Print

[JL]

I have no idea what any of you are talking about anymore.  But it's clear you're not talking about what I am.  You keep changing the wording of what I'm saying...as always. 

I never said a vote doesn't count. 

I never said that a single vote could NEVER determine an election.

I never said that I thought voting was immoral.

These are all red herrings used to divert attention away from the main point.  So i'll try to bring everyone back one more time.  I'm going to make it as specific as possible.  Let's focus on the first paper i cited which showed the odds of a single vote deciding the outcome of a presidential election. 

Does anyone disagree with the substance of this paper?  Not my "interpretation,"  or whatever.  Just the substance of the paper. 



 

[Baby Hitler]

I have no idea what any of you are talking about anymore.  But it's clear you're not talking about what I am.  You keep changing the wording of what I'm saying...as always. 

I never said a vote doesn't count. 

You said it doesn't make a difference.

I never said that a single vote could NEVER determine an election.

You said it doesn't make a difference.

I never said that I thought voting was immoral.

You equated it to being forced to do something that you don't want to do.

These are all red herrings used to divert attention away from the main point.

These are all points that were made to your statements that are not supportive of your argument.

So i'll try to bring everyone back one more time.

So you will avoid answering the questions and facing the facts one more time.

[LetsGoWings]

You are correct a single vote will, almost certainly, not change the election outcome. However, there is a flaw in your argument, you are projecting this opinion to a population and not an individual, which, statistically speaking, makes a huge difference.

[ducksoup]

I have no idea what any of you are talking about anymore. But it's clear you're not talking about what I am. You keep changing the wording of what I'm saying...as always.

Actually, it seems to me that everyone completely has been on topic.

I never said a vote doesn't count.

 You did say a vote does not count.  That is the predicate of your Arrow theory that you applied incorrectly.

I never said that a single vote could NEVER determine an election.

You did say that in some cases a single vote can determine the election.  That is not what you have been saying though.  Which is that no vote counts because one vote cannot determine an election when there are a great deal of votes.  However, either you or Arrow would then be making the case that a vote is a zero and only one of X number can ever be a one.  When the reality of the math is that X is the number of null votes and one deciding vote with apparently no accounting for any further plus votes.  It is a flawed theory trying to use one individual vote to measure an aggregate problem.

I never said that I thought voting was immoral.

Hmmm, has she ever said the exact quote that voting is immoral?  Maybe not, but might very well have in other topics of this same ranting.  Whether the exact words were said or not, she uses the false logic constantly that the RESULT of a vote is equal to the vote.  She has instead stated that voting is not immoral, while mistaking voting with the result of the election.

These are all red herrings used to divert attention away from the main point. So i'll try to bring everyone back one more time. I'm going to make it as specific as possible. Let's focus on the first paper i cited which showed the odds of a single vote deciding the outcome of a presidential election.

I am glad you state that you know red herrings so will refrain from using them now.  Like that will happen.

Does anyone disagree with the substance of this paper? Not my "interpretation," or whatever. Just the substance of the paper.

Yeppers….  A single vote in a dictator scenario cannot quantify an aggregate vote.  It also presupposes that only one person can vote and be decider.  If multiple votes were somehow considered in Arrow, then the null votes would have to somehow magically become non votes and any overage of the one deciding vote would have to be void as well, leaving just a single voter.  A lot of wild and crazy assumptions just for a sloppy theory. 

That is not taking into account her wild assertions that are not a part of arrow.

[JL]

I'm not talking about the accumulated results of an election.  I'm talking about one specific vote.  Your vote.  you can only vote once and you can't decide anyone else's vote for them.  Your action, in term of you voting or not) has no impact on the rest of the population. 

Run through this experiment in your head:  It's election day.  Some people go and vote and some people don't.  Imagine two scenarios:  You opt to vote or you opt not to vote.  Imagine the election results.  Are they going to come down to a single vote?  statistical theory, vast amounts of historical evidence, and for some of us-- good old common sense tells us that it is extremely unlikely.  So it will turn out that your vote did nothing to change the outcome of the election.  The same person would have been elected whether or not you showed up to vote.  Remember I'm talking about YOUR vote, not all men, or veterans, or people under 6 feet.  Just you as an individual.  Your voting or not, can not change what others do.   

Do you disagree with any of this?   

You are correct a single vote will, almost certainly, not change the election outcome. However, there is a flaw in your argument, you are projecting this opinion to a population and not an individual, which, statistically speaking, makes a huge difference.

[LetsGoWings]

Only the part of you ignoring the cumulative aspect of that, which, statistically speaking, make a difference. You can't claim to accept certain issue with statistics, then blatantly ignore other areas because they undermine your entire argument.

