| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Tudor Precup" |
| Date: |
05 Oct 2004 07:37:03 AM |
| Object: |
US Presidential Election: You can influence the outcome |
Your opinion really matters if you share it with potential voters.
Whether you are concerned with president Bush's bully stance or with
senator Kerry's apparent indecision, just share it with the rest of
the world.
History has rarely witnessed an event of such great consequences for
the entire world as this political confrontation between liberalism
and conservatism, between brute force and diplomacy.
Whether you're a Muslim or a Christian, a German clergyman or an
American farmer, an Indonesian professor or a Russian miner, you will
feel the outcome of this presidential election one way or another.
Make it a good way by getting involved right now. All it takes is a
visit to the http://www.presidential-election.info, where you can
express your personal opinions in the forum, recommend us relevant
links, or even publish your own articles (logs) in the blog section.
Unlike most other sites dedicated to this topic, Presidential Election
is created entirely by you, the visitor, and therefore has more
potential to reach voters than the overly polished, almost impersonal
materials produced by professional journalists.
Join us right now by fighting against the global turmoil!
Tudor Precup
.
|
|
| User: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: Re: US Presidential Election: You can influence the outcome |
05 Oct 2004 11:38:54 AM |
|
|
Tudor Precup wrote:
Your opinion really matters ...
You can't just take your conclusion for granted as your first premise.
That's the logical fallacy of begging the question, old boy.
See :
Article URL: http://slate.msn.com/id/2107240/
Don't Vote
It makes more sense to play the lottery.
By Steven E. Landsburg
Posted Wednesday, Sept. 29, 2004, at 8:58 AM PT
We might be headed for another close election, which means your vote
could really matter this time, right? Wrong. Your vote didn't matter in
2000, it never mattered before 2000, and it's very unlikely to start
mattering now.
Last time around, everything came down to Florida, where Bush's official
margin was 537 votes. (Yes, yes, I know, if they'd been counted
differently there'd have been a different margin and perhaps a different
outcome. But that's not what this column is about.) If any one of
Florida's 6 million voters had stayed home, Bush's margin would have
been 536 or 538 votes, and he'd still have won. Even if you voted in the
most hotly disputed state in the mostly hotly disputed election in
American history, your vote did not change the outcome.
Your individual vote will never matter unless the election in your
state is within one vote of a dead-even tie. (And even then, it will
matter only if your state tips the balance in the electoral college.)
What are the odds of that? Well, let's suppose you live in Florida and
that Florida's 6 million voters are statistically evenly divided—meaning
that each of them has (as far as you know) exactly a 50/50 chance of
voting for either Bush or Kerry—the statistical equivalent of a coin
toss. Then the probability you'll break a tie is equal to the
probability that exactly 3 million out of 6 million tosses will turn up
heads. That's about 1 in 4,300—roughly the same as the probability
you'll someday be shot to death.
And that's surely a gross overestimate of your influence, because it
assumes there's no bias at all in your neighbors' preferences. Even a
slight change in that assumption leads to a dramatic change in the
conclusion. If Kerry (or Bush) has just a slight edge, so that each of
your fellow voters has a 51 percent likelihood of voting for him, then
your chance of casting the tiebreaker is about one in 1.4 times 10 to
the 1,046th power—approximately the same chance you have of winning the
Powerball jackpot 128 times in a row.
For those of us who live in New York State, the situation is far
worse. Last time around, about 6.5 million votes were cast for major
party candidates in New York state and 63 percent of them went to Al
Gore. Assuming an electorate of similar size with a similar bias, my
chance of casting the deciding vote in New York is about one in 1.4
times 10 to the 200,708th power. I have a better chance of winning the
Powerball jackpot 7,400 times in a row than of affecting the election's
outcome. Which makes it pretty hard to see why I should vote.
The traditional reply begins with the phrase "But if everyone thought
like that ... ." To which the correct rejoinder is: So what? Everyone
doesn't think like that. They continue to vote by the millions and tens
of millions.
Even for the most passionate partisan, it's hard to argue that voting
is a good use of your time. Instead of waiting in line to vote, you
could wait in line to buy a lottery ticket, hoping to win $100 million
and use it to advance your causes—and all with an almost indescribably
greater chance of success than you'd have in the voting booth.
Click here for the formulas that were used in this column.
Steven E. Landsburg is the author, most recently, of Fair Play: What
Your Child Can Teach You About Economics, Values, and the Meaning of
Life. You can e-mail him at armchair@troi.cc.rochester.edu.
Article URL: http://slate.msn.com/id/2107240/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Young" |
|
| Title: Re: US Presidential Election: You can influence the outcome |
05 Oct 2004 07:50:13 PM |
|
|
Dixit <dix@nospam.net> wrote in message news:<y6A8d.73089$He1.68289@attbi_s01>...
Tudor Precup wrote:
Your opinion really matters ...
<snip already-refuted counterargument, Fallacy of Argumentum ad
Nauseum from Septic, again>
Evidently Septic's got squat/zip/nada in defense, so he relies on his
old standby, Argumentum ad Nauseum.
And Septic remains the completely fallacious, mendacious, and
discredited old idiot fool lying loser of alt.atheism, as always.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "bhanwara" |
|
| Title: Re: US Presidential Election: You can influence the outcome |
12 Oct 2004 07:15:53 AM |
|
|
Dixit <dix@nospam.net> wrote in message news:<y6A8d.73089$He1.68289@attbi_s01>...
Tudor Precup wrote:
Your opinion really matters ...
You can't just take your conclusion for granted as your first premise.
That's the logical fallacy of begging the question, old boy.
See :
Article URL: http://slate.msn.com/id/2107240/
Don't Vote
It makes more sense to play the lottery.
By Steven E. Landsburg
Posted Wednesday, Sept. 29, 2004, at 8:58 AM PT
We might be headed for another close election, which means your vote
could really matter this time, right? Wrong. Your vote didn't matter in
2000, it never mattered before 2000, and it's very unlikely to start
mattering now.
Last time around, everything came down to Florida, where Bush's official
margin was 537 votes. (Yes, yes, I know, if they'd been counted
differently there'd have been a different margin and perhaps a different
outcome. But that's not what this column is about.) If any one of
Florida's 6 million voters had stayed home, Bush's margin would have
been 536 or 538 votes, and he'd still have won. Even if you voted in the
most hotly disputed state in the mostly hotly disputed election in
American history, your vote did not change the outcome.
Your individual vote will never matter unless the election in your
state is within one vote of a dead-even tie. (And even then, it will
matter only if your state tips the balance in the electoral college.)
What are the odds of that? Well, let's suppose you live in Florida and
that Florida's 6 million voters are statistically evenly divided?meaning
that each of them has (as far as you know) exactly a 50/50 chance of
voting for either Bush or Kerry?the statistical equivalent of a coin
toss. Then the probability you'll break a tie is equal to the
probability that exactly 3 million out of 6 million tosses will turn up
heads. That's about 1 in 4,300?roughly the same as the probability
you'll someday be shot to death.
