Polls and Probabilities

[carpedm9587]

I loved those classes! great discussions. And yes, I think words should be used as precisely as possible, and the kind of superlative claims that have become common fare are usually untrue.

Again - you have sidetracked to an argument I did not make. I did not say the U.S. is more divided. Indeed, I explicitly said "we cannot show that because we lack any public polling that could be used to compare public attitudes then with those we have now." So continually returning to "the U.S. is more divided" miss-states the position I put forward, which was specifically about the polarization of government (I did not explicitly say the federal government, but hopefully that was implied by the citation of the voting record within the U.S. Congress.

Your argument that we would expect a higher crossover rate during the civil war because the opposition left, leaving behind those more likely to cross-over vote is a good one, but only for the period of the actual war. It does not explain why the cross-over voting was still higher than it is today both before AND after the war, when Congress had representation from all 34 (before the war) and 36 (after the war) states of the union.

[carpedm9587]

I actually agree with you on this. However, you have successfully repudiated a claim I never made, so...

[Mountain Man]

Actually - they do nothing of the sort - since they don't actually address the argument I made, as I made it. There is only one way to respond to a claim that cross-over voting is at an all-time low: show a time when cross over voting was even lower.

Oh, don't try backing out now. You cited crossover voting as evidence that America as a whole was somehow less divided during the CIVIL WAR than it is now. The voting record simply reflects the fact that those sympathetic to the South no longer had a significant presence in Congress, and to ignore this fact is intellectually dishonest at best

Although you unwittingly make an interesting point: perhaps if the Democrat obstructionists in Congress followed the example of their forefathers and abandoned their posts like the Confederates did during the Civil War then we would see a return to unity.

[carpedm9587]

Oh, don't try backing out now. You cited crossover voting as evidence that America as a whole was somehow less divided during the CIVIL WAR than it is now. The voting record simply reflects the fact that those sympathetic to the South no longer had a significant presence in Congress, and to ignore this fact is intellectually dishonest at best

Then I invite you to link us to the post where I made this claim, or at least cite it's number.

ETA: Actually, I retraced the conversation, and this is in Post #48.

{B}y most measurable means, the nation is more polarized today than it was then. We cannot compare polling data, of course, because it does not exist for that period. But we CAN examine the congressional record. There is no time in American history when the congressional voting record shows more polarization.

So I can see how this set the stage for people thinking I was suggesting the congressional record argument was about "the entire nation." I was sloppy with my language. I clarified several times in subsequent posts that we lack polling data so cannot definitively say anything about the nation as a whole, but if people focused on this one paragraph, they would have gone down a rabbit hole, and I am to blame for my sloppy use of language.

So let me be clear...we cannot say anything definitive about the nation as a whole because we lack any form of polling data that is comparable to modern polling. But we CAN look at the congressional record and see how badly divided the government was and is. To some degree, the government reflects the people, so yes - it is evidence - but it is not conclusive evidence (i.e., proof) of the nation as a whole. It is definitive proof of the level of polarization within the government.

Although you unwittingly make an interesting point: perhaps if the Democrat obstructionists in Congress followed the example of their forefathers and abandoned their posts like the Confederates did during the Civil War then we would see a return to unity.

Unfortunately, this separation is not by state - it is by party. And the Democrat obstructionists were preceded by Republican obstructionists. It's a little hard to label one party without noting that they both have (and are) doing it. Republicans minimized cross-over voting under Obama, and were excluded by Democrats when Democrats were in control. The same is happening now reverse under Trump. IMO, they are mostly acting like children and most should be shown the door. We will have a functional Congress when we elect people who understand that "compromise" is not a dirty word - it's an essential component of a representative democracy. But "we the people" are not willing to elect such people, so we have exactly what we are voting for.

[Mountain Man]

So let me be clear...we cannot say anything definitive about the nation as a whole because we lack any form of polling data that is comparable to modern polling. But we CAN look at the congressional record and see how badly divided the government was and is.

Yeah, you're still reaching to connect dots that aren't actually there. The US government during the Civil War was so divided that we literally had two different governments at war with each other.

[carpedm9587]

Yeah, you're still reaching to connect dots that aren't actually there. The US government during the Civil War was so divided that we literally had two different governments at war with each other.

My comments were about the U.S. Congress. It has an uninterrupted voting record that can be examined.

[Mountain Man]

My comments were about the U.S. Congress. It has an uninterrupted voting record that can be examined.

You're deliberately ignoring critical facts to promote your specious assertion that our government was somehow "united" during the Civil War.

[Terraceth]

My comments were about the U.S. Congress. It has an uninterrupted voting record that can be examined.

The problem is that due to a large portion of the country not being in congress at the time, examining the congressional record of that time period is pointless because much of the congress wasn't actually there. It can perhaps be used to examine how divided/united the states that stayed loyal to the Union were, but leaves a large portion of the country not counted (indeed, one could make the argument that the proper way for it to be counted would be to count every congressperson who was part of the seceding states inherently voting against the rest of congress in every single vote during the Civil War.

That said, I'm not entirely sure why you're persisting in this. Your overall point, as far as I can tell, remains undisturbed if you simply don't count the Civil War because of the congressional split inherent in it. You're stubbornly sticking to a point that it doesn't actually hurt your argument to relent on.

