to me.
I find it admirable that you are able to (or intrinsically embrace) a
non-causal model of the world.   It may be a property of your "episodic"
vs my own (per your categorization) "diachronic" nature.  It may say
something qualitative about how our egos are formed, or self-regulate.  
I am a fan of skepticism but distinguish it from cynicism and admit to
failing at both implied aspirations.
>> So I suppose my answer to the original question is that it can be
>> either/both...   It seems likely to be a (at least) bimodal
>> distribution.   A one-sided landslide can cause a large turnout while a
>> tight, competitive race can do the same.  Maybe more interesting is what
>> leads to a low-turnout?   Voter apathy (second term, a pendulum swing
>> toward a weak candidate?) seems to be the dominant cause?
> I'm attracted to the idea of runaway processes. Apathy and nihilism *as* runaway processes is especially attractive. It kinda reminds me of "pandemic fatigue". At this point, I don't even care if I or my loved ones die of COVID-19 or the country devolves into a tin-pot dictatorship anymore. I need to see a good band up on stage ... have too many pints at the pub ... share spit arguing with drunk Christians over a rowdy game of pool ... that feeling definitely smacks of a runaway heat death.
My own morbid fascination (sometimes) seems to reduce to (no more than)
the Complexity Pattern: "Punctuated Equilibrium" and my own egocentric
desire to be there when the balanced-cum-unbalanced system starts to
slide.   I felt it when Trump stumbled sideweiz into the POTUS position
and again when COVID knocked us out of our current social balance.  I
even feel it welling up as I read/study the myriad "Endogenous
Existential Threats" we are bringing down on our own heads while we
fiddle (referencing Caeser) with trivialities such as a pandemic that is
arguably 5% lethal but has an Ro >> 1.0 under our default
social/travel/hygeinic standards.
> I did vote, though. 8^D

I took Mary to vote early and cruised the vicinity in my 4x4 diesel
truck looking for any Poll Watcher's wearing military/tactical gear and
"exercising their 2nd Amendment Rights!!!!!", not quite sure if I would
exercise my own right to be a "sovereign nation unto myself" and run
them down, stop and let them assume I am "one of them" and thereby take
their temperature or defuse/diffuse them in some way, or maybe just call
the voter-suppression hotline...  it was a nicely ambiguous moment.  My
early voter location is not a likely location for such for better or
worse.  I ordered a mail-in ballot which I have not yet completed nor
mailed nor turned in... but am getting "around to it", savoring my own
resistance... trying to understand what that is about.   

When I dropped Mary for her 2 hour stand-in-line I could/should have
simply joined her, but would have been sorely tempted to give up my
place in line (repeatedly?) for the many elderly/infirm who also stood
out there for a similar time.   I *did* give an elderly mother-daughter
pair one of the camp chairs in my truck... the younger (in her 70's) was
sitting in a very unstable camp-chair while her mother (90's) stood in
the sun  because the elder didn't feel trusting of the chair...   we
even talked the elder into moving up next to the entrance and sitting in
the chair while her daughter shifted down the line with the flimsy
one.   I was surprised nobody had the ??? to simply push them forward to
the front of the line?    The demographic (in Pojoqaue) was probably 90%
>50, 70% over 60 and 50% over 70 with perhaps 5% over 80... and more
than a few were carrying oxygen tanks, using walkers, canes, etc.   It
was a great show of determination.   Probably all lifetime voters, so
not defining a groundswell of *new* or *swing* voters.    Mary reported
*one* MAGA hat in line... nobody commented, and nobody engaged in *any*
level of political conversation in line... it was a pretty polite but
sober bunch.

In the fullness of time?

- Steve

>