And that's surely a gross overestimate of your influence, because it
assumes there's no bias at all in your neighbors' preferences. Even a
slight change in that assumption leads to a dramatic change in the
conclusion. If Kerry (or Bush) has just a slight edge, so that each of
your fellow voters has a 51 percent likelihood of voting for him, then
your chance of casting the tiebreaker is about one in 1.4 times 10 to
the 1,046th power?approximately the same chance you have of winning the
Powerball jackpot 128 times in a row.
For those of us who live in New York State, the situation is far
worse. Last time around, about 6.5 million votes were cast for major
party candidates in New York state and 63 percent of them went to Al
Gore. Assuming an electorate of similar size with a similar bias, my
chance of casting the deciding vote in New York is about one in 1.4
times 10 to the 200,708th power. I have a better chance of winning the
Powerball jackpot 7,400 times in a row than of affecting the election's
outcome. Which makes it pretty hard to see why I should vote.
The traditional reply begins with the phrase "But if everyone thought
like that ... ." To which the correct rejoinder is: So what? Everyone
doesn't think like that. They continue to vote by the millions and tens
of millions.
Even for the most passionate partisan, it's hard to argue that voting
is a good use of your time. Instead of waiting in line to vote, you
could wait in line to buy a lottery ticket, hoping to win $100 million
and use it to advance your causes?and all with an almost indescribably
greater chance of success than you'd have in the voting booth.
Click here for the formulas that were used in this column.
Steven E. Landsburg is the author, most recently, of Fair Play: What
Your Child Can Teach You About Economics, Values, and the Meaning of
Life. You can e-mail him at armchair@troi.cc.rochester.edu.
Article URL: http://slate.msn.com/id/2107240/
This argument does not take into account the impact
of believing in this argument.
Assume this argument makes sense to X percentage of population,
and they believe in this argument.
Without lack of further proof, it cannot be assumed that
this X is equally divided among all outcomes. Therefore
believing in this argument by those to whom this argument
makes sense, could COMPLETELY change the results of an election.
This is contrary to the argument.
Therefore (in the absence of said equality data)
the argument is false.
.
|
|
|
| User: "X" |
|
| Title: Re: US Presidential Election: You can influence the outcome |
18 Oct 2004 05:41:12 PM |
|
|
bhanwara wrote:
believing in this argument by those to whom this argument
makes sense, could COMPLETELY change the results of an election.
Your objection was already answered by this part of the article:
The traditional reply begins with the phrase "But if everyone thought
like that ... ." To which the correct rejoinder is: So what? Everyone
doesn't think like that. They continue to vote by the millions and
tens of millions.
Even for the most passionate partisan, it's hard to argue that voting
is a good use of your time. Instead of waiting in line to vote, you
could wait in line to buy a lottery ticket, hoping to win $100 million
and use it to advance your causes—and all with an almost indescribably
greater chance of success than you'd have in the voting booth.
Click here for the formulas that were used in this column.
Steven E. Landsburg is the author, most recently, of Fair Play: What
Your Child Can Teach You About Economics, Values, and the Meaning of
Life. You can e-mail him at armchair@troi.cc.rochester.edu.
Article URL: http://slate.msn.com/id/2107240/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jackeroo" |
|
| Title: Re: US Presidential Election: You can influence the outcome |
18 Oct 2004 06:50:34 PM |
|
|
"X" <X@nospam.net> wrote in message news:cEXcd.387934$mD.265907@attbi_s02...
bhanwara wrote:
believing in this argument by those to whom this argument
makes sense, could COMPLETELY change the results of an election.
Your objection was already answered by this part of the article:
The traditional reply begins with the phrase "But if everyone thought
like that ... ." To which the correct rejoinder is: So what? Everyone
doesn't think like that. They continue to vote by the millions and
tens of millions.
Even for the most passionate partisan, it's hard to argue that voting
is a good use of your time. Instead of waiting in line to vote, you
could wait in line to buy a lottery ticket, hoping to win $100 million
and use it to advance your causes—and all with an almost indescribably
greater chance of success than you'd have in the voting booth.
Click here for the formulas that were used in this column.
Steven E. Landsburg is the author, most recently, of Fair Play: What
Your Child Can Teach You About Economics, Values, and the Meaning of
Life. You can e-mail him at armchair@troi.cc.rochester.edu.
Article URL: http://slate.msn.com/id/2107240/
WELL THIS GUY IS NO *****, pro bush anti Kerry Jews come in all guises?
If you yanks ever needed to get out and vote it is at this election.
If you want to slag off it will come down to Florida?
Where we have Jews voting for Nazi party canditates by mistake?
Yeah it's not a secret national plot, these poor Jews voted for Nazi party
canditates by mistake????
That could happen? I mean republicans are turning up in synagogues in
crowds? ??????
.
|
|
|
| User: "Foolcow" |
|
| Title: Re: US Presidential Election: You can influence the outcome |
18 Oct 2004 10:06:11 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 23:50:34 +0000, Jackeroo wrote:
"X" <X@nospam.net> wrote in message news:cEXcd.387934$mD.265907@attbi_s02...
bhanwara wrote:
believing in this argument by those to whom this argument
makes sense, could COMPLETELY change the results of an election.
Your objection was already answered by this part of the article:
The traditional reply begins with the phrase "But if everyone thought
like that ... ." To which the correct rejoinder is: So what? Everyone
doesn't think like that. They continue to vote by the millions and
tens of millions.
Even for the most passionate partisan, it's hard to argue that voting
is a good use of your time. Instead of waiting in line to vote, you
could wait in line to buy a lottery ticket, hoping to win $100 million
and use it to advance your causes—and all with an almost indescribably
greater chance of success than you'd have in the voting booth.
Click here for the formulas that were used in this column.
Steven E. Landsburg is the author, most recently, of Fair Play: What
Your Child Can Teach You About Economics, Values, and the Meaning of
Life. You can e-mail him at armchair@troi.cc.rochester.edu.
Article URL: http://slate.msn.com/id/2107240/
WELL THIS GUY IS NO *****, pro bush anti Kerry Jews come in all guises?
If you yanks ever needed to get out and vote it is at this election.
If you want to slag off it will come down to Florida?
Where we have Jews voting for Nazi party canditates by mistake?
Yeah it's not a secret national plot, these poor Jews voted for Nazi party
canditates by mistake????
That could happen? I mean republicans are turning up in synagogues in
crowds? ??????
Try posting to alt.drugs.lsd. Somebody there might be able to help you.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: US Presidential Election: You can influence the outcome |
18 Oct 2004 08:32:58 PM |
|
|
In article <cEXcd.387934$mD.265907@attbi_s02>, X <X@nospam.net> wrote:
bhanwara wrote:
believing in this argument by those to whom this argument
makes sense, could COMPLETELY change the results of an election.