[JL]

get out of the collectivist mindset.  If i convince 5000 people not to vote, then so be it.  Your vote is still one vote and it cannot change the decision of those 5000 people or any of the people that voted.  It's still 1 vote and it still is statistically improbable that it will determine the outcome of the election. 

I admit it can be a difficult concept to accept, but think about it.  It really comes down to how many elections are determined by a single vote.  We know the answer to that.  Remove or add your vote to any election that has a vote gap greater than 1 and you'll notice that it cannot change the result of the election.  This is fact. 

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?

[JL]

Are you trying to say that a single vote often determines the outcome of an election? 

Only the part of you ignoring the cumulative aspect of that, which, statistically speaking, make a difference. You can't claim to accept certain issue with statistics, then blatantly ignore other areas because they undermine your entire argument.

[JL]

here's another example:

2008 Michigan Presidential Election Results:
McCain: 2,044,405
Obama: 2,867,680

Obama wins Michigan with 58.38% of the vote (excluding 3rd parties).

Let's say you voted for Obama in the above election.  If you had not voted the results would have looked like this (understanding that you cannot determine the votes of others or whether or not they vote at all -- it's an individual decision):

McCain: 2,044,405
Obama: 2,867,679

Obama wins Michigan with 58.38% of the vote (excluding 3rd parties).

Anyone disagree? 

[LetsGoWings]

Are you trying to say that a single vote often determines the outcome of an election?

Are you trying to say that the cumulative effects of the single voters do not determine the outcome of an election?

[sammy]

here's another example:

2008 Michigan Presidential Election Results:
McCain: 2,044,405
Obama: 2,867,680

Obama wins Michigan with 58.38% of the vote (excluding 3rd parties).

Let's say you voted for Obama in the above election.  If you had not voted the results would have looked like this (understanding that you cannot determine the votes of others or whether or not they vote at all -- it's an individual decision):

McCain: 2,044,405
Obama: 2,867,679

Obama wins Michigan with 58.38% of the vote (excluding 3rd parties).

Anyone disagree? 

You are absolutely correct . Thanks for putting your thought into a form which us lowly worms can understand. However, this has absolutely nothing to do with your Arrow theorem.

[jbs49238]

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. 

Actually TMT's was spot on.  $5 (1 vote) on its own may not make a difference, but $5 time an time and time again is significant.  Every vote is important and is counted.  Have we seen a POTUS or US Senator race decided by one vote?  NO.  COULD WE?  Why YES, anything is possible. 

Statistically speaking, 6 hundredths of an inch of rain is statistically insignificant for a part of the world that receives around 30 inches annually,  but ask any farmer around here if they would pass on the opportunity to have it this summer!  What seems statistically insignificant to you, may mean a great deal in the overall picture.  Unfortunately since something seems insignificant to you, you fail to grasp the reality of its overall significance.

Again I am not at all surprised that you can't see TMT's logic.  It flies in the face of your (another in a long list of) silly ideas, and since anyone who says anything contrary to your flawed ideas is just wrong anyway you just dismiss them, instead of trying to understand what it is they are telling you.

[jbs49238]

here's another example:

2008 Michigan Presidential Election Results:
McCain: 2,044,405
Obama: 2,867,680

Obama wins Michigan with 58.38% of the vote (excluding 3rd parties).

Let's say you voted for Obama in the above election.  If you had not voted the results would have looked like this (understanding that you cannot determine the votes of others or whether or not they vote at all -- it's an individual decision):

McCain: 2,044,405
Obama: 2,867,679

Obama wins Michigan with 58.38% of the vote (excluding 3rd parties).

Anyone disagree? 

Are you trying to say that a single vote often determines the outcome of an election? 

Are you trying to say we already know the results before we cast our ballots?  That is another HUGE factor your tunnel visions based idea fails to consider.

In order for my single vote to not count is for there to be a predetermined large margin of victory for one canadiate AND I ALREADY HAVE TO KNOW IT EXISTS BEFORE I CAST MY BALLOT!

[ducksoup]

Are you trying to say that a single vote often determines the outcome of an election? 

A single voter always determines the results of an election.  Which one is irrelevant.  A vote that is nullified is still a positive vote that nullifies another and eventually an excess positives result.  If someone chooses not to vote in protest because he knows he is the only deciding vote, then a tie result is resulted by an affirmative vote of don't want.  Any way you look all votes count except those of apathy which cannot be measured, but is different than a protesting not vote which becomes a positive.

You really should know your flawed theory before you troll.

[JL]

None of you understand this.  Your confusing Arrows Impossibility Theorem with the paper published at Columbia, and continue to conflate the concept of a single vote with the cumulative results of the entre election.

If you're all so certain I'm wrong, then why has no one taken me up on my bet?