Page 2 of 2

Re: 2067: "Challengers"

Posted: Fri Nov 02, 2018 5:46 pm UTC
by Yablo
thunk wrote:For some reason it seems Randall excluded candidates from incumbent parties, not incumbent candidates.

Here in Alaska, the incumbent governor is an Independent who was a Republican at one point and had a Democrat Lieutenant Governor until he (the Lt. Gov.) resigned a week or so ago. The incumbent withdrew and endorsed the Democrat. The Democrat is shown on this map as the challenger.

Evidently, politics is complicated.

Re: 2067: "Challengers"

Posted: Fri Nov 02, 2018 6:14 pm UTC
by cellocgw
orthogon wrote:
Flumble wrote:Image

This reminds me of something in Sapiens by Yuval Noah Harari, where he talks about "level two chaotic systems". These are ones that respond to attempts to predict them. It doesn't appear to be a rigorously defined term within Chaos theory, but clearly informally it's easy to see that elections and markets belong in this category.


Minority Report is definitely in that category. The original story, not the "PKD gets taken over my Mission Impossible" movie version.

Re: 2067: "Challengers"

Posted: Fri Nov 02, 2018 6:52 pm UTC
by da Doctah
Alaska Girl wrote:All this political talk and I'm just wondering how Randall picked which landmarks to include. :P I happen to be pumped because he included Hatcher Pass and Summit Lake (north of Wasilla, AK) because that happens to be my favorite few square miles on the planet.


Not far from me, he included Heart Attack Grill, which closed in May 2011.

Re: 2067: "Challengers"

Posted: Fri Nov 02, 2018 7:47 pm UTC
by Old Bruce
Alaska Girl wrote:All this political talk and I'm just wondering how Randall picked which landmarks to include. :P I happen to be pumped because he included Hatcher Pass and Summit Lake (north of Wasilla, AK) because that happens to be my favorite few square miles on the planet.

"Landmarks from Wikipedia." the 'Landmarks for 2018 US Federal Office Challengers' page to be precise, look it up it is a real thing.

Re: 2067: "Challengers"

Posted: Fri Nov 02, 2018 9:39 pm UTC
by biohazard
Anyone else notice iowa?

Image

Re: 2067: "Challengers"

Posted: Fri Nov 02, 2018 9:57 pm UTC
by edo
biohazard wrote:Anyone else notice iowa?

Image


I found several:
Spoiler:
Two in CA, one each in WA, NE, IA, TX,VA, DC, and one on the MO/IL boarder


anyone find any others? Are there any in the whitespace around the outside of the map?

ETA:
to be even more spoiler-y
Spoiler:
Image
MapCheck.png

Re: 2067: "Challengers"

Posted: Fri Nov 02, 2018 11:01 pm UTC
by Duban
Is anyone else enjoying the torrent of giant blue names surrounding the traditionally right leaning Hispanic communities of LA?

Gee, perhaps pissing off your own base wasn't such a good idea...

Re: 2067: "Challengers"

Posted: Fri Nov 02, 2018 11:08 pm UTC
by jeremyhansen
marvincamera wrote:It seems like others are also pointing out that third party candidates are not being included. [...] Two candidates will be elected to this seat, so it's possible they'll both get it, [...]


The same thing happened in my race, just the west of Susan's, in Washington-1. It's a two-seat district and I (running as a Progressive/Democratic candidate) don't show up, but the non-fusion Democratic candidate does. The fusion and/or third party and/or multiple-seat district seems to be throwing off the visualization.

Re: 2067: "Challengers"

Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2018 1:02 am UTC
by rmsgrey
orthogon wrote:
Pfhorrest wrote:
orthogon wrote:This reminds me of something in Sapiens by Yuval Noah Harari, where he talks about "level two chaotic systems". These are ones that respond to attempts to predict them. It doesn't appear to be a rigorously defined term within Chaos theory, but clearly informally it's easy to see that elections and markets belong in this category.

Any such system would have to be a system containing the predictors, which basically just makes this a special case of feedback loop. I don't know enough enough about chaos theory to say if there's a special name for that special case of feedback loop, but I'm pretty sure feedback loops are a big part of chaos theory in general.

You make an excellent point, which I can't really disagree with. And yet, there's something about the nature of the feedback in this case. Level one chaotic systems like the weather at least permit ever better predictions, whereas in level two systems that feedback acts so as to confound the very attempt to predict them (in some cases; there's also the case of the self-fulfilling prophecy). I'm not really sure any more - it's been a long week!


The key factor here is not that there's a feedback loop, but that the feedback loop includes the predictions of the system's behaviour, so you can't predict behaviour without changing it. With a "normal" chaotic system, your actions in analysing the system only affect the system's behaviour by perturbing it to get measurements (and you can abstract that as part of the background noise); with pre-election polling, the outcome of a poll is a primary influence on both the outcome of the election and the outcome of future polls.