Your objection was already answered by this part of the article:
The traditional reply begins with the phrase "But if everyone thought
like that ... ." To which the correct rejoinder is: So what? Everyone
doesn't think like that. They continue to vote by the millions and
tens of millions.
Since Septic (of the Magically Invisible Space Pixies) beieves his vote
can't count, he shouldn't.
.
|
|
|
| User: "X" |
|
| Title: Re: US Presidential Election: You can influence the outcome |
20 Oct 2004 03:39:14 AM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <cEXcd.387934$mD.265907@attbi_s02>, X <X@nospam.net> wrote:
bhanwara wrote:
believing in this argument by those to whom this argument
makes sense, could COMPLETELY change the results of an election.
Your objection was already answered by this part of the article:
The traditional reply begins with the phrase "But if everyone thought
like that ... ." To which the correct rejoinder is: So what? Everyone
doesn't think like that. They continue to vote by the millions and
tens of millions.
Since Septic (of the Magically Invisible Space Pixies) beieves his vote
can't count ...
It's not a "belief," knucklehead, Landsburg shows the method for
computing the probability of infuluencing the outcome of a national
election, and it turns out that the odds of winning the lottery are
better. (You didn't even look at the formulas, did you, knucklehead,
where it says "Click here for the formulas that were used in this column"?)
Landsburg:
If th ere ar e 2N voters, eac h with a 50/50 chance of votin g for
either Bush or Kerr y, then your chance of castin g th e tie break er is
well ap pr oximate d by the form ula 1√ N π where π ≈ 3.14 is the ratio
of a circle’s circumference to its di am ete r. For example, if th ere
are 6, 000,000 vote rs, we get 1√ 3000000 π ≈ 1√ 9424778 ≈ 1 3070 whic h
I rou nd ed to 1/3100 in the colu mn. If in ste ad eac h voter has pr
obab ilit y p of votin g for Bush (or for Kerry ) th en th e for mula b
ecome s (4 p(1 − p)) N √ N π Thi s for mula was use d in th e column
with p = .51 (for Flori da) and p = .63 (for New York). Ho wev er, when
I app lied the form ula, I made th e mistak e of using N in stead of 2N
for the num b er of voters. Th us the chance of sw aying the ele ction
in Fl orid a is com par abl e not to win nin g at Powerb all 128 times
in a row as I said in th e column; in stead it’s compar able to the
relativ ely easy tas k of winn in g at Powerball a me re 64 time s in a
ro w.
everyday economics
Don't Vote
It makes more sense to play the lottery.
By Steven E. Landsburg
Posted Wednesday, Sept. 29, 2004, at 8:58 AM PT
We might be headed for another close election, which means your vote
could really matter this time, right? Wrong. Your vote didn't matter in
2000, it never mattered before 2000, and it's very unlikely to start
mattering now.
Last time around, everything came down to Florida, where Bush's official
margin was 537 votes. (Yes, yes, I know, if they'd been counted
differently there'd have been a different margin and perhaps a different
outcome. But that's not what this column is about.) If any one of
Florida's 6 million voters had stayed home, Bush's margin would have
been 536 or 538 votes, and he'd still have won. Even if you voted in the
most hotly disputed state in the mostly hotly disputed election in
American history, your vote did not change the outcome.
Your individual vote will never matter unless the election in your
state is within one vote of a dead-even tie. (And even then, it will
matter only if your state tips the balance in the electoral college.)
What are the odds of that? Well, let's suppose you live in Florida and
that Florida's 6 million voters are statistically evenly divided—meaning
that each of them has (as far as you know) exactly a 50/50 chance of
voting for either Bush or Kerry—the statistical equivalent of a coin
toss. Then the probability you'll break a tie is equal to the
probability that exactly 3 million out of 6 million tosses will turn up
heads. That's about 1 in 3,100—roughly the same as the probability
you'll be murdered by your mother.
And that's surely a gross overestimate of your influence, because it
assumes there's no bias at all in your neighbors' preferences. Even a
slight change in that assumption leads to a dramatic change in the
conclusion. If Kerry (or Bush) has just a slight edge, so that each of
your fellow voters has a 51 percent likelihood of voting for him, then
your chance of casting the tiebreaker is about one in 10 to the 1,046th
power—approximately the same chance you have of winning the Powerball
jackpot 128 times in a row.
For those of us who live in New York State, the situation is far
worse. Last time around, about 6.5 million votes were cast for major
party candidates in New York state and 63 percent of them went to Al
Gore. Assuming an electorate of similar size with a similar bias, my
chance of casting the deciding vote in New York is about one in 10 to
the 200,708th power. I have a better chance of winning the Powerball
jackpot 7,400 times in a row than of affecting the election's outcome.
Which makes it pretty hard to see why I should vote.
The traditional reply begins with the phrase "But if everyone thought
like that ... ." To which the correct rejoinder is: So what? Everyone
doesn't think like that. They continue to vote by the millions and tens
of millions.
Even for the most passionate partisan, it's hard to argue that voting
is a good use of your time. Instead of waiting in line to vote, you
could wait in line to buy a lottery ticket, hoping to win $100 million
and use it to advance your causes—and all with an almost indescribably
greater chance of success than you'd have in the voting booth.
Click here for the formulas that were used in this column.
Steven E. Landsburg is the author, most recently, of Fair Play: What
Your Child Can Teach You About Economics, Values, and the Meaning of
Life. You can e-mail him at armchair@troi.cc.rochester.edu.
Article URL: http://slate.msn.com/id/2107240/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brian Quincy Hutchings" |
|
| Title: Re: US Presidential Election: You can influence the outcome |
21 Oct 2004 03:01:42 PM |
|
|
quantum mechanics can be completely subsumed by Fuzzy Logic.
which only goes to illustrate the mentality
of the Copenhagenschoolers, who reified the mathematics
of lottery tickets, craps & bingo into "the most accurate theory
til to-day." you know, like people who believe
in the "magic of the marketplace." (that's what they pay folks
to make window dysplays for .-)
and, still, the "dedicated gambler" will not bother
to keep an account of the mass of times he has lost,
compared to those tingly moments in the zone o'jackpots.
of course, the whole idea of a "deciding vote"
or even a tie-breaker is just sohpisticated nonsense;
do you move to Hawai'i and try to be the last in line
at the polling place, for this great honor?
as for the chances of winning the lottery,
as opposed to some lesser gimmick with mini-payoffs,
those odds are Hellishly greater than your quantumj
of voting-power ... if it's fair.
alas, since
all of the parties are covering-up Gore's deal
with the Supremes of March 27, 2000, that definitively
caused him to lose Arkansas at the minimum -- as opposed
to the projected loss of "Clinton didn't gladhand
in his own state" knuckle-head voters -- and
its contemporeaneous 527 Cmte. financial control,
nevermind.
