Libertarian Sean Haugh Becomes Walking Refutation of the "Spoiler Effect"

[MrBogosity]

"Voting Libertarian takes votes away from Republicans!"

I don't think we need to rehash all the reasons why this is bogus (not to mention arrogant). Or my usual canned response of, "Good!" But I did want to post this:

My friend Sean Haugh is running for US Senate here in North Carolina, and he's polling double-digits! But look at the breakdown:

http://www.examiner.com/article/haugh-polls-double-digits-senate-race

On May 13, Public Policy Polling released a poll of the 2014 US Senate race in North Carolina. The race now appears to be a toss-up, with incumbent Democrat Kay Hagan and Republican Thom Tillis tied at 41 percent with 18 percent unsure.

But when Libertarian candidate Sean Haugh is named as a choice, he gets 11 percent of the vote, with Hagan at 38 percent, Tillis at 36 percent, and 15 percent unsure.

So he's basically taking equally from each candidate. 3% both from unsure and Hagan, and 5% from Tillis (probably within the margin of error).

Also:

Delving deeper into the poll results, we find that Haugh wins the support of 9 percent of Republican voters, 9 percent of Democratic voters, and 16 percent of independent/other voters. A figure for Libertarian voters only was not given.

As usual: pretty much equal from Democrats and Republicans. And they're having even greater trouble courting independent votes.

[Travis Retriever]

Something else these poll/election/etc results prove/show--the validity of the Nolan Chart.  If libertarianism really was "right wing" like so many idiots make it out to be, you wouldn't see liberals and independents being drawn to it as well.  Hell.  Most of us who are libertarian on this board started out as liberals.

Really, it shows that, yeah, the Nolan Chart IS based in reality by simple fact that libertarian candidates draw equally from both the left and the right.  Despite what every pseudo-intellectual, mouth breathing, and appealing to complication pillock would have you believe.  Sorry guys, but empiricism trumps theory.  Always and forever.  End of.

[AnCap Dave]

I've always thought the spoiler argument was just an admission of defeat.

If you actually had some confidence in yourself or the platform that you're running on, then you shouldn't have to worry about someone else "taking votes away from you." If you do, then clearly it says a lot about what you're selling to the voters.

[bp_28]

Have you heard about this yet?
https://twitter.com/jonevanswect/status/700430606228971520

[MrBogosity]

Have you heard about this yet?
https://twitter.com/jonevanswect/status/700430606228971520

Wow...that actually looks...sensible!

[evensgrey]

Have you heard about this yet?
https://twitter.com/jonevanswect/status/700430606228971520

The 4th district looks kinda suspicious, as do some of the partial counties in the 1st, 8th, and 10th, and the way the 1st, 8th, 9th, 10th, and 11th are spread out.  I'd want to see the computer analysis of the boundaries to see if it detects anything statistically weird.

[AdeptusHereticus]

I was going to do a google search about that, but screw it I'm lazy tonight. Can someone explain to me, as summarized or as extensively as you want, what is the deal with those districts, and particularely, what is the big controversy ? I remember hearing about that system in the past several times, but do not remember what the issue was ...

[evensgrey]

I was going to do a google search about that, but screw it I'm lazy tonight. Can someone explain to me, as summarized or as extensively as you want, what is the deal with those districts, and particularely, what is the big controversy ? I remember hearing about that system in the past several times, but do not remember what the issue was ...

The constant problem is known as gerrymandering (a portmanteau of Gerry and Salamander, from Eldridge Gerry, a governor of Massachusetts in the early 19th century who was sitting when extreme and obvious manipulation of electoral boundaries for partisan advantage produced a district that was said to look like a Salamander).

The basic problem is that, ultimately, the boundaries of electoral districts are under the collective control of those who were elected in the most recent round of elections, and they will naturally want to manipulate those boundaries for their own purposes, either to ensure that those in office remain in office as long as they wish, or along party lines to maintain control of the legislature, or to produce some other desired outcome (like, for instance, to get persons of specific ethnic backgrounds elected or not elected).  In this sense, it is a specific form of the Agency Problem that invariably plagues all forms of representative government.

I noted the 4th district because it has one of the classic appearances of this kind of manipulation, having two large lobes connected by a narrow region.  The other areas I noted also have less suspicious but questionable features, such as having oddly shaped chunks of counties stuck on them or being rather distinctly lengthy collections of counties that don't clearly appear to be naturally grouped together over more "blobby" clustering.

There are various tests that can be performed (mostly by computer) that often detect intentional manipulation of this type.

[MrBogosity]

The 4th district looks kinda suspicious,

That's Cary, and it's a LOT better than it was! I think it probably represents the metro area well, despite crossing the county borders the way it does.

as do some of the partial counties in the 1st, 8th, and 10th, and the way the 1st, 8th, 9th, 10th, and 11th are spread out.

Those are rural areas with lower populations, so it stands to reason.

[AdeptusHereticus]

The constant problem is known as gerrymandering [...]

Thanks !

[evensgrey]

That's Cary, and it's a LOT better than it was! I think it probably represents the metro area well, despite crossing the county borders the way it does.

Those are rural areas with lower populations, so it stands to reason.

This is why I said I'd like to see the analysis of the proposed boundaries that tries to detect intentional manipulations.  There can be valid reasons that boundaries are set in a way that could look suspicious (such as it's the only way to get the populations to balance out properly without doing something even more freaky to the boundaries).

In Canada, we don't usually get much controversy about this sort of thing.  You do hear politicians from large, rural Ridings (the term used in Canada for our approximate equivalent of a District) talk about how much time it takes to travel about their constituency and meet people.  This is a real issue in some of the western and northern regions where people are sparse and travel difficult.