The poll is very specific to the readership, so I don't think it tells us much about the broader principle, which is: If you could beat the median voter at even betting, you should vote.
Party in power may have no correlation with growth historically, but the individual candidates could still be very explanatory. Just as, whe…
The poll is very specific to the readership, so I don't think it tells us much about the broader principle, which is: If you could beat the median voter at even betting, you should vote.
Party in power may have no correlation with growth historically, but the individual candidates could still be very explanatory. Just as, when you're hiring someone, Harvard vs Yale on the resume may not have a statistically significant sign -- but having a good hiring manager is still important to get the right employee.
Regarding "unlikely much of this would be beneficial to you specifically": Certainly, market reactions to election day seem to say it'll matter to anyone with a stake in the economy. Additionally, anyone with social preferences, whether it's abortion or immigration, have a further incentive, if they care about the country going in a certain direction. As my article notes, it's true that the "selfish" value of a vote is low, but it's very high if one cares about the direction of the country as whole, not just as it relates economically to ones self.
I'm confused; you said specifically that you expect readers of this blog to be better than the median voter at picking good candidates, yet the readers of this blog are split close to 50/50 on who the correct candidate is. Doesn't this have to disprove your claim, at least with regards to this particular election? (It's possible in principle that readers are still better than the median American on average, but this particular election is harder to tell or something. Seems unlikely, but is consistent with the data.)
I guess that's true about this particular election, at least to the extent readers are split. (It seems to be shifting to a somewhat clearer conclusion as the day goes on.)
But yeah, I don't see much reason to think that generalizes to elections in general.
If you have a panel of expert job recruiters, and they deadlock about picking one applicant or another ... and a poll of the general public also deadlocks, that doesn't prove that the experts are no better in general.
My responses:
The poll is very specific to the readership, so I don't think it tells us much about the broader principle, which is: If you could beat the median voter at even betting, you should vote.
Party in power may have no correlation with growth historically, but the individual candidates could still be very explanatory. Just as, when you're hiring someone, Harvard vs Yale on the resume may not have a statistically significant sign -- but having a good hiring manager is still important to get the right employee.
Regarding "unlikely much of this would be beneficial to you specifically": Certainly, market reactions to election day seem to say it'll matter to anyone with a stake in the economy. Additionally, anyone with social preferences, whether it's abortion or immigration, have a further incentive, if they care about the country going in a certain direction. As my article notes, it's true that the "selfish" value of a vote is low, but it's very high if one cares about the direction of the country as whole, not just as it relates economically to ones self.
I'm confused; you said specifically that you expect readers of this blog to be better than the median voter at picking good candidates, yet the readers of this blog are split close to 50/50 on who the correct candidate is. Doesn't this have to disprove your claim, at least with regards to this particular election? (It's possible in principle that readers are still better than the median American on average, but this particular election is harder to tell or something. Seems unlikely, but is consistent with the data.)
I guess that's true about this particular election, at least to the extent readers are split. (It seems to be shifting to a somewhat clearer conclusion as the day goes on.)
But yeah, I don't see much reason to think that generalizes to elections in general.
If you have a panel of expert job recruiters, and they deadlock about picking one applicant or another ... and a poll of the general public also deadlocks, that doesn't prove that the experts are no better in general.