X <X@nospam.net> wrote in message news:<Oupdd.274069$MQ5.17739@attbi_s52>...
If th ere ar e 2N voters, eac h with a 50/50 chance of votin g for
either Bush or Kerr y, then your chance of castin g th e tie break er is
well ap pr oximate d by the form ula 1√ N π where π ≈ 3.14 is the ratio
of a circle’s circumference to its di am ete r. For example, if th ere
are 6, 000,000 vote rs, we get 1√ 3000000 π ≈ 1√ 9424778 ≈ 1 3070 whic h
I rou nd ed to 1/3100 in the colu mn. If in ste ad eac h voter has pr
obab ilit y p of votin g for Bush (or for Kerry ) th en th e for mula b
ecome s (4 p(1 − p)) N √ N π Thi s for mula was use d in th e column
with p = .51 (for Flori da) and p = .63 (for New York). Ho wev er, when
I app lied the form ula, I made th e mistak e of using N in stead of 2N
for the num b er of voters. Th us the chance of sw aying the ele ction
in Fl orid a is com par abl e not to win nin g at Powerb all 128 times
in a row as I said in th e column; in stead it’s compar able to the
relativ ely easy tas k of winn in g at Powerball a me re 64 time s in a
ro w.
--A HYDROGEN (sic; cracked methane) ECONOMY?...
The Three Phases of Exploitation of the Protocols
of the Elders of Kyoto:
(FOSSILISATION [McCainanites?] (TM/sic))/
BORE/GUSH/NADIR "@" http://www.tarpley.net.
Http://www.tarpley.net/bushb.htm (partial contents, below):
17 -- THE ATTEMPTED COUP D'ETAT, 3/30/81 (87K)
18 -- IRAN-CONTRA (140K)
19 -- THE LEVERAGED BUYOUT MOB (67K)
20 -- THE PHONY WAR ON DRUGS (26K)
21 -- OMAHA (25K)
22 -- GEORGE "#9" TAKES THE PRESIDENCY (112K)
23 -- THE END OF HISTORY (168K)
24 -- THE NEW WORLD ORDER (255K)
25 -- THYROID STORM (139K)
http://quincy4board.homestead.com/files/curriculum/Cosmo.PCX
.
|
|
|
| User: "Edgar" |
|
| Title: Re: US Presidential Election: You can influence the outcome |
21 Oct 2004 03:30:16 PM |
|
|
What?
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 13:01:42 -0700, Brian Quincy Hutchings wrote:
quantum mechanics can be completely subsumed by Fuzzy Logic.
which only goes to illustrate the mentality
of the Copenhagenschoolers, who reified the mathematics
of lottery tickets, craps & bingo into "the most accurate theory
til to-day." you know, like people who believe
in the "magic of the marketplace." (that's what they pay folks
to make window dysplays for .-)
and, still, the "dedicated gambler" will not bother
to keep an account of the mass of times he has lost,
compared to those tingly moments in the zone o'jackpots.
of course, the whole idea of a "deciding vote"
or even a tie-breaker is just sohpisticated nonsense;
do you move to Hawai'i and try to be the last in line
at the polling place, for this great honor?
as for the chances of winning the lottery,
as opposed to some lesser gimmick with mini-payoffs,
those odds are Hellishly greater than your quantumj
of voting-power ... if it's fair.
alas, since
all of the parties are covering-up Gore's deal
with the Supremes of March 27, 2000, that definitively
caused him to lose Arkansas at the minimum -- as opposed
to the projected loss of "Clinton didn't gladhand
in his own state" knuckle-head voters -- and
its contemporeaneous 527 Cmte. financial control,
nevermind.
--A HYDROGEN (sic; cracked methane) ECONOMY?...
The Three Phases of Exploitation of the Protocols
of the Elders of Kyoto:
(FOSSILISATION [McCainanites?] (TM/sic))/
BORE/GUSH/NADIR "@" http://www.tarpley.net.
Http://www.tarpley.net/bushb.htm (partial contents, below):
17 -- THE ATTEMPTED COUP D'ETAT, 3/30/81 (87K)
18 -- IRAN-CONTRA (140K)
19 -- THE LEVERAGED BUYOUT MOB (67K)
20 -- THE PHONY WAR ON DRUGS (26K)
21 -- OMAHA (25K)
22 -- GEORGE "#9" TAKES THE PRESIDENCY (112K)
23 -- THE END OF HISTORY (168K)
24 -- THE NEW WORLD ORDER (255K)
25 -- THYROID STORM (139K)
http://quincy4board.homestead.com/files/curriculum/Cosmo.PCX
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brian Quincy Hutchings" |
|
| Title: Re: US Presidential Election: You can influence the outcome |
22 Oct 2004 02:04:34 PM |
|
|
"Duh?" is not a directed question, monsieur Ed.
contrarily, Fuzzee logique can be subsumed by QM, although
I haven't actually read the relevant paper; just try
to ignore the residual stink of Schroedinger's long-dead cat!
FYU, the deal that Team Gore (the DNC) made with the Supremes,
was in LaRouche versus Fowler, Don F. being the Chair in '96,
when we took'em t court for gross violations of the Voting Rights Act.
Edgar <els@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<pan.2004.10.21.20.30.40.163533@yahoo.com>...
What?
as for the chances of winning the lottery,
as opposed to some lesser gimmick with mini-payoffs,
those odds are Hellishly greater than your quantumj
of voting-power ... if it's fair.
alas, since
all of the parties are covering-up Gore's deal
with the Supremes of March 27, 2000, that definitively
caused him to lose Arkansas at the minimum -- as opposed
to the projected loss of "Clinton didn't gladhand
in his own state" knuckle-head voters -- and
its contemporeaneous 527 Cmte. financial control,
nevermind.
--A HYDROGEN (sic; cracked methane) ECONOMY?...
The Three Phases of Exploitation of the Protocols
of the Elders of Kyoto (sik):
BORE/GUSH/NADIR "@" http://www.tarpley.net.
Http://www.tarpley.net/bushb.htm (partial contents, below):
17 -- THE ATTEMPTED COUP D'ETAT, 3/30/81 (87K)
18 -- IRAN-CONTRA (140K)
19 -- THE LEVERAGED BUYOUT MOB (67K)
20 -- THE PHONY WAR ON DRUGS (26K)
21 -- OMAHA (25K)
22 -- GEORGE "#9" TAKES THE PRESIDENCY (112K)
23 -- THE END OF HISTORY (168K)
24 -- THE NEW WORLD ORDER (255K)
25 -- THYROID STORM (139K)
http://quincy4board.homestead.com/files/curriculum/Cosmo
.
|
|
|
| User: "Edgar" |
|
| Title: Re: US Presidential Election: You can influence the outcome |
22 Oct 2004 02:28:34 PM |
|
|
"Duh?" Is not a quote from me, Herr Brian.
