hat
Yon leson dezyèm se ke nou souvan bliye inyorans nou an. Tounen 2012 D' Nate te mande si wi ou non syantis politik te kapab predi rezilta elektoral ak "presizyon dwòl." repons l 'te sou sib: "Repons pou kesyon sa a, pou pi piti depi 1992, a été avec pa. Kèk nan yo prévisions ont été pi byen pase lòt, Men, yo dosye total antye yon pòv malere." A 2015 Eleksyon jeneral la Retire rappelle nou de fait sa a, menm jan li gen les gens nan FiveThirtyEight. sèten, li sanble ap amelyore posib pou elèksyon Etazini yo ranje kò li, Men sa pou di yon bagay sou exceptionalism Ameriken (pa egzanp lè w, très zanmi ak distri yo byen gerrymandered, avèk yon senp relativement sistèm elektoral ki se chaje ak byen ont) olye ke yon bagay sou prévisibilité politik ki pi jeneralman.
eng
A second lesson is that we often forget our ignorance. Back in 2012 Nate Silver asked whether political scientists could predict electoral outcomes with “amazing accuracy.” His reply was on target: “The answer to this question, at least since 1992, has been emphatically not. Some of their forecasts have been better than others, but their track record as a whole is very poor.” The 2015 UK General Election reminds us of this fact, as it has the folks at FiveThirtyEight. Sure, it does seem possible to anticipate US elections, but this may say something about American exceptionalism (e.g., highly partisan with well-gerrymandered districts, with a relatively simple electoral system that is overwhelmingly well-surveyed) rather than anything about the predictability of politics more generally.