[lilpixieofterror]

My comments were about the U.S. Congress. It has an uninterrupted voting record that can be examined.

[lilpixieofterror]

I loved those classes! great discussions. And yes, I think words should be used as precisely as possible, and the kind of superlative claims that have become common fare are usually untrue.



Again - you have sidetracked to an argument I did not make. I did not say the U.S. is more divided. Indeed, I explicitly said "we cannot show that because we lack any public polling that could be used to compare public attitudes then with those we have now." So continually returning to "the U.S. is more divided" miss-states the position I put forward, which was specifically about the polarization of government (I did not explicitly say the federal government, but hopefully that was implied by the citation of the voting record within the U.S. Congress.

Your argument that we would expect a higher crossover rate during the civil war because the opposition left, leaving behind those more likely to cross-over vote is a good one, but only for the period of the actual war. It does not explain why the cross-over voting was still higher than it is today both before AND after the war, when Congress had representation from all 34 (before the war) and 36 (after the war) states of the union.

[carpedm9587]

I have responded to this in previous posts. I'll refer you to those.

[carpedm9587]

You're deliberately ignoring critical facts to promote your specious assertion that our government was somehow "united" during the Civil War.

Actually, I have not. A faction split off and formed the confederacy for a few years. My comments were about the remaining U.S. Congress, it's voting record just before (when it was one Congress), during (when it was missing membership) and after (when it was back to one Congress).

[carpedm9587]

The problem is that due to a large portion of the country not being in congress at the time, examining the congressional record of that time period is pointless because much of the congress wasn't actually there. It can perhaps be used to examine how divided/united the states that stayed loyal to the Union were, but leaves a large portion of the country not counted (indeed, one could make the argument that the proper way for it to be counted would be to count every congressperson who was part of the seceding states inherently voting against the rest of congress in every single vote during the Civil War.

That said, I'm not entirely sure why you're persisting in this. Your overall point, as far as I can tell, remains undisturbed if you simply don't count the Civil War because of the congressional split inherent in it. You're stubbornly sticking to a point that it doesn't actually hurt your argument to relent on.

I have already noted, in a previous post, that Pix's argument about the congressional split (opposition leaving) was a good observation, and would account for why the cross-over voting record in the U.S. Congress was "artificially high" during the civil war itself (opposition not present, artificially inflating the ratio). So we do not know what it would have been during those years had they been united. We DO know what it was just before the war and just after the war, when Congress was NOT split, and it was NOT higher than it is today.

That being said, if the cross-over voting before the war started and after the war ended was still higher than it is today, it would be hard to argue that it would have been lower during the period of the war if all of the representatives were still voting as one body.

You have to bear in mind that the issue during the Civil war was largely centered around slavery and states rights. There were a wealth of other issues that did NOT polarize/divide Congress, which accounts for the higher cross-over voting. But even with regards to matters impacting slavery, because there were members of the Democratic party against the institution, and members of the Republican party for it, there was still some amount of cross-over voting.

[carpedm9587]

You're deliberately ignoring critical facts to promote your specious assertion that our government was somehow "united" during the Civil War.

I never said they were "united." I said they had a higher degree of cross-over voting than we see today. So, at best, they were "more united" than they are today. The specific years of the civil war itself is, as I noted in response to Pix, an unknown. It is possible the cross-over voting is artificially high because the opposition had separated. It is also possible that it is not. We have no way of making a definitive statement about the period of the war itself. But we have clues. If the cross-over voting before and after the war as higher then than now, one has to wonder how it would have differed during. Indeed, if you go back to look at the incidence of cross over voting before, during, and after the civil war, it shows only a modest uptick (less than 1%) during the war than before and after. As I noted to Tera - we have to remember that the primary polarizing issue was slavery/states-rights. There were a wealth of other issues Congress was taking up that were NOT polarizing. And you also have to remember that there were pro-slavery/anti-slavery people in both parties (though they dominated in the Democratic party and were correspondingly rare in the Republican party. So even on issues directly related to slavery, there was some (not much) amount of cross-over voting.

[carpedm9587]

I'm sure pills would help.

Pix, my comment was that there is no way to have an apples to apples comparison of the "mood of the nation" then and now because we lack the polling mechanism. There is evidence about it, of course, and I agree with your list. Lacking definitive proof, I focused my comments on the operation of the government, where we DO have a measurable, definitive apples-to-apples comparison: the Congressional voting record. Congress saw a reduction in membership for the 37th and 38th Congress due to the war. The 39th grew slightly as some southern states restored their representation, and full representation was restored for the 40th Congress (seated 1867). We have the voting record for all of these congresses, and they show a higher level of cross-over voting from the 34th (6 years before the war) through the 41st (5+ years after the war) with only a slight increase (less than 1%) during the years of the war itself (37th and 38th Congresses).

The very slight increase suggests that the departure of "the opposition" may have had some impact in artificially inflating ratio of cross-over (bipartisan) to straight-line party (partisan) voting, but the amount is so negligible as to be statistically irrelevant. And the incidence of cross-over voting averaged about 16% higher than it is today throughout this period, with a standard deviation of 1.03%. The data is clear: the U.S. Government (specifically the Congress) was less polarized from the 34th through the 41st than it is today (115th Congress).