As I thought would be obvious, I just wanted to you clearly explain
yourself. Your original post doesn't appear to be written in English, but
I strongly suspect there is information hidden in there somewhere.
On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 12:04:34 -0700, Brian Quincy Hutchings wrote:
"Duh?" is not a directed question, monsieur Ed.
contrarily, Fuzzee logique can be subsumed by QM, although
I haven't actually read the relevant paper; just try
to ignore the residual stink of Schroedinger's long-dead cat!
FYU, the deal that Team Gore (the DNC) made with the Supremes,
was in LaRouche versus Fowler, Don F. being the Chair in '96,
when we took'em t court for gross violations of the Voting Rights Act.
Edgar <els@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<pan.2004.10.21.20.30.40.163533@yahoo.com>...
What?
as for the chances of winning the lottery,
as opposed to some lesser gimmick with mini-payoffs,
those odds are Hellishly greater than your quantumj
of voting-power ... if it's fair.
alas, since
all of the parties are covering-up Gore's deal
with the Supremes of March 27, 2000, that definitively
caused him to lose Arkansas at the minimum -- as opposed
to the projected loss of "Clinton didn't gladhand
in his own state" knuckle-head voters -- and
its contemporeaneous 527 Cmte. financial control,
nevermind.
--A HYDROGEN (sic; cracked methane) ECONOMY?...
The Three Phases of Exploitation of the Protocols
of the Elders of Kyoto (sik):
BORE/GUSH/NADIR "@" http://www.tarpley.net.
Http://www.tarpley.net/bushb.htm (partial contents, below):
17 -- THE ATTEMPTED COUP D'ETAT, 3/30/81 (87K)
18 -- IRAN-CONTRA (140K)
19 -- THE LEVERAGED BUYOUT MOB (67K)
20 -- THE PHONY WAR ON DRUGS (26K)
21 -- OMAHA (25K)
22 -- GEORGE "#9" TAKES THE PRESIDENCY (112K)
23 -- THE END OF HISTORY (168K)
24 -- THE NEW WORLD ORDER (255K)
25 -- THYROID STORM (139K)
http://quincy4board.homestead.com/files/curriculum/Cosmo
.
|
|
|
| User: "Edgar" |
|
| Title: Re: US Presidential Election: You can influence the outcome |
22 Oct 2004 02:29:42 PM |
|
|
In other words, "What is your point, man?"
On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 19:28:34 +0000, Edgar wrote:
"Duh?" Is not a quote from me, Herr Brian.
As I thought would be obvious, I just wanted to you clearly explain
yourself. Your original post doesn't appear to be written in English, but
I strongly suspect there is information hidden in there somewhere.
On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 12:04:34 -0700, Brian Quincy Hutchings wrote:
"Duh?" is not a directed question, monsieur Ed.
contrarily, Fuzzee logique can be subsumed by QM, although
I haven't actually read the relevant paper; just try
to ignore the residual stink of Schroedinger's long-dead cat!
FYU, the deal that Team Gore (the DNC) made with the Supremes,
was in LaRouche versus Fowler, Don F. being the Chair in '96,
when we took'em t court for gross violations of the Voting Rights Act.
Edgar <els@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<pan.2004.10.21.20.30.40.163533@yahoo.com>...
What?
as for the chances of winning the lottery,
as opposed to some lesser gimmick with mini-payoffs,
those odds are Hellishly greater than your quantumj
of voting-power ... if it's fair.
alas, since
all of the parties are covering-up Gore's deal
with the Supremes of March 27, 2000, that definitively
caused him to lose Arkansas at the minimum -- as opposed
to the projected loss of "Clinton didn't gladhand
in his own state" knuckle-head voters -- and
its contemporeaneous 527 Cmte. financial control,
nevermind.
--A HYDROGEN (sic; cracked methane) ECONOMY?...
The Three Phases of Exploitation of the Protocols
of the Elders of Kyoto (sik):
BORE/GUSH/NADIR "@" http://www.tarpley.net.
Http://www.tarpley.net/bushb.htm (partial contents, below):
17 -- THE ATTEMPTED COUP D'ETAT, 3/30/81 (87K)
18 -- IRAN-CONTRA (140K)
19 -- THE LEVERAGED BUYOUT MOB (67K)
20 -- THE PHONY WAR ON DRUGS (26K)
21 -- OMAHA (25K)
22 -- GEORGE "#9" TAKES THE PRESIDENCY (112K)
23 -- THE END OF HISTORY (168K)
24 -- THE NEW WORLD ORDER (255K)
25 -- THYROID STORM (139K)
http://quincy4board.homestead.com/files/curriculum/Cosmo
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Edgar" |
|
| Title: Poll: Is this a sentence? |
22 Oct 2004 02:39:06 PM |
|
|
Can I get some opinions on this?
alas, since
all of the parties are covering-up Gore's deal
with the Supremes of March 27, 2000, that definitively
caused him to lose Arkansas at the minimum -- as opposed
to the projected loss of "Clinton didn't gladhand
in his own state" knuckle-head voters -- and
its contemporeaneous 527 Cmte. financial control,
nevermind.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John R Ramsden" |
|
| Title: Re: Poll: Is this a sentence? |
23 Oct 2004 06:49:27 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 19:39:06 GMT, Edgar <els@yahoo.com> wrote:
Can I get some opinions on this?
alas, since
all of the parties are covering-up Gore's deal
with the Supremes of March 27, 2000, that definitively
caused him to lose Arkansas at the minimum -- as opposed
to the projected loss of "Clinton didn't gladhand
in his own state" knuckle-head voters -- and
its contemporeaneous 527 Cmte. financial control,
nevermind.
After scooping out all those subordinate clauses from the middle,
it reads "alas, nevermind", which I'd say is a sentence of sorts
(if a space is added after never). But what's intended to be
conveyed is obviously all in the clauses and rest is simply a
rhetorical flourish.
Cheers
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
John R Ramsden (jr@adslate.com)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Eternity is a long time, especially towards the end."
Woody Allen
.
|
|
|
| User: "Acid Pooh" |
|
| Title: Re: Poll: Is this a sentence? |
23 Oct 2004 04:40:41 PM |
|
|
John R Ramsden <jr@adslate.com> wrote in message news:<lpgkn09vl482am0rvp39a8b42fhjd65od7@4ax.com>...
On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 19:39:06 GMT, Edgar <els@yahoo.com> wrote:
Can I get some opinions on this?
alas, since
all of the parties are covering-up Gore's deal
with the Supremes of March 27, 2000, that definitively
caused him to lose Arkansas at the minimum -- as opposed
to the projected loss of "Clinton didn't gladhand
in his own state" knuckle-head voters -- and
its contemporeaneous 527 Cmte. financial control,
nevermind.
