Random thought: Conditional probabilities are weird. A candidate with very low probability of winning primary might have very high probability of winning presidency conditional on winning primary. Because the same miracle that won the primary would probably win the presidency too
-
Show this thread
-
So voting for the primary candidate with highest conditional probability might be a daft strategy, even if the *only* thing you care about is your party winning. You would be voting for the candidate with the *highest correlation* between winning primary and winning presidency??
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likesShow this thread -
I *think* I've got that right above. (But probability theory is hard for me.) Now I'm trying to solve for the equilibrium, in the limit, as all primary voters approach voting for the candidate with highest conditional probability. (But it's too hard for me.)
2 replies 0 retweets 1 likeShow this thread -
What I *think* I'm saying is that these conditional probabilities maybe aren't "structural" things. If you primary vote according to conditional probabilities, you will maybe change those conditional probabilities adversely.
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @MacRoweNick
another consideration: you wouldn't just vote for the candidate who has the highest conditional probability of winning. you should take into account how much your vote improves their chances getting to the conditional (winning the primary).
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
adding your vote to a candidate with ~0% chance of winning the primary would seem to change their chances less than adding your vote to a candidate with, say, ~50% chance. (or my intuition is false... but it seems like it should be nonlinear in p)
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.