Print

[marilyn.monroe]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2012/03/11/the_virgin_islands_caucuses_how_ron_paul_lost_by_getting_more_votes.html

How did Paul get 11 more votes than Romney, but lose to him on delegates? It's complicated.

[JL]

That's another reason why voting is useless. 

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2012/03/11/the_virgin_islands_caucuses_how_ron_paul_lost_by_getting_more_votes.html

How did Paul get 11 more votes than Romney, but lose to him on delegates? It's complicated.

[Baby Hitler]

I've never made that claim.

Perhaps not directly

And show your support in having a gun pointed at your neighbors if they disagree with an idea you like?

Isn't that stating that by voting, I am pointing a gun at my neighbors to force them to do something?

Isn't that violence?

So by voting, I am advocating for violence, at least according to you. And isn't advocating violence immoral?

So I believe that yes, you are lying in stating that you don't care whether or not people vote.

And if lying is pretty pathetic, what does that make you?

Some have resorted to outright lies

pretty pathetic. 

[LetsGoWings]

People keep saying this.  Everyone is stuck in a collectivist mindset.  Yes, a group of 10,000 votes is a lot more likely to change the outcome of an election than a single vote.  But we can't vote 10,000 times and we can force even one more person to vote a particular way, let alone 9,999 people.  The fact is.  We can only vote ONCE.  We have one vote, and the odds that the one vote we are able to cast will determine the outcome of an election is dismally low.   

Ok let's assume everyone uses your logic of my vote won't make a difference, so I won't vote. If most people apply that and do not vote, suddenly a select few people will determine the outcome of the election because not many people will be voting, so their vote will matter even more.

[JL]

I'm glad you agree that forcing others to pay for services they don't want is violence and immoral.  Voting, however is not such an act in and of itself, and I have never claimed as much.  It's there people who actually carry out the threats of violence that are behaving immorally.  In fact I believe that most voters would not do themselves what they vote for others to do. 

For instance, A typical person probably would not go to their neighbor's house and force him to pay for a bus service that he did not want to use.  But that person would likely vote for someone who would do that using the people that work for the government and their weapons. 

Perhaps not directly
Isn't that stating that by voting, I am pointing a gun at my neighbors to force them to do something?

Isn't that violence?

So by voting, I am advocating for violence, at least according to you. And isn't advocating violence immoral?

So I believe that yes, you are lying in stating that you don't care whether or not people vote.

And if lying is pretty pathetic, what does that make you?

[JL]

I know it's very hard to escape the collectivist ideology, but try.  You are an individual.  You cannot control the votes of others.  If you remove your vote from an election, it has no impact on any other votes.  the same people that voted would have voted and the same people that didn't vote would not have voted.  This is not quantum mechanics -- it's pretty straight forward. 

If a large chunk of people decided not to vote in an election, your individual vote would not change that.  it's still just one vote and it still is very very very inconsequential. 

apparently it hurts people to understand this because everyone is trying so desperately to  show that some very well established and accepted facts are false.   

Ok let's assume everyone uses your logic of my vote won't make a difference, so I won't vote. If most people apply that and do not vote, suddenly a select few people will determine the outcome of the election because not many people will be voting, so their vote will matter even more.

[Baby Hitler]

I'm glad you agree that forcing others to pay for services they don't want is violence and immoral.

I didn't say that, I stated that YOU stated that. I merely stated that since you are stating that by voting we are advocating for such things to be done, therefore we, as voters, are advocating violence, and that is why you want us to stop voting.

Therefore, you stating that you do not care whether or not people vote is a lie.

And by your own words, that makes you "pretty pathetic".

[JL]

Advocating violence is not committing a violent act.  There is a difference.  If a person states that he believes robbing homes is a good thing, he hasn't actually done anything wrong unless he actually commits the crime. 

why wouldn't you have the decency to allow me to disagree with you without having a gun pointed at me? 

I didn't say that, I stated that YOU stated that. I merely stated that since you are stating that by voting we are advocating for such things to be done, therefore we, as voters, are advocating violence, and that is why you want us to stop voting.

Therefore, you stating that you do not care whether or not people vote is a lie.

And by your own words, that makes you "pretty pathetic".

[Professor H]

People keep saying this.  Everyone is stuck in a collectivist mindset.  Yes, a group of 10,000 votes is a lot more likely to change the outcome of an election than a single vote.  But we can't vote 10,000 times and we can force even one more person to vote a particular way, let alone 9,999 people.  The fact is.  We can only vote ONCE.  We have one vote, and the odds that the one vote we are able to cast will determine the outcome of an election is dismally low.   

You cite statistics and odds...  Not a mathematical fact like 2+2 = 4

The odds that 2 + 2 = 4 is exact and 100%

The odds that your vote could determine the outcome of an election is a fraction of 100% thus not always a FACT as a possibility exists that it can.

You are the person who can't seem to comprehend the Theory is about the ability to predict or come up with a fair means of choosing among a choice of more than one in a societal event (like an election)...  It has nothing to do with showing that those choices are meaningless.



(The song - Wheels on the Bus go round round round...  popped into my head when reading the circular posts that have been going on here  )

[ducksoup]

You cite statistics and odds...  Not a mathematical fact like 2+2 = 4

The odds that 2 + 2 = 4 is exact and 100%

The odds that your vote could determine the outcome of an election is a fraction of 100% thus not always a FACT as a possibility exists that it can.

