Does he expect the amoebas to die off in the event too, or just humans? There are plently of other single-planet species that survived the most catostrophic event on this planet (that we know of). And besides, do we really care about prolonging the existence of our species?
If I may, I'd like to phrase this in game theory terms. You get to make a move in this game tomorrow that will ultimately affect your utility (happiness). Let's say, for example, if your candidate wins, you have a utility of 0 (it's all relative). And, let's say you can distinguish between the other two candidate with utilities of, for example, -10 and -10^100.
Now, the expected utility you'll get from the outcome is based on your expectation of who will win given whom you vote for. I think it's pretty safe to assume that the chances of the 3rd party candidate winning is negligibly close to 0, regardless of how you vote. This is based on a pre-election compromise where most people decide they are going to vote for one of two candidates. In the US, it's always a democrat or a republican. Lets say because the election is close, the chances of each of the major candidates winning is.5 without your vote. If you vote for one or the other, you shift the chances to.50000000001 and.4999999999 or whatever.
Without voting for a major party candidate, you're expected utility is:.5*(-10 + -10^100) + 0