Print

[ducksoup]

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.   

Arrow is about an individual vote and has no correlation to a collective vote.  What theory are you using to support your mathematical claim, because it is not Arrow.

[ducksoup]

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.

Your logic is faulty, as usual.  Your incorrect thinking supposes that election results can be 2+0=2-1  With zero being no more votes cast and -1 being the lack of vote being a positive vote for being a non-vote.   However, in a real election, whether formal or informal is always 2+0=2+1.  Again the zero is no more votes; however the plus one is that one vote that makes the affirmation of that party gaining the win.  Which vote was the winning one?  All that voted in aggregate for.  Any of those that voted are the one vote that counted to the individual, as arrows hypothesis points out.  Arrow can only deal with the individual and does not mathematically account for the aggregate.  However, being as Arrow deals with the individual it can show that if one side receives one or more votes than to each individual they are the winning vote.


How many more voted is a characteristic of the aggregate, which you and arrow disallow.  Therefore, it doesn’t matter to Arrows theory whether anything more than one vote is cast.  Stating how many vote, or how many one wins by is a red herring and does not have a relationship to Arrow’s hypothesis.

[ducksoup]

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?

Major false logic.  The topic of discussion is voting, not the aftereffects of voting.  Show where arrow’s math shows that the outcome is force used on those that did not participate.  The act of voting has no force attached.  You cannot be jailed or have a gun put to your head to force you to vote.  You cannot be imprisoned for not voting.

Arrow does not put a value to the RESULTS of an election as you do.  What mathematical theory are you using to state that?

[ducksoup]

I see you have a very difficult time staying on topic when you are faced with specific questions. I'll repost and highlight my question to you:

I think you're mistaking biased representation of data with rigorous mathematical statistics. Mathematics is built on logic. There is only one correct answer. 2+2 can only equal 4. Just as in science, this can be empirically tested: take 2 apples, combine them with 2 more apples, then count the apples. You will count 4 apples.

Statistics is a branch of mathematics. It is no less bound by the rules of logic than is addition. It can be a bit more difficult to understand as it adds a layer of abstraction, but it's still fact and not opinion.

If you roll a die, you have a 1 in 6 chance of rolling the number 1. Of course there is great variability. You could roll 5 1's in a row or not roll a 1 for 25 rolls. But as you roll the die more and more times it will approach the theoretical odds of a number 1 rolled an average of once per every 6 rolls. This can be tested. It's fact. Often times hard to grasp, but fact none the less.

So it's no surprise that you're having a hard time grasping this concept. And it's fine if you disagree, but you really ought to provide evidence for why you disagree. Saying "Statistics are contrived mathematics" is not evidence. THAT is opinion. And it's one that any reasonable mathematician would take exception to.

So are you telling me that the paper I cited is incorrect in its claim about the odds of a single vote deciding the outcome of a presidential election?

If you're having trouble believing the numbers, go back and look at every federal and state election ever held, and count the number of them where a single vote determined the outcome. Probably won't find any. Here's a little help (from http://goo.gl/nVWix):

"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 roll a die, you have a 1 in 6 chance of rolling the number 1. Of course there is great variability. You could roll 5 1's in a row or not roll a 1 for 25 rolls. But as you roll the die more and more times it will approach the theoretical odds of a number 1 rolled an average of once per every 6 rolls. This can be tested. It's fact. Often times hard to grasp, but fact none the less. “

Yep. And when you refuse to roll the dice you cannot participate in the game as “0” is not a useable answer.

Again, you choose some actual fact and toss in wild and idiotic claims thinking people are too stupid to realize. 