Re: 2067: "Challengers"

Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2018 1:12 am UTC
by Pfhorrest
That is still just because we doing the predicting are part of the system we are predicting.

A computer program trying to predict the future state of the computer it is part of would face the same kind of problem.

Re: 2067: "Challengers"

Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2018 5:04 am UTC
by water_moon
Pfhorrest wrote:But on the topic of elections in general and predictions influencing how people vote: I can understand that the closeness or foregone-ness of a particular race might encourage or discourage people to vote at all, but one thing I've never understood is predicted outcome influencing how people vote. Like, why would you change your vote to or from someone based on the chances they will win, instead of based on how much you want them to win? Voting isn't making a bet on who's going to win, you don't get anything just because you voted for the winner, or lose anything because you voted for the loser.


That's easier to explain than you might think-- disregarding all the people who won't go vote if they feel it won't make a difference and all the people who want to be a "winner"-- there's also a major issue in the US with what is essentially a 2 party system: the lesser of two evils.
If I know that my vote won't matter, then I'm free to use it to "protest" and pick a 3rd party candidate, maybe even the one I'd really rather have in office but figure that if I vote for them it's a throw away if the race is close and I need to "keep so-in-so out." This gives the voter a sense of satisfaction without the risk of the "more evil" person winning.

The thought process might run thusly: "I don't have to vote against the lady who thinks it's okay to kill a guy for being a few minutes too late* by voting for the other party because the other party is a shoe in/has no chance so I can vote for the 3 party candidate who's a crazy nutter but has real valid changes I'd like to see implemented."

*true story, and said candidate https://ballotpedia.org/Sharon_Keller is actually on the ballot in Texas, see "Michael Richard"

Re: 2067: "Challengers"

Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2018 9:12 am UTC
by orthogon
water_moon wrote:
[s]orthogon[/s] wrote:But on the topic of elections in general and predictions influencing how people vote: I can understand that the closeness or foregone-ness of a particular race might encourage or discourage people to vote at all, but one thing I've never understood is predicted outcome influencing how people vote. Like, why would you change your vote to or from someone based on the chances they will win, instead of based on how much you want them to win? Voting isn't making a bet on who's going to win, you don't get anything just because you voted for the winner, or lose anything because you voted for the loser.



Point of order: it was Pfhorrest who said that; I was quoting them (and responding with some of the same points you make, although I missed the possibility of voting for someone you don't want to win just to raise their profile. I wouldn't recommend this: in our Brexit referendum there are reports that some people voted Leave to "send the politicians a message", not expecting that Leave would win).

I thought it was ok for the attribution to carry over from the previous quote, but maybe that convention isn't universally understood...

Re: 2067: "Challengers"

Posted: Sat Nov 03, 2018 9:10 pm UTC
by dtilque
Old Bruce wrote:
Alaska Girl wrote:All this political talk and I'm just wondering how Randall picked which landmarks to include. :P I happen to be pumped because he included Hatcher Pass and Summit Lake (north of Wasilla, AK) because that happens to be my favorite few square miles on the planet.

"Landmarks from Wikipedia." the 'Landmarks for 2018 US Federal Office Challengers' page to be precise, look it up it is a real thing.


Could not find that page. But I note that "Shrek 4D", which is a movie, is a landmark. It's near Orlando

Re: 2067: "Challengers"

Posted: Sun Nov 04, 2018 2:03 am UTC
by LtPowers
dtilque wrote:But I note that "Shrek 4D", which is a movie, is a landmark. It's near Orlando


I couldn't find the page either. But Shrek 4D, while it is technically a movie, is really a theme park attraction at Universal Studios Florida.


Powers &8^]

Re: 2067: "Challengers"

Posted: Sun Nov 04, 2018 4:17 pm UTC
by rmsgrey
Pfhorrest wrote:That is still just because we doing the predicting are part of the system we are predicting.

A computer program trying to predict the future state of the computer it is part of would face the same kind of problem.


A meteorologist predicting the weather is also going to change the weather slightly by his prediction - the words and gestures he makes in the process of delivering a prediction are a lot more significant than a single flap of a butterfly's wing - but not in the same way as, say, stock market tips feedback into the behaviour of the stock market.

Re: 2067: "Challengers"

Posted: Sun Nov 04, 2018 9:25 pm UTC
by Old Bruce
rmsgrey wrote:
Pfhorrest wrote:That is still just because we doing the predicting are part of the system we are predicting.

A computer program trying to predict the future state of the computer it is part of would face the same kind of problem.


A meteorologist predicting the weather is also going to change the weather slightly by his prediction - the words and gestures he makes in the process of delivering a prediction are a lot more significant than a single flap of a butterfly's wing - but not in the same way as, say, stock market tips feedback into the behaviour of the stock market.

