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.