After scooping out all those subordinate clauses from the middle,
it reads "alas, nevermind", which I'd say is a sentence of sorts
(if a space is added after never). But what's intended to be
conveyed is obviously all in the clauses and rest is simply a
rhetorical flourish.
Yeah -- it's as dense as the rationals in IR. I would have guessed
ZZBunker wrote this, but I googled it.
'cid 'ooh
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Edgar" |
|
| Title: Re: US Presidential Election: You can influence the outcome |
22 Oct 2004 02:33:46 PM |
|
|
You must have been absent from skool, when they were teaching your
classmates how to write a coherent paragraph.
On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 12:04:34 -0700, Brian Quincy Hutchings wrote:
"Duh?" is not a directed question, monsieur Ed.
contrarily, Fuzzee logique can be subsumed by QM, although
I haven't actually read the relevant paper; just try
to ignore the residual stink of Schroedinger's long-dead cat!
FYU, the deal that Team Gore (the DNC) made with the Supremes,
was in LaRouche versus Fowler, Don F. being the Chair in '96,
when we took'em t court for gross violations of the Voting Rights Act.
Edgar <els@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<pan.2004.10.21.20.30.40.163533@yahoo.com>...
What?
as for the chances of winning the lottery,
as opposed to some lesser gimmick with mini-payoffs,
those odds are Hellishly greater than your quantumj
of voting-power ... if it's fair.
alas, since
all of the parties are covering-up Gore's deal
with the Supremes of March 27, 2000, that definitively
caused him to lose Arkansas at the minimum -- as opposed
to the projected loss of "Clinton didn't gladhand
in his own state" knuckle-head voters -- and
its contemporeaneous 527 Cmte. financial control,
nevermind.
--A HYDROGEN (sic; cracked methane) ECONOMY?...
The Three Phases of Exploitation of the Protocols
of the Elders of Kyoto (sik):
BORE/GUSH/NADIR "@" http://www.tarpley.net.
Http://www.tarpley.net/bushb.htm (partial contents, below):
17 -- THE ATTEMPTED COUP D'ETAT, 3/30/81 (87K)
18 -- IRAN-CONTRA (140K)
19 -- THE LEVERAGED BUYOUT MOB (67K)
20 -- THE PHONY WAR ON DRUGS (26K)
21 -- OMAHA (25K)
22 -- GEORGE "#9" TAKES THE PRESIDENCY (112K)
23 -- THE END OF HISTORY (168K)
24 -- THE NEW WORLD ORDER (255K)
25 -- THYROID STORM (139K)
http://quincy4board.homestead.com/files/curriculum/Cosmo
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "bhanwara" |
|
| Title: Re: US Presidential Election: You can influence the outcome |
21 Oct 2004 04:13:59 AM |
|
|
X <X@nospam.net> wrote in message news:<cEXcd.387934$mD.265907@attbi_s02>...
bhanwara wrote:
believing in this argument by those to whom this argument
makes sense, could COMPLETELY change the results of an election.
Your objection was already answered by this part of the article:
The traditional reply begins with the phrase "But if everyone thought
like that ... ." To which the correct rejoinder is: So what? Everyone
doesn't think like that. They continue to vote by the millions and
Actually, that's exactly what my objection addresses.
To quote from the article: "Everyone doesn't think like that." That's
very reasonable. So let's assume X% of population thinks like that.
Which leads to my argument, for significant values of X.
Of course, it's a bit paradoxical. If X is negligible to
begin with, then this doesn't work.
To put it simply -- Landsburg's argument is valid if and
only if nobody agrees with it.
Which makes Landsburg's argument simply the prisoner's
dilemma, re-worded. (Assuming voting is beneficial to
all, and not voting saves time and energy.)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter van Velzen" |
|
| Title: Re: US Presidential Election: You can influence the outcome |
21 Oct 2004 09:59:10 AM |
|
|
(bhanwara) wrote in message news:<50fd4c57.0410210113.ee601b@posting.google.com>...
X <X@nospam.net> wrote in message news:<cEXcd.387934$mD.265907@attbi_s02>...
bhanwara wrote:
believing in this argument by those to whom this argument
makes sense, could COMPLETELY change the results of an election.
Your objection was already answered by this part of the article:
The traditional reply begins with the phrase "But if everyone thought
like that ... ." To which the correct rejoinder is: So what? Everyone
doesn't think like that. They continue to vote by the millions and
Actually, that's exactly what my objection addresses.
To quote from the article: "Everyone doesn't think like that." That's
very reasonable. So let's assume X% of population thinks like that.
Which leads to my argument, for significant values of X.
Of course, it's a bit paradoxical. If X is negligible to
begin with, then this doesn't work.
To put it simply -- Landsburg's argument is valid if and
only if nobody agrees with it.
Which makes Landsburg's argument simply the prisoner's
dilemma, re-worded. (Assuming voting is beneficial to
all, and not voting saves time and energy.)
Which reminds me of an earlier statement, by a nice Christians who's name I forgot.
She said somthing like this. Surely in other words, but I thin what it meant was:
Please everybody: Do not vote!, for if I am the only one voting,
I get to decide everything".
Ah, I remember the name now (thouh not the exact words): Stillsunny.
Think for yourself
Peter van Velzen
Oktober 2004
Amstelveen
The Netherlands
.
|
|
|
| User: "Therion Ware" |
|
| Title: Re: US Presidential Election: You can influence the outcome |
21 Oct 2004 10:31:19 AM |
|
|
On 21 Oct 2004 07:59:10 -0700 in alt.atheism, Peter van Velzen
(pbamvv@worldonline.nl (Peter van Velzen)) said, directing the reply
to alt.atheism
bhanwaram@netscape.net (bhanwara) wrote in message news:<50fd4c57.0410210113.ee601b@posting.google.com>...
X <X@nospam.net> wrote in message news:<cEXcd.387934$mD.265907@attbi_s02>...
bhanwara wrote:
believing in this argument by those to whom this argument
makes sense, could COMPLETELY change the results of an election.
Your objection was already answered by this part of the article:
The traditional reply begins with the phrase "But if everyone thought
like that ... ." To which the correct rejoinder is: So what? Everyone
doesn't think like that. They continue to vote by the millions and
Actually, that's exactly what my objection addresses.
To quote from the article: "Everyone doesn't think like that." That's
very reasonable. So let's assume X% of population thinks like that.
Which leads to my argument, for significant values of X.
Of course, it's a bit paradoxical. If X is negligible to
begin with, then this doesn't work.
To put it simply -- Landsburg's argument is valid if and
only if nobody agrees with it.
Which makes Landsburg's argument simply the prisoner's
dilemma, re-worded. (Assuming voting is beneficial to
all, and not voting saves time and energy.)