Weather affects the stock market so I guess meteorologists are the invisible hands.

https://xkcd.com/2067/ I'm a Challenger, but not on the map.

Posted: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:20 pm UTC
by satcowitz
I'm a challenger for a State Representative seat in Vermont, but not listed! (Larry Satcowitz in the Orange-Washington-Addison district.)

I'm a huge XKCD fan, so this is enormously disappointing (and even worse, it's inaccurate!)! I wonder if the confusion is that it is a multi-member district. There are 5 of us running for 2 seats. The incumbents are Jay Hooper and Ben Jickling. The challengers are the two you included on the map and me.

Please fix.

Thanks,

Larry

Re: https://xkcd.com/2067/ I'm a Challenger, but not on the map.

Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2018 1:50 pm UTC
by SecondTalon
satcowitz wrote:Please fix.

Thanks,

Larry

Unfortunately, I don't know if anyone who could fix it still reads the forum.

Re: 2067: "Challengers"

Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2018 3:33 pm UTC
by amiller
Are the colors supposed to mean anything? I see both republicans and democrats in blue in my state. I also see an incumbent for the state legislature showing as a challenger.

Neat map, not convinced of it's accuracy.

Re: 2067: "Challengers"

Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2018 5:46 pm UTC
by Archgeek
Alaska Girl wrote:All this political talk and I'm just wondering how Randall picked which landmarks to include. :P I happen to be pumped because he included Hatcher Pass and Summit Lake (north of Wasilla, AK) because that happens to be my favorite few square miles on the planet.

I'm amused that he included Oklahoma's Lake Dirtybird (the brown lake that periodically makes the water taste terrible).

Re: 2067: "Challengers"

Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2018 7:23 pm UTC
by mathmannix
I wonder if and how this comic will effect changes in the election outcomes?

I am certain that people are affected by polls in their decision to vote or not (and probably also, to a lesser extent, whether to vote for one of the two major candidates, as opposed to a third party candidate they REALLY like, or vice versa.)

However, in doing a minimal amount of research via Google before posting this, I found that there seems to be two kinds of people in the world (and probably more): those who vote for who they think the winner will be - jumping on the bandwagon - and those who vote for the candidate they like best, whether or not that candidate has any chance of winning.

Me, I would think (hypothetically) I would be less inclined to vote if I thought the election wouldn't be close at all (in either direction), and more inclined to vote if I thought it would be close. However, I have never not voted, so that's only hypothetically speaking.

Re: 2067: "Challengers"

Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2018 3:40 am UTC
by water_moon
orthogon wrote:Point of order: it was Pfhorrest who said that; I was quoting them

sorry, cut the wrong things when quoting, will fix

Re: 2067: "Challengers"

Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2018 9:18 am UTC
by FOARP
Sjö wrote:To edit the map, submit your ballot on November 6th

Yay, another interactive comic! I love those, but it looks like there's some geoblocking at play in this one. Seems I can't edit from Sweden.


Strange, my friend Vladimir says he can still do it.

Re: 2067: "Challengers"

Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2018 12:02 am UTC
by P1h3r1e3d13
When I looked at the comic page on Nov. 2, I saw this in the header:
I'm frightened by the direction the President and his party are taking our country. The sea of blue names below represents people who are standing up to them.
The best thing you can do to help is to reach out to your friends and family and make sure they have a plan to vote.
Find out where to vote: Vote.org
See what's on your ballot: BallotReady.org

The text was pretty squished in that box, not well formatted. It was gone later, and the Wayback Machine didn't catch it.

Did anybody else see that?
Was the site hacked very thoughtfully? Am I crazy? Was Randall A/B testing, or did he put that up there only briefly?

Re: 2067: "Challengers"

Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2018 3:12 pm UTC
by badaza
So, did the comic update? Or was it just a reminder to go vote?

Re: 2067: "Challengers"

Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2018 5:37 am UTC
by Goldenrod
What I found interesting to the point of actually getting me to register on this forum is that in southeast Vermont, one of the local landmarks is listed as Windham College and even links to the wikipedia page for it. Windham College has been closed since 1978 and Landmark College (which I actually attended hence why I was looking around that area on the map) was founded on the same campus in 1985, so I genuinely am confused as to why it's still listed as Windham College rather than the actual college that's been there for more than thirty years. Perhaps some genuine oversight? Just my thoughts. Regardless, it was a nice map.

Re: 2067: "Challengers"

Posted: Sun Nov 25, 2018 4:22 am UTC
by smontfort
Two mistakes in the Chandler/Gilbert, Arizona area.

Eddie Farnsworth was not a Democratic Challenger. He is a Republican who ran for a seat previously held by Republican Warren Petersen. Petersen was running for Farnsworth's seat in the same district. Petersen's (and Travis Grantham's) opponents in District 12 are correctly identified.

Also, Williams Air Force Base no longer exists. It is now Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport.