Print

[Baggins]

There are an infinite number of probabilities to any situation...That's how theoretical probability works...

[JL]

that's fine, you disagree with the paper without providing evidence as to why.  At least you agree that it's highly improbable that a single vote will effect an election.  It's very strange, that in the same post you also claim that there is always a vote that decides the election.  that means that there is 100% chance.  you're directly contradicting yourself.  we know that's not true. 

let me simplify this even further for you:

let's say there was an election in which you voted.  The final results are this:

A: 25 votes
B: 20 votes

you voted for A.  A clearly won the election.  Do you agree that if you had NOT voted, 'A' STILL would have won the election?  In other words, your vote did not change the outcome?    Can you answer this without swerving off into chaos theory?  It's addition and subtraction.

I don't agree with the 1 in 60 million figure. I never said that.  I only said that I agree that it is highly improbable to effect an election.  I also said I do not know any extenuating circumstances for that given day.  For every vote not cast, it makes every vote cast more important because that vote cast is a larger percentage of the actual vote.  I also stated by not voting your vote actually goes to the winner of the election, amd by not voting you are condoning the current governmental process through your apathy.  In addition, I said that there is always one vote that ultimately decides every election.

[ducksoup]

that's fine, you disagree with the paper without providing evidence as to why. 

What paper are you speaking of that he supposedly disagrees with.  You have said many and say some were planted to throw people off and had nothing to do with the topic.  Please be clear.  What paper?

At least you agree that it's highly improbable that a single vote will effect an election. 

I may not recall correctly over so many pages, but I don't recall anyone disputing that.  amended to add: in a large election.  In a small vote count one vote can be huge.

It's very strange, that in the same post you also claim that there is always a vote that decides the election. 

Interesting.  I know that is your rant over a lot of pages, why are you attributing it to him instead of you?

that means that there is 100% chance.

 
Intentional or not I cannot figure out if that dangle is supposed to attach to the sentence before it or after it  Makes a difference.

you're directly contradicting yourself.  we know that's not true.

If he knows something, how can that also be untrue that he knows something? Please make yourself clear.

let me simplify this even further for you:

let's say there was an election in which you voted.  The final results are this:

A: 25 votes
B: 20 votes

you voted for A.  A clearly won the election.  Do you agree that if you had NOT voted, A STILL would have won the election?  In other words, your vote did not change the outcome?    Can you answer this without swerving off into chaos theory?  It's addition and subtraction.

Repeating the same logical fallacies will not make it true.

If you magically went back in time and instead of voting did not then the NEW totals would be A: 24 and B: 20 assuming he voted for the winner.  He went from having a one in something percent chance of having an effect to having a zero percent chance of effecting an event.

Use your math... A: 25 and B: 25.  Then you go back in time and magically unvote one from A.  Now the new total is A: 24 B:25.  The result of this magic is a 100% probability that one vote effected the outcome ( since this was a back in time experiment the usual probabilities become null as all parameters are one vote.) .  In the same election Jim chose to not vote and his probabilities remained at 0% chance of changing the total.

0 cannot EVER equal 1  A non vote and a vote are not equal.  No matter how tiny you want to make the probability, a vote is some positive integer and a non vote probability can never change from zero.

"Do you agree that if you had NOT voted, A STILL would have won the election?"

A result is not equal to no change.  Have 8 people go back in time and no vote A.  It is no different than you saying just one.  Now you have B winning just by magically going back in time.  A vote has a value and a non vote has no value.  they are not equal.  Please learn math.

[Pax]

     This article seems tailor-made for this particular thread, up to a point.  Although dedicated to the Romney or Soetoro? question soon to be misplaced on your ballots it has parallels to Frick or Frack? and Should I Even Bother? questions, too: 40 Facts That Prove Obam-ney Are the Same Vote <- link [customized title my own doing.]

What a depressing choice the American people are being presented with this year.  We are at a point in our history where we desperately need a change of direction in the White House, and we are guaranteed that we are not going to get it.
 
The Democrats are running the worst president in American history, and the Republicans are running a guy who is almost a carbon copy of him.  The fact that about half the country is still supporting Barack Obama shows how incredibly stupid and corrupt the American people have become.
 
No American should have ever cast a single vote for Barack Obama for any political office under any circumstances.  He should never have even been the assistant superintendent in charge of janitorial supplies, much less the president of the United States.  The truth is that Barack Obama has done such a horrible job that he should immediately resign along with his entire cabinet.
 