Which reminds me of an earlier statement, by a nice Christians who's name I forgot.
She said somthing like this. Surely in other words, but I thin what it meant was:
Please everybody: Do not vote!, for if I am the only one voting,
I get to decide everything".
Ah, I remember the name now (thouh not the exact words): Stillsunny.
I am a great believer in "one man, one vote". And in my opinion I'm
the man and it's mine.
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
Inexpensive VHS & other video to CD/DVD conversion?
See: <http://www.Video2CD.com>. 35.00 gets your video on DVD.
all posts to this email address are automatically deleted without being read.
** atheist poster child #1 ** #442.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Siobhan Burke" |
|
| Title: Re: US Presidential Election: You can influence the outcome |
24 Oct 2004 07:28:33 AM |
|
|
In article <vglfn0dbfomgcjemaf23ecs6ku7k5r9240@4ax.com>,
autodelete@city-of-dis.com says...
<snip>
I am a great believer in "one man, one vote". And in my opinion I'm
the man and it's mine.
I see. That would make you the Patrician, then, yes?
--
Siobhan
siobhan.burke@CARRIERatt.net
Drop CARRIER to email
"There were a bunch of theosophists over in the corner raising
the devil. Well, they had him about three feet off the
floor..." --Firesign Theater
.
|
|
|
| User: "Therion Ware" |
|
| Title: Re: US Presidential Election: You can influence the outcome |
24 Oct 2004 07:52:26 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 12:28:33 GMT in alt.atheism, Siobhan Burke
(Siobhan Burke <siobhan.burke@CARRIERatt.net>) said, directing the
reply to alt.atheism
In article <vglfn0dbfomgcjemaf23ecs6ku7k5r9240@4ax.com>,
autodelete@city-of-dis.com says...
<snip>
I am a great believer in "one man, one vote". And in my opinion I'm
the man and it's mine.
I see. That would make you the Patrician, then, yes?
Indeed. Well spotted.
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: US Presidential Election: You can influence the outcome |
24 Oct 2004 10:09:15 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 13:52:26 +0100, Therion Ware
<autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote:
On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 12:28:33 GMT in alt.atheism, Siobhan Burke
(Siobhan Burke <siobhan.burke@CARRIERatt.net>) said, directing the
reply to alt.atheism
In article <vglfn0dbfomgcjemaf23ecs6ku7k5r9240@4ax.com>,
autodelete@city-of-dis.com says...
<snip>
I am a great believer in "one man, one vote". And in my opinion I'm
the man and it's mine.
I see. That would make you the Patrician, then, yes?
Indeed. Well spotted.
So that makes him the patsy......... ;)
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Vote for Bush. Why vote for the lesser of two evils?
No matter the candidates the superstition industry wins.
'Jesus' is a sock-puppet Christians utilize to add 'authority' to
whatever action they intend on taking. -Stoney
And Duty Imp and Rapscallion
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "MrPepper11" |
|
| Title: Re: US Presidential Election: You can influence the outcome |
22 Oct 2004 05:47:57 PM |
|
|
Therion Ware <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote in message news:<vglfn0dbfomgcjemaf23ecs6ku7k5r9240@4ax.com>...
On 21 Oct 2004 07:59:10 -0700 in alt.atheism, Peter van Velzen
(pbamvv@worldonline.nl (Peter van Velzen)) said, directing the reply
to alt.atheism
bhanwaram@netscape.net (bhanwara) wrote in message news:<50fd4c57.0410210113.ee601b@posting.google.com>...
Which reminds me of an earlier statement, by a nice Christians who's name I forgot.
She said somthing like this. Surely in other words, but I thin what it meant was:
Please everybody: Do not vote!, for if I am the only one voting,
I get to decide everything".
Ah, I remember the name now (thouh not the exact words): Stillsunny.
I am a great believer in "one man, one vote". And in my opinion I'm
the man and it's mine.
http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20021102/bob8.asp
Nearly all political elections in the United States are plurality
votes, in which each voter selects a single candidate, and the
candidate with the most votes wins. Yet voting theorists argue that
plurality voting is one of the worst of all possible choices...
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Foolcow" |
|
| Title: Re: US Presidential Election: You can influence the outcome |
21 Oct 2004 09:06:43 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 02:13:59 -0700, bhanwara wrote:
X <X@nospam.net> wrote in message news:<cEXcd.387934$mD.265907@attbi_s02>...
bhanwara wrote:
believing in this argument by those to whom this argument
makes sense, could COMPLETELY change the results of an election.
Your objection was already answered by this part of the article:
The traditional reply begins with the phrase "But if everyone thought
like that ... ." To which the correct rejoinder is: So what? Everyone
doesn't think like that. They continue to vote by the millions and
Actually, that's exactly what my objection addresses.
To quote from the article: "Everyone doesn't think like that." That's
very reasonable. So let's assume X% of population thinks like that.
Which leads to my argument, for significant values of X.
Of course, it's a bit paradoxical. If X is negligible to
begin with, then this doesn't work.
To put it simply -- Landsburg's argument is valid if and
only if nobody agrees with it.
<snip>
Then please re-calculate the odds of your vote influencing the outcome of
a national election, assuming that 1% of the population agrees with
Ladnsburg argument.
Show us your calculations; it should be interesting to see how the odds
change.
.
|
|
|
| User: "bhanwara" |
|
| Title: Re: US Presidential Election: You can influence the outcome |
22 Oct 2004 06:52:18 AM |
|
|
Foolcow <foolcow@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<pan.2004.10.21.14.07.05.159132@yahoo.com>...
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 02:13:59 -0700, bhanwara wrote:
X <X@nospam.net> wrote in message news:<cEXcd.387934$mD.265907@attbi_s02>...
bhanwara wrote:
believing in this argument by those to whom this argument
makes sense, could COMPLETELY change the results of an election.
Your objection was already answered by this part of the article:
The traditional reply begins with the phrase "But if everyone thought
like that ... ." To which the correct rejoinder is: So what? Everyone
doesn't think like that. They continue to vote by the millions and
Actually, that's exactly what my objection addresses.
To quote from the article: "Everyone doesn't think like that." That's
very reasonable. So let's assume X% of population thinks like that.
Which leads to my argument, for significant values of X.
Of course, it's a bit paradoxical. If X is negligible to
begin with, then this doesn't work.
To put it simply -- Landsburg's argument is valid if and
only if nobody agrees with it.
<snip>
Then please re-calculate the odds of your vote influencing the outcome of
a national election, assuming that 1% of the population agrees with
Ladnsburg argument.
Show us your calculations; it should be interesting to see how the odds
change.
Well, if the point isn't already obvious by now, then the more subtle
issues would be missed anyway... For instance, how
Landsburg's argument is simply a reworded variation of the
prisoner's dilemma. [That's logic, I can't show that
using simple calculations unfortunately.]