Did you notice that it was stated as wanting A<B<C?  That is an equation assuming a dictatorship and choosing the lesser hated of the options.  There is nothing in Arrow that I can see to quantify a positive affirmative.  There is no room in Arrow for WANTING to vote for someone or something.  Suppose a few buddies get together to decide where to go.  To fit arrow the choice is three places.  Now, according to the arrow hypothesis of choice, then the guys can choose Fantastic Sams, Bath and Body Boutique, and the women’s quilting club meeting.  They are forced to choose which is the least objectionable.  However, real life would give that same group of guys wanting to go out a different choice; Original Gravity, J’s, or Vince’s.  In this there becomes a complex answer combining no votes for one and affirmative for others.  If the object is to drink alcohol then Vince’s is a negative.  However, some vote with a positive for Original Gravity and WANT to go there.  Then you have person X, he refuses to cast a vote.  He chooses, by the act of not voting to abide by the results of the informal vote, or abstain from going.  Person X can follow the vote and go to OG, or choose to go home and not hang with his buddies.

Now, which cast the winning vote?  All that chose the winning place.  Not one individual was that one vote taking it over the edge.  To each one they were the winning vote.  The losing votes probably don’t mind because the overriding aim is not the place but to hang out together.  However, can the one that did not vote cry in his beer because he didn’t want to go there?  What if, had he cast a vote, his vote tipped the choice to one that he could live with better?  What if the vote was 3-2 and only two chosen and person X could have voted to make it 3-3?  Then there would be a new vote with only two parameters of either-or which Arrow is not equipped to measure.

If you roll the dice, you get a result, if you refuse to pick them up you get a non roll.

[ducksoup]

Why is it that every time I post something, the thread so quickly devolves into a nasty barrage of name calling, while the point of my post is ignored or conflated? I never said anything to rude or unreasonable.

I cited a couple scholarly papers that drew a very clear conclusion about the impact an single vote has on the outcome of an election. It's not rocket science. It has been empirically tested 1000's of times and all the data is easily accessible. There is nothing to contrive or misrepresent. It's very clear that an individual vote very very seldom has an impact on the outcome of an election, and it never has for a federal election. This is pure fact. If you disagree, please tell me where specifically I'm wrong about this fact.

I then asked a question: With these facts being understood, why do people still feel their vote is so important. It's a question. Instead of answering it, so many of you got very defensive and denied the facts without providing any evidence. And when I confronted you with that, you attack me by calling me names. I know It's silly to carry on these conversations here. Anything I post will be refuted without question. And I'm not going to convince anyone of anything. But this is not a difficult thing to grasp.

Childish comments like Baggins' last one is a clear indication that he's lost the argument. He refuses to address the content of my post, and instead resorts to cutting other people down.

I sometimes forget why I don't post here often. I start threads with high hopes that there will at least be some meaningful discussion with people who genuinely care, and want to challenge each other's views. Then I'm reminded that people have a hard time being civil when posting on the internet, when their identity is hidden.

Oh, I don’t know why people get upset with major cases of illogic and what I have to admit is one major impetus to push a false logic.

You cited scholarly papers and distorted the results to fit your claim.  Arrow is a math about one individual vote, or voter.  Not a collective of votes, just one vote in isolation.  You keep conflating it to mean something it is not.  It cannot deal with an aggregate vote to see which of the large number was the deciding vote as Arrow casts the one individual as the sole vote and deciding vote.

Oh, I doubt very much if your goal is to enlighten.  My guess is you use this as troll school.  The false logic is too finely worked and honed to produce a specific result.  The use of insult on intelligence is just a part of the troll. 

“ With these facts being understood, why do people still feel their vote is so important.”

 According to arrow, which can only measure the individual and not the aggregate, any result of an election according to Arrow is going to be 1 or 0.  One vote cast is the decider in all cases because it cannot account for more than one.   A non vote is also a vote in the case of Arrows math.  So, whether you vote, or choose not to, you are participating in Arrows hypothesis vote system.

Obvious that you cannot handle real logical objection and choose a no vote to listen to mine.  Does that make my comments disappear and become not relevant?  Is it holding a gun to my head and telling me that my vote (opinion in this case) has no value and will not be counted?  Isn’t that like you putting a gun to my head at the place of election and keeping me from voting my preference?  All just to reinforce you illogic that all must forcibly conform to your illogic and not vote. 

