Caterpillar Cowboy

peterfeld:

newsweek:

(via nicksummers)

Some nice reporting here from Nick

This is a good overview of academic theories concerning “low-information voting” (voting in contests with unfamiliar candidates) but it leaves out the most glaringly obvious explanation, that a sufficient number of voters actually thought “Alvin Greene” was the R&B legend Al Greene (ballot listings might call for the formality of a full name). One voter actually said that to a reporter. And with voters knowing zero about Rawl, that could be enough to swing an 18-point margin Greene’s way.

Another thing to add to this article: political scientists (like all social scientists) who identify rules will point out that there is a probability model for any outcome. Just as one out of 20 polls will produce erroneous results beyond the margin of error, a certain (low) percentage of no-information elections will produce results as bizarre as this one. Think of all the no-information races where both (or more than one) of the candidates are nominally qualified - the outcome is just as random but it isn’t noticed. (Aside from the many no-information races that actually produce a decent result.)  It probably happens more often than we notice, since winning candidates as glaringly inarticulate as Greene are rare - he was a perfect storm, an utter rando with a semi-famous-sounding name and an equally unknown opponent in a two-way race for a high-profile office.