But Landsburg seems to do some very interesting work for
those who like to see calculations. The calculations and
arguments seem to be brilliant if misleading (there may be a
forest/tree issue.)
For instance, below is a link to another Landsburg article with lots
of interesting calculations. Though how one can be called
an "economist" and not even have a passing acquaintance with
utility theory to make an acknowledging nod, is beyond me!
http://www.slate.com/id/2108201/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Foolcow" |
|
| Title: Re: US Presidential Election: You can influence the outcome |
22 Oct 2004 08:59:38 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 04:52:18 -0700, bhanwara wrote:
Foolcow <foolcow@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<pan.2004.10.21.14.07.05.159132@yahoo.com>...
On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 02:13:59 -0700, bhanwara wrote:
X <X@nospam.net> wrote in message news:<cEXcd.387934$mD.265907@attbi_s02>...
bhanwara wrote:
believing in this argument by those to whom this argument
makes sense, could COMPLETELY change the results of an election.
Your objection was already answered by this part of the article:
The traditional reply begins with the phrase "But if everyone thought
like that ... ." To which the correct rejoinder is: So what? Everyone
doesn't think like that. They continue to vote by the millions and
Actually, that's exactly what my objection addresses.
To quote from the article: "Everyone doesn't think like that." That's
very reasonable. So let's assume X% of population thinks like that.
Which leads to my argument, for significant values of X.
Of course, it's a bit paradoxical. If X is negligible to
begin with, then this doesn't work.
To put it simply -- Landsburg's argument is valid if and
only if nobody agrees with it.
<snip>
Then please re-calculate the odds of your vote influencing the outcome of
a national election, assuming that 1% of the population agrees with
Ladnsburg argument.
Show us your calculations; it should be interesting to see how the odds
change.
Well, if the point isn't already obvious by now, then the more subtle
issues would be missed anyway... For instance, how
Landsburg's argument is simply a reworded variation of the
prisoner's dilemma. [That's logic, I can't show that
using simple calculations unfortunately.]
How is it a reworded variation of the prisoner's dilemma? In the
prisoner's dilemma, each prisoner is guaranteed that his decision will
change his outcome. This is far from being the case in an election, which
is the whole point of Landsburg's article.
But Landsburg seems to do some very interesting work for
those who like to see calculations. The calculations and
arguments seem to be brilliant if misleading (there may be a
forest/tree issue.)
The calculations were the whole point of the article. He's showing that
there's an extremely low probability that a single vote will decide the
election. Unless you're actually disputing this, you've missed the whole
point.
You stated that the argument is valid "if and only if" nobody agrees with
it. This can only mean that the probability of my vote making a
difference will increase as more people believe the argument. Explain how.
For instance, below is a link to another Landsburg article with lots
of interesting calculations. Though how one can be called
an "economist" and not even have a passing acquaintance with
utility theory to make an acknowledging nod, is beyond me!
http://www.slate.com/id/2108201/
Ad hominem argument.
.
|
|
|
| User: "bhanwara" |
|
| Title: Re: US Presidential Election: You can influence the outcome |
23 Oct 2004 10:16:40 AM |
|
|
Foolcow <foolcow@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<pan.2004.10.22.13.59.50.568851@yahoo.com>...
You stated that the argument is valid "if and only if" nobody agrees with
it. This can only mean that the probability of my vote making a
difference will increase as more people believe the argument. Explain how.
No -- it means that belief in Landsburg's argument will
cause the election's results to change if X% of population
believes in it and acts upon it, and if that X is not
evenly distributed (for non-negligible values of X.) This is
contrary to the assumption of Landsburg's argument that belief
in this argument can have no impact on the result of an
election. It certainly can, and that's a contradiction.
How is it a reworded variation of the prisoner's dilemma? In the
prisoner's dilemma, each prisoner is guaranteed that his decision will
change his outcome. This is far from being the case in an election, which
is the whole point of Landsburg's article.
If you do not vote, you are absolutely guaranteed that you will have
spent less time and effort than those who voted, thereby changing
your personal energy expediture. But if all those who benefit from
position P act like you, they have absolutely guaranteed that position
P will have no chance. So basically Landsburg's argument is that you can
save yourself some time and effort, and assume that not "everyone"
will think like that, and therefore others will act more altruistically
and get results that are preferred for you.
That's exactly the prisoner's dilemma. The only difference may
be that the dilemma may be more obscure in this rewording.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Brian Quincy Hutchings" |
|
| Title: Re: US Presidential Election: You can influence the outcome |
12 Oct 2004 07:35:26 PM |
|
|
in practice, the amount of time invested in The Lottery would seem
to be about comparable to deciding how to vote. so,
Trickier ***** Cheeny, you've got my vote!
seriously, although "voting may only encourage them,"
gamblers *only* remember the times that they won.
bhanwaram@netscape.net (bhanwara) wrote in message news:<50fd4c57.0410120415.66caf995@posting.google.com>...
Last time around, everything came down to Florida, where Bush's official
margin was 537 votes. (Yes, yes, I know, if they'd been counted
is a good use of your time. Instead of waiting in line to vote, you
could wait in line to buy a lottery ticket, hoping to win $100 million
and use it to advance your causes?and all with an almost indescribably
greater chance of success than you'd have in the voting booth.
--A HYDROGEN (sic; cracked methane) ECONOMY?...
The Three Phases of Exploitation of the Protocols
of the Elders of Kyoto:
(FOSSILISATION [McCainanites?] (TM/sic))/
BORE/GUSH/NADIR "@" http://www.tarpley.net.
Http://www.tarpley.net/bushb.htm (partial contents, below):
17 -- THE ATTEMPTED COUP D'ETAT, 3/30/81 (87K)
18 -- IRAN-CONTRA (140K)
19 -- THE LEVERAGED BUYOUT MOB (67K)
20 -- THE PHONY WAR ON DRUGS (26K)
21 -- OMAHA (25K)
22 -- GEORGE "#9" TAKES THE PRESIDENCY (112K)
23 -- THE END OF HISTORY (168K)
24 -- THE NEW WORLD ORDER (255K)
25 -- THYROID STORM (139K)
http://quincy4board.homestead.com/files/curriculum/Cosmo.PCX
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: US Presidential Election: You can influence the outcome |
05 Oct 2004 01:26:41 PM |
|
|
In article <y6A8d.73089$He1.68289@attbi_s01>, Dixit <dix@nospam.net>
wrote:
Tudor Precup wrote:
Your opinion really matters ...
You can't just take your conclusion for granted as your first premise.
That's the logical fallacy of begging the question, old boy.
And the above criticism is itself a sterling example of begging the
question, by that champion of question beggers, the beggar Septic
Capon, the Simple Pimple.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