[ducksoup]

Nope.  That's what I was getting at. 

I loved this one.  No, that isn't what I was saying AND yes, that is what I was saying.

[ducksoup]

I'm assuming that you would not go to your neighbor's home and demand they pay for a service you want but they do not. But you would seek to have someone else do it for you. I don't know if my assumption is correct or not, but if it is please explain to me how that is not corrupt and cowardly.

A vote, by definition, is a choice selection.  If you do not provide choice as with your example, then it is not a vote.  I suspect you again jump to another false logic of the results of a vote, which has nothing at all to do with the math of a vote.

[ducksoup]

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? 

What mathematical theory are you using to support that?  Your false interpretation of Arrow would clearly say that  adding NOTHING to the bank account makes it more valuable.

[ducksoup]

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? 

Sure....  Arrow's theorem firstly is dependent on choosing the least worst dictator.  That isn't quite fitting for democratic style voting, but whatever.  Still the math would be A+0<B=0<C=1.  Plain math and easy to see in relation to Arrow.  Which is A<B<C.  With equal quantity to each and zero fro no additional votes then whatever has a plus one vote is the winning choice.  It is also the vote that wins the election. Which one cast the winning vote?  ALL.  This cannot be determined by Arrow as it deals with one individual voter and since that is the case then for the hypothesis to be true then A=0, B=0, and  C=0 is the only possible mathematical choices, with one vote making the choice. 

One must go to an aggregate theory to result for more than one individual voter, and still the result would be the same, to the individual of the aggregate that was on the winning side, their vote was the winning one.  That does not make the losing side losers, but simply cancelling out votes a in math. Nothing mysterious.

[ducksoup]

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

I know, isn't this the coolest.  I get to prove her wrong time after time and she refuses to acknowledge how wrong she is because hiding is better than trying to fight REAL logic.

Curious, is an attack duck still an attack duck if the person attacked thinks the duck doesn't exist? Ohhhhh, does a tree falling in the woods make a sound?

[ducksoup]

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. 

WHAT?  What part of Arrow said THAT?  Math can value morality... really?  Which math is that?  When did it switch from arrow to morality?

So cool, another double opposing answer.  it isn't morality, but it is morality.

[LetsGoWings]

Here is the part I have a problem with of Arrow's theorem:

There is no "dictator": no single voter possesses the power to always determine the group's preference.

That is absolutely false each side, Republican and Democrat, have people who essentially have the power to determine the majority of the groups vote.

If you really want to argue it I think you would have a better chance of using statistical hypothesis testing instead of Arrow's, but both would be an extremely weak argument, one would just be less weak.

[ducksoup]

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? 

Again, every single vote counted.  Whether that was a positive nullification or a positive. It would not be mathematically possible to use a positive integer as a negative.  It doesn't matter which is the one single vote that changed the outcome because each one did one way or another.

[ducksoup]

I believe i started this thread

ohhh, assertion of authority.  Stand back everyone, he has a loaded gun to your head demanding that all conform to his thinking.

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. 

Hmmm if you don't care, then there is no topic.

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? 

Hmmm demand that you address the topic.  hmmm where does ignoring fit to his rant.  Me thinks the reality is she is a coward.

[LetsGoWings]

Here is the issue JL, you issued a challenge for us not to vote. I counted somewhere between 15-20 different posters in this thread. We can be generous and assume that there are 100 active posters here, so you issued the challenge of not voting and see if your vote makes a difference. That is somewhere between 15 and 20% of us the active posters not voting because of your challenge. Now improperly applying statistical principals, similar to your application of Arrow's theorem, allows us to extrapolate and assume that 15-20% of people take you up on your challenge and do not vote, would that have a significant influence on the outcome of an election?