« First « Previous Comments 13 - 18 of 18 Search these comments
Tenpoundbass
@
2012 Jun 27, 6:01am
The thing that's really stupid about your point of view
You know, it never gets old having a Liberal call me Stupid.
Let me know how that works out for you.
FNWGMOBDVZXDNW
@
2012 Jun 27, 6:16am
If there are 10,000 voters, your probability of having a vote count is much greater than 2/10,000. You would know this if you were not stupid and you thought about it for a second.
If 10,000 voters flip a coin and vote accordingly, the winner is likely to win by something like 1/ sqrt(10,000) = 100 votes. So, there would be a 1% chance of changing the result. If the votes are not random, of course things change.
And, when people come from a very liberal or very conservative state, they may be more likely to stay at home or go have a protest vote for 3rd party. There are also local elections, so if people go for the local election, they may as well pull the national lever. There are more results to an election than if the pres wins or loses.
freak80
@
2012 Jun 27, 7:12am
If people stop voting, we won't have leaders accountable to anyone. Voting isn't for irrational, it's for everyone who has cares about the outcome.
Voting doesn't matter. Politicians aren't going to stop taking bribes just because people vote.
freak80
@
2012 Jun 27, 7:12am
Lisa Simpson: one nation, under the dollar, with liberty and justice for no-one.
Someone refute this please because I have thought this way my whole life and everyone tells me I am a moron.
I know that the margin of victory will not be a single vote so why should I bother to invest my time?
Would I not be better served writing a blog post to try to influence multiple voters, rather than to drive to the voting station myself?
What is irrational is that presidential elections have bigger turnout than off season local issue ones. As stated by OP, your chances of making the difference are better in the latter, but more people vote in the former.
As for presidential elections, it still may be economically rational for the following reasons - if the good citizens vote and expect you to, you may be considered anti-social and not a good citizen for not voting, which could cost you in your personal and even business life. So it's rational to vote. And I never line up and stand next to smelly people - I vote from home, by mail.
Also in presidential election years, there are still dog catchers and local measures and judges and what not on the ballot, so you need to vote for those, because you might influence those races more so than the presidential one.
But to vote for these smaller races, you have to be informed or research, since they are little discussed. Therefore, I am not a proponent of GET OUT THE VOTE! or ROCK THE VOTE! since this encourages people who don't know anything to show up and vote in large numbers. And when that happens, we get Obama.
Dan8267
@
2012 Jun 28, 11:53am
Voting doesn't scale. A continuous feedback system where your individual choices affect you more than they affect others is needed. This gives people the power to shape their environment by simply doing what is natural.
« First « Previous Comments 13 - 18 of 18 Search these comments
The United States' political democracy elects their leaders based on the largest number of irrational thinkers. This can easily be proven! In the business world, companies and individuals are assumed to be rational decision makers. The basis of all their decisions is an analysis between marginal costs and marginal productivity. When marginal costs exceed marginal productivity, the action will NOT take place. When marginal productivity is higher or equal to marginal costs, the action occurs. Again, this is assuming they are rational.
So, the only way for voting to be a productive endeavor is if the election is won by 1 vote. The probability of this occurring is very slim. If the vote is won or lost by 2, 20, or 2,000 votes, the individual’s vote had no influence to the outcome of the election and therefore had a productivity of 0. With a thousand voters, the probability of influencing the election is about a 0.2% chance. With 10,000 voters the probability is about 0.02% chance. So, this means that because each individual knows going into voting that there will be about 10,000 voters, they must understand that their individual vote will be of no influence to the outcome, 0 productivity. There were 0 gains from voting, yet there were considerable costs.
This means that with 10,000 voters, the probability of the marginal productivity being greater than 0 is 0.02% chance. Anyone who assumes considerable costs; gas, time, registering, waiting in line, and being close to smelly people, for a probability of 0.02% chance of having a marginal productivity greater than 0, is irrational! Again, since marginal costs will exceed marginal productivity 99.98% of the time, it would not be rational to vote! Each person could use that time and energy to actually produce value for themselves.
This is a major flaw in the U.S. political atmosphere. Essentially the winner is chosen by the largest group of irrational decision makers. This indicates that the exact opposite opponent probably should have been elected!