Print

[JL]

it's not rude to point out violence behavior and call it what it is.  It's rude to call someone a prick when they haven't done anything to you. 

You called me a coward and said my belief system is corrupt. That may not seem rude or unreasonable to you, but it is to me.

Guess that is just my opinion.

Now, please show me where I called you a name.

[JL]

until you can get a grasp on what statistics is, and how it can be applied to this topic I don't think further discussion is worthwhile.  Everyday, there is a chance that an asteroid will hit the earth and we'll all be dead.  But for all intents and purposes that's not going to happen.  In a similar manner, it is possible that an individual vote will decide the outcome of a presidential election, but it is extremely remote and has never happened in the past.  It is so remote, that I think most rational people would be willing to be large sums of money that it won't happen in their lifetime. 

Do you agree with me on this part?

You pointed them out       Who made you the authoritarian?

You also agreed that there are cases where it does make a difference.Can't have it both ways if your argument is based on a solid mathematical Theorum... 

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.
YES - actually your interpretation is incorrect
From the "article" you cited early in this topic...

What Kenneth Arrow was able to prove mathematically is that there is no method for constructing social preferences from arbitrary individual preferences. In other words, there is no rule, majority voting or otherwise, for establishing social preferences from arbitrary individual preferences.


This was a major result and for it and other work Kenneth Arrow received the Nobel prize in economics.
http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/arrow.htm

Where did you read in this to mean a vote doesn't count?   (Reference if in another section of the article)

It's complex but someday when you actually read the experiments and original works it will make more sense.   It's not about - nor ever was to show a vote didn't "COUNT"...  it was about the fairness of social preferences over individual preferences when making a choice of 3 or more items in any type of situation.

Go back to the basics and re-read your own THEOREM - then cite the specific area where votes don't count.
Otherwise your credibility is gone on this topic.

[T-M-T]

I refuse to provide JL the constant back-and-forth that he seems to crave, but I'll make a couple points:

First of all, statistically speaking, one vote doesn't make much difference.  Statistically speaking, putting $5 into your retirement account won't determine whether you have a comfortable retirement, but combined with other contributions, it can make a difference.  JL's poor statistical argument is the same as arguing not to save the $5 because it really won't make a difference.

I see JL is getting back to his usual "taxation is theft" argument again.  If it weren't for society and the government, you would own no "property" other than what you could carry and keep others away from at any given time.  If you want to use the advantages of living in a society, pay your fair share as defined by that society.  I know you would love to be able to steal without consequence, but thankfully, systems are in place (Yes, some even involve guns and cages.) to keep you from stealing.

[Professor H]

until you can get a grasp on what statistics is, and how it can be applied to this topic I don't think further discussion is worthwhile.  Everyday, there is a chance that an asteroid will hit the earth and we'll all be dead.  But for all intents and purposes that's not going to happen.  In a similar manner, it is possible that an individual vote will decide the outcome of a presidential election, but it is extremely remote and has never happened in the past.  It is so remote, that I think most rational people would be willing to be large sums of money that it won't happen in their lifetime. 

Do you agree with me on this part?

Best you can come up with eh?
No reference from the theorem... 

Your claim was a vote doesn't count based on a Theorem

Now you want to discuss probabilities and statistics

Yet your argument is it's too difficult for us peons to understand...
Talking down to others doesn't mean you are the authority on a subject - specifically since you can't even cite from the theory your basic premise...

Cite the passage from the Theorem where votes don't count!
It's not a statistical issue - but the one of social science that Arrow was dealing with.

Nice try with the Dodge and Deflect - Stay on your topic.

[Baby Hitler]

Why will you not admit that you DO care if someone votes or not?

Your own logic dictates that by my voting, I am authorizing someone else to take things from you by force.

Yet, you do not care?

Your logic is faulty.

[JL]

when a person adds money to bank account and continually adds to it, it grows.  It's additive because you keep putting money into it.  This is nothing like an election.  It's not even a close analogy. 

The outcome of a presidential election will not change if you (an individual) vote or not.  This is the point I'm trying to make.  Do you dispute this?  Would anyone care to wager? 

I refuse to provide JL the constant back-and-forth that he seems to crave, but I'll make a couple points:

First of all, statistically speaking, one vote doesn't make much difference.  Statistically speaking, putting $5 into your retirement account won't determine whether you have a comfortable retirement, but combined with other contributions, it can make a difference.  JL's poor statistical argument is the same as arguing not to save the $5 because it really won't make a difference.

I see JL is getting back to his usual "taxation is theft" argument again.  If it weren't for society and the government, you would own no "property" other than what you could carry and keep others away from at any given time.  If you want to use the advantages of living in a society, pay your fair share as defined by that society.  I know you would love to be able to steal without consequence, but thankfully, systems are in place (Yes, some even involve guns and cages.) to keep you from stealing.

[JL]

Why can't you stay on topic?  This thread is not about the morality of the act of voting. 

You cannot authorize anyone to do that.  No one has that authority.  That's why it's wrong. 

Why will you not admit that you DO care if someone votes or not?

Your own logic dictates that by my voting, I am authorizing someone else to take things from you by force.

Yet, you do not care?