But instead of giving us a clear choice, the Republicans nominated the Republican that was running that was most similar to Barack Obama.  In fact, I don’t think we have ever had two candidates for president that are so similar.  Yes, there are a few minor differences between them, but the truth is that we are heading into Obama’s second term no matter which one of them gets elected.

Pick your poison, and pray it makes you stronger rather than kills you...

[ducksoup]

     This article seems tailor-made for this particular thread, up to a point.  Although dedicated to the Romney or Soetoro? question soon to be misplaced on your ballots it has parallels to Frick or Frack? and Should I Even Bother? questions, too: 40 Facts That Prove Obam-ney Are the Same Vote <- link [customized title my own doing.]

Pick your poison, and pray it makes you stronger rather than kills you...

While I can agree that they are similar and maybe even make a case that Romney is more liberal than Obama, I wonder why the ones that actually are charged to "do something" - Congress - still do nothing?  Change the dynamics, make it D majorities and I can guarantee lots of stuff would change.  Same with Romney, give him R majorities and crap would change.  The "I will oppose anything the President wants to make him a one term president" (several R leaders) crap is to blame.

But that is all about the results of elections, not the vote tally of elections.

[Forsythia]

that's fine, you disagree with the paper without providing evidence as to why.  At least you agree that it's highly improbable that a single vote will effect an election.  It's very strange, that in the same post you also claim that there is always a vote that decides the election.  that means that there is 100% chance.  you're directly contradicting yourself.  we know that's not true. 

let me simplify this even further for you:

let's say there was an election in which you voted.  The final results are this:

A: 25 votes
B: 20 votes

you voted for A.  A clearly won the election.  Do you agree that if you had NOT voted, 'A' STILL would have won the election?  In other words, your vote did not change the outcome?    Can you answer this without swerving off into chaos theory?  It's addition and subtraction.

If I was the 21st person to vote for the winner, then I did decide the election.

Now can you accept the fact that if I was the one person responsible for the lie being too long for 6 of the opponets votes that my vote was the one that helped to sway the election as well?

[ducksoup]

If I was the 21st person to vote for the winner, then I did decide the election.

Now can you accept the fact that if I was the one person responsible for the lie being too long for 6 of the opponets votes that my vote was the one that helped to sway the election as well?

Excellent point.  In a small election rank would be known and you would know which was the decider and all excess votes just piling on.  Then if you remove the decider the next voter might choose B rather than adding on and then the rest add to B. 

[ducksoup]

Excellent point.  In a small election rank would be known and you would know which was the decider and all excess votes just piling on.  Then if you remove the decider the next voter might choose B rather than adding on and then the rest add to B. 

What that ultimately means is playing mind games proves nothing other than a vote has a value and a non vote has no value.  Trying to play a game in attempt to prove a vote has no value when it does is silly.

[Pax]

...I wonder why the ones that actually are charged to "do something" - Congress - still do nothing?

    That's because Congress-cretins are part and parcel of the Smoke & Mirrors BS.  With your dictatorial POTUS acting under the War Powers Act your Congressmen are merely powerless, parasitic drones gorging themselves on the public teaties whilst gesticulating and smiling for C-Span, leaving the impression they're doing something important and worthwhile and necessary. But they're not.

[Forsythia]

Excellent point.  In a small election rank would be known and you would know which was the decider and all excess votes just piling on.  Then if you remove the decider the next voter might choose B rather than adding on and then the rest add to B.

Exactly.  Let's use baseball for example.  If the Tigers win 8-6, the 7th run scored is called the "game winning" run.  It's the exact same thing during an election, but because the numbers are so much larger it's more difficult to determine the election winning vote.

[JL]

that is beyond absurd.  So you think the order of ballots cast has an impact on the election results?  This shows a complete misunderstanding of the paper you claimed to have read, and of what my point is.  You are simply playing with words.

Try answering the question:

let's say there was an election in which you voted.  The final results are this:

A: 25 votes
B: 20 votes

you voted for A.  A clearly won the election.  Do you agree that if you had NOT voted, 'A' STILL would have won the election?  In other words, your vote did not change the outcome?

If I was the 21st person to vote for the winner, then I did decide the election.

Now can you accept the fact that if I was the one person responsible for the lie being too long for 6 of the opponets votes that my vote was the one that helped to sway the election as well?

[Forsythia]

that is beyond absurd.  So you think the order of ballots cast has an impact on the election results?  This shows a complete misunderstanding of the paper you claimed to have read, and of what my point is.  You are simply playing with words.