You are the person who can't seem to comprehend the Theory is about the ability to predict or come up with a fair means of choosing among a choice of more than one in a societal event (like an election)...  It has nothing to do with showing that those choices are meaningless.



(The song - Wheels on the Bus go round round round...  popped into my head when reading the circular posts that have been going on here  )

Give it up Prof.  If there is one thing that Jl and ML and Matt have proved is that there is no logic for them.  The circular logical fallacy is the constant fallback.  It is notable that a frequent tactic is to take a part of a truth and try to claim that all of the assertions are truth because one part is.  When that fails blame the reader, then circle again.

Frankly, JL and co. have no logical argument and still try lamely to convince people that 2+6= 10,000,000.

He/she pretends to be so much smarter than you that you just can't understand the logic, when there isn't any.  Just as you point out, the theory does not say, in any way, that one vote does not count.  It is trying to measure on an individual level multiple choice theory.  It fails to account for the aggregate problem.

If one person decides to not buy gasoline, that makes no difference and affirms the Arrow theory.  However, if 5 million people stop buying gasoline, then the Arrow theory becomes useless because of the aggregate problem. IT is the same faulty logic that Jl uses.

[Baby Hitler]

Advocating violence is not committing a violent act.  There is a difference.  If a person states that he believes robbing homes is a good thing, he hasn't actually done anything wrong unless he actually commits the crime. 

why wouldn't you have the decency to allow me to disagree with you without having a gun pointed at me?

You've just done it again. My voting is causing a gun to be pointed at you. Therefore, my voting is a violent act.

Just as if I hired a hit man to kill you if you don't do what I say. I'm not doing it myself, I'm just advocating that the guy shoots you if you don't do what I say.

THAT is YOUR logic. Not mine.

But then, you don't care if anyone votes, so you don't care if someone points a gun at you.

Again, that's YOUR logic.

[JL]

if you don't see statistics as a serious and logical branch of mathematics then I don't really know what else to say to you.  But I'll point out again that your vote has never decided any sizable election, and based on statistics it never will.  I'm not sure why this is so hard to understand.  It's as simple as looking back and seeing how many elections have been decided by one vote. 

"An election of a United States senator, or a governor, has never in the history of the United States been decided by one vote. Charles Hunter, who earned a doctorate at the University of Chicago, and I studied almost 100 years of elections of members of Congress – almost 20,000 of them in which an aggregate two billion votes were cast – and only one election was determined by a single vote of the 40,000 cast (that was in the New York’s 36th Congressional District in 1910). And that election had a recount that determined the election was decided by a margin of six votes, rather than one."

If you disagree with the paper I cited.  PLEASE provide a reasonable argument as to why you believe it's incorrect.  And explain how the clear and undisputed empirical data (i.e. election records) are mistaken. 

You cite statistics and odds...  Not a mathematical fact like 2+2 = 4

The odds that 2 + 2 = 4 is exact and 100%

The odds that your vote could determine the outcome of an election is a fraction of 100% thus not always a FACT as a possibility exists that it can.

You are the person who can't seem to comprehend the Theory is about the ability to predict or come up with a fair means of choosing among a choice of more than one in a societal event (like an election)...  It has nothing to do with showing that those choices are meaningless.



(The song - Wheels on the Bus go round round round...  popped into my head when reading the circular posts that have been going on here  )

[JL]

you can vote for whomever you like.  you are free to appoint anyone you wish to dictate to you, to tell you what you can and cannot do, and to tell you how to spend your money.      The election is fine for all those who voluntarily participate.  My problem is when the elected officials use violence or the threat thereof, to force others to participate.  If you believe that is a just thing to do, then you have a corrupt belief system, but my guess is you are far too cowardly to do the dirty work yourself (ex. go to your neighbors house and drag them out and put them in a cage if they refuse to pay you for a bus system that you want and they do not.)  or would you? 

You've just done it again. My voting is causing a gun to be pointed at you. Therefore, my voting is a violent act.

Just as if I hired a hit man to kill you if you don't do what I say. I'm not doing it myself, I'm just advocating that the guy shoots you if you don't do what I say.

THAT is YOUR logic. Not mine.

But then, you don't care if anyone votes, so you don't care if someone points a gun at you.

Again, that's YOUR logic.

[BigRedDog]

Give it up Prof.  If there is one thing that Jl and ML and Matt have proved is that there is no logic for them.  The circular logical fallacy is the constant fallback.  It is notable that a frequent tactic is to take a part of a truth and try to claim that all of the assertions are truth because one part is.  When that fails blame the reader, then circle again.

Frankly, JL and co. have no logical argument and still try lamely to convince people that 2+6= 10,000,000.

He/she pretends to be so much smarter than you that you just can't understand the logic, when there isn't any.  Just as you point out, the theory does not say, in any way, that one vote does not count.  It is trying to measure on an individual level multiple choice theory.  It fails to account for the aggregate problem.

If one person decides to not buy gasoline, that makes no difference and affirms the Arrow theory.  However, if 5 million people stop buying gasoline, then the Arrow theory becomes useless because of the aggregate problem. IT is the same faulty logic that Jl uses.

[BigRedDog]

I have never, nor would I ever serve in the military as it is now being run.  I oppose just about everything being done by the US empire.  What does that have to do with this thread?

It has nothing to do with your "right" to pose the question (free speech and all) but the rest of your statement speaks volumes

Thank you for clearing up a few questions I had!

What I don't understand is why you stay here at all