Your logic is faulty.

[JL]

I don't think you are following the discussion very well.  I'm not sure you understand the point I was trying to make.  To try to get back on point I'm going to repost something and ask for a yes/no response:

Everyday, there is a chance that an asteroid will hit the earth and we'll all be dead.  But for all intents and purposes that's not going to happen.  In a similar manner, it is possible that an individual vote will decide the outcome of a presidential election, but it is extremely remote and has never happened in the past.  It is so remote, that I think most rational people would be willing to be large sums of money that it won't happen in their lifetime.

This is the crux of my post.  Very simple.  Do you agree with me?  yes or no?   

Best you can come up with eh?
No reference from the theorem... 

Your claim was a vote doesn't count based on a Theorem

Now you want to discuss probabilities and statistics

Yet your argument is it's too difficult for us peons to understand...
Talking down to others doesn't mean you are the authority on a subject - specifically since you can't even cite from the theory your basic premise...

Cite the passage from the Theorem where votes don't count!
It's not a statistical issue - but the one of social science that Arrow was dealing with.

Nice try with the Dodge and Deflect - Stay on your topic.

[JL]

Maybe I should try to profit from the stubbornness in here.  Does anyone care to back their position with money?  Anyone want to place a bet? 

I'll bet $1000 that your vote will not make a difference in the outcome of the upcoming presidential election.  In other words, the winner of the election would not have changed whether or not you voted. 

Who has enough confidence in their claim that their vote is so important, to take me up on this bet?  Anyone?

[Professor H]

You just switched your entire topic - Nice deflection

Can't prove a vote doesn't count -
lets change it to a vote has a very very slight chance of being significant in large elections.

Nice try   
When you want to go back to your original topic -
 that you have a Theory that proves a vote doesn't count,
and actually read it and cite where it states that - let me know...

[JL]

I absolutely did not change my topic.  I'm just placing a bet on it.  Are you not confident enough in your claim to bet me?  Or do you actually agree that your vote is not going to make a difference in the outcome of the election? 

You just switched your entire topic - Nice deflection

Can't prove a vote doesn't count -
lets change it to a vote has a very very slight chance of being significant in large elections.

Nice try   
When you want to go back to your original topic -
 that you have a Theory that proves a vote doesn't count,
and actually read it and cite where it states that - let me know...

[Baby Hitler]

Why can't you stay on topic? 

Why can't you answer a simple question?

Why will you not admit that you DO care if someone votes or not?

The topic is "Your Vote Does Not Make a Difference, So Why Do You Vote?"

Why do you care if I vote or not, if it doesn't make a difference?

Very simple questions, yet you refuse to answer them. Why?

[JL]

I believe i started this thread and i don't have to care whether or not you vote in order to wonder what makes you think your vote is so important when in reality it is not at all. 

Are you going to address the topic?  Do you agree?  Do you think the cited paper is wrong?  Do you care to place a bet? 

Why can't you answer a simple question?
The topic is "Your Vote Does Not Make a Difference, So Why Do You Vote?"

Why do you care if I vote or not, if it doesn't make a difference?

Very simple questions, yet you refuse to answer them. Why?

[Baby Hitler]

I believe i started this thread and i don't have to care whether or not you vote in order to wonder what makes you think your vote is so important when in reality it is not at all. 

Are you going to address the topic?  Do you agree?  Do you think the cited paper is wrong?  Do you care to place a bet?

Why do you care if I vote? If my voting doesn't matter, WHY DO YOU CARE?

Are you going to answer the question, or are you too much of a coward to answer a simple question?

[Professor H]

I believe i started this thread...

Are you going to address the topic?  Do you agree?  Do you think the cited paper is wrong?  Do you care to place a bet? 

It would be like stealing candy from a baby...   The theory isn't wrong - but your application of it is

I don't think you are following the discussion very well.  I'm not sure you understand the point I was trying to make.  To try to get back on point I'm going to repost something and ask for a yes/no response:

Everyday, there is a chance that an asteroid will hit the earth and we'll all be dead.  But for all intents and purposes that's not going to happen.  In a similar manner, it is possible that an individual vote will decide the outcome of a presidential election, but it is extremely remote and has never happened in the past.  It is so remote, that I think most rational people would be willing to be large sums of money that it won't happen in their lifetime.

This is the crux of my post.  Very simple.  Do you agree with me?  yes or no?   

I'll play - Since you apparently can't answer the question i put forth on your citation to your theory and subsequent claim.

Not really sure what this has to do with your original premise?

If you are claiming that votes casts may or may not influence an election - that is what statistics is all about.

Since you claim to be an expert in statistics you should know that Sample sizes  N can be developed to "predict" the outcomes.

So Yes votes count - whether in the sample or the entire core - they count for one vote!

This is separate from what you're title claim was - that votes don't count or make a difference.
Your ARROW theory was not about this topic - but how to make voting socially fair amoung more than 2 choices - regardless of what the choices or votes were about...  but then again you seem to not grasp that concept and want to deflect away  ...   Nice tries - but stay on topic since you started it.

You've been given proof - and offered only opinions and stuff you think you know about stats.
Cite your section(s) in the Theory or move on