How is that absurd?  Regardless of what happens the 21st vote is always the winning vote, and therefore that voter is the one that actually decided the election.  That's a very simple concept to understand.

Try answering the question:

let's say there was an election in which you voted.  The final results are this:

A: 25 votes
B: 20 votes

you voted for A.  A clearly won the election.  Do you agree that if you had NOT voted, 'A' STILL would have won the election?  In other words, your vote did not change the outcome?

There's a lot of extenuating circumstances to that which you are not addressing.  You're trying to do this experiment in a controlled environment and voting is not a controlled environment.  I don't understand why you are getting so upset when I'm pointing out gaping holes in your thought process.

Like I said, all that matters in an election is the winning vote.  Just because the numbers are large and it is nearly impossible to determine who cast the winning vote doesn't mean that vote isn't the winning vote.  Look at my baseball analogy.

Just like your posts in the past you are failing to take into account any real world scenarios, and that is why your thought process is wrong.  We do not live in a predictable and sterile world like you think we do.  There are influences all around us that are outside our control, and you fail to recognize them.

[JL]

that's not what i'm talking about.  you won't answer a simple question because it's revealing your use of word twisting.  When I say "determine the election"  I mean that vote is REQUIRED for the outcome of the election to be as it is.  In other words without a particular vote, the winner of the election would change. 

you first sentence is wrong regardless, because the first 25 votes could have all been for 'B' in which case the 21st vote did not determine anything. That blows your ridiculous "concept" immediately.  And it's all irrelevant anyhow.  Because voting is not rank dependent.  It's additive.  and if the margin is greater than 1, then any voter (first, last or anyone in between) could have not voted, and the outcome of the election would not have changed. 

even if you could determine this "winning vote" you keep referring to, it has absolutely no significance.  and it certainly has nothing to do with the paper you claimed to have read or what the point of this thread is. 

How is that absurd?  Regardless of what happens the 21st vote is always the winning vote, and therefore that voter is the one that actually decided the election.  That's a very simple concept to understand.

There's a lot of extenuating circumstances to that which you are not addressing.  You're trying to do this experiment in a controlled environment and voting is not a controlled environment.  I don't understand why you are getting so upset when I'm pointing out gaping holes in your thought process.

Like I said, all that matters in an election is the winning vote.  Just because the numbers are large and it is nearly impossible to determine who cast the winning vote doesn't mean that vote isn't the winning vote.  Look at my baseball analogy.

Just like your posts in the past you are failing to take into account any real world scenarios, and that is why your thought process is wrong.  We do not live in a predictable and sterile world like you think we do.  There are influences all around us that are outside our control, and you fail to recognize them.

[Forsythia]

that's not what i'm talking about.  you won't answer a simple question because it's revealing your use of word twisting.  When I say "determine the election"  I mean that vote is REQUIRED for the outcome of the election to be as it is.  In other words without a particular vote, the winner of the election would change. 

you first sentence is wrong regardless, because the first 25 votes could have all been for 'B' in which case the 21st vote did not determine anything. That blows your ridiculous "concept" immediately.  And it's all irrelevant anyhow.  Because voting is not rank dependent.  It's additive.  and if the margin is greater than 1, then any voter (first, last or anyone in between) could have not voted, and the outcome of the election would not have changed. 

even if you could determine this "winning vote" you keep referring to, it has absolutely no significance.  and it certainly has nothing to do with the paper you claimed to have read or what the point of this thread is.

You obviously don't understand basic logic then.  If a person needs 21 votes to win, the first 21 votes will always be the determining votes.  The additional 5 don't matter because they are add ons.  It's similar to if the tigers win 8-6.  The game winning run is the 7th run, and all runs leading up to that 7th run are equally important, but any runs after that are not important.  Now you cannot say for certain, in a real world scenario, that votes 22-25 would have been cast for A if votes 1-21 weren't cast for A.  You're leaving out insane amouts of variables JL, and you're not making yourself look good.

[JL]

You obviously don't understand basic logic then.  If a person needs 21 votes to win, the first 21 votes will always be the determining votes.  The additional 5 don't matter because they are add ons.  It's similar to if the tigers win 8-6.  The game winning run is the 7th run, and all runs leading up to that 7th run are equally important, but any runs after that are not important.  Now you cannot say for certain, in a real world scenario, that votes 22-25 would have been cast for A if votes 1-21 weren't cast for A.  You're leaving out insane amouts of variables JL, and you're not making yourself look good.

you're not answering the question.