The result of flipping 1 voter per 100

[LetterRip]

Interesting point by 538,

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-a-difference-2-percentage-points-makes/

Essentially the results and narrative change dramatically if just 1 in 100 voters voted differently in the election.

[TheDeamon]

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-was-stronger-where-the-economy-is-weaker/

Was interesting as well, lots of interlinked things tied in there, but the biggest "indicator" out of all of them was how the predominant form of work in an area was described. Anyone working in a job that could potentially be automated "without too much difficulty" (repetitive/"routine" work that could be turned into a algorithm without too much effort, even if the mechanics may differ) had very strong bias in favor of Trump.

Basically, if someone is working a job where they're living in fear of a robot or AI taking over their job in the foreseeable future, be it next week, or 5 to 15 years from now. They were very likely to vote Trump.

[TheDeamon]

Speaking of other Analysis, maybe someone has done it already, or nobody has bothered to. Anyone see anything that indicates what the "electoral outcome" would have been if most/all states followed on the Nebraska/Maine electoral college model?

I already played with growing the Electoral College by implementing the "Wyoming Rule" in regards to allotting seats in the US House of Representatives. The outcome still came out in favor of Trump, with an even larger Electoral Margin at that--thanks in large part to Michigan and Pennsylvania. So that wouldn't have resolved the issue of "the electoral president" by itself.

[AI Wessex]

Basically, if someone is working a job where they're living in fear of a robot or AI taking over their job in the foreseeable future, be it next week, or 5 to 15 years from now. They were very likely to vote Trump.

Perhaps, but they took it out on the wrong villain, since it is the businesses that are introducing robots/AI and replacing human workers. 

The more I think about it the more this election was a case of misdirection, misinformation and misunderstanding on the part of the cohort who were Trump's base.  He won't be able to "fix" the economy any more than Obama did/didn't, since the private sector is where jobs are created and lost.  Immigration, illegal or otherwise, is a small factor that actually made many domestic goods more affordable.  Cheap goods from other countries with far lower wage bases accounted for a major portion of the rest.

Cutting federal income taxes for the lower-middle class (which he won't do, btw) won't help since many of those people don't pay those taxes already.  He plans to eliminate a big part of the social safety net supported by the federal government, which will also have negative knock-on effects on their lives and well-being.  All he'll do for them is basically establish a federal policy of looking the other way and saying it's not the government's job to help them.

Good luck, y'all.

I already played with growing the Electoral College by implementing the "Wyoming Rule" in regards to allotting seats in the US House of Representatives. The outcome still came out in favor of Trump, with an even larger Electoral Margin at that--thanks in large part to Michigan and Pennsylvania. So that wouldn't have resolved the issue of "the electoral president" by itself.

Since this was the second election in the last five where the candidate who won the popular vote failed to win the electoral mandate, I'm beginning to think the EC has outlived its usefulness.  Time for the popular vote to elect the President, as it does every other office.

[TheDeamon]

I already played with growing the Electoral College by implementing the "Wyoming Rule" in regards to allotting seats in the US House of Representatives. The outcome still came out in favor of Trump, with an even larger Electoral Margin at that--thanks in large part to Michigan and Pennsylvania. So that wouldn't have resolved the issue of "the electoral president" by itself.

Since this was the second election in the last five where the candidate who won the popular vote failed to win the electoral mandate, I'm beginning to think the EC has outlived its usefulness.  Time for the popular vote to elect the President, as it does every other office.

If Instant Runoff had been used to ensure a popular majority in each state before WTA applies, we have this as a potential quick run down:
No change: AK, WA, OR, CA, HI, ID, MT, WY, ND, SD, NE, KS, OK, TX, LA, AR, MO, IA, IL, IN, KY, TN, MS, AL, NC, WV, OH, SC, GA, DC, MD, NJ, NY, DE, CT, MA, VT, RI.

So 37 states plus DC had a clear popular majority, no instant runoff needed.

Which leaves 13 for "Instant runoff" to break 50%. I'll presume Green party votes would go to Hillary, while Libertarian and McMullin votes go for Trump.

Nevada: outcome unclear, at least using CNN's polling data, unable to get to 50%+1 of the vote. Information from Fox News doesn't help.
Utah: Remains Trump.
Arizona remains Trump.
New Mexico: Unclear with CNN's polling data, can't break 50%. Fox News Data puts Trump at 50% in theory... (Trump 40.0%, Johnson 9.3%, McMullin 0.7%)
Colorado: Unclear with CNN's polling data, can't break 50%. Fox News Data flips it to Trump. (Trump 44.4%, Johnson 5.0%, McMullin 1%; netting 50.4%)
Minnesota: Unclear with CNN's polling data, can't break 50%. Fox News Data flips it to Trump. (Trump 45.4%, Johnson 4.9%, McMullin 1.8%; netting 52.1%)
Wisconsin:  Unclear with CNN's polling data, can't break 50%.Fox News data keeps it with Trump. (Trump 47.9%, Johnson 3.6%; netting 51.5%)
Virginia: Remains Clinton
Florida: remains Trump
Michigan: Goes Trump (considered tossup still)
Pennsylvania: Remains Trump
New Hampshire: Goes Trump (flips current result)
Maine: Goes Trump (flips result, unclear as to outcome on the district level. Would shift at least 2 EC votes to Trump, possibly 3)

And of course, we have the "raw" popular vote nationwide:
Hillary Clinton 60.1 Million (rounded up), 59.8 Million(rounded down), Johnson 4.1 Million(rounded up), Stein(Green party) 1.2 Million(rounded down), McMullin 0.4 Million(rounded down)
59.8+4.1+0.4= 64.3 Million votes for "conservative" options.
60.1+1.2= 61.3 Million votes for "liberal" options.

[DonaldD]

Basically, if someone is working a job where they're living in fear of a robot or AI taking over their job in the foreseeable future, be it next week, or 5 to 15 years from now. They were very likely to vote Trump.

I can't imagine people were sufficiently worried about Wessex to have factored in his ability to replace them into their electoral calculations...

[AI Wessex]

Basically, if someone is working a job where they're living in fear of a robot or AI taking over their job in the foreseeable future, be it next week, or 5 to 15 years from now. They were very likely to vote Trump.

I can't imagine people were sufficiently worried about Wessex to have factored in his ability to replace them into their electoral calculations...

I've worked hard to destabilize some people's view of the world, but have regrettably come up short.  Time for some new algorithms...

[Fenring]

Weird, this is the first time I've noticed that it says AI Wessex rather than Al Wessex. It's all coming together...

[AI Wessex]

Weird, this is the first time I've noticed that it says AI Wessex rather than Al Wessex. It's all coming together...

Quite honestly I give it a 70% chance that you never noticed with a 95% confidence rating. At least I have that satisfaction.  FWIW, I'm thinking of dropping the AI Wessex forum identity, which I picked for a variety of reasons including that Aelfred, Lord Wessex was an early English monarch who was a champion of literacy during his reign in the 9th Century.  If I do leave and come back I will take the moniker Cassandra.  The scholars among you will understand.  The rest of you will assume I am female and will try not to offend me.  If that happens I will sharpen my avatar's voice into a dominatrix tone, which will excite some of you I imagine.  AI can do amazing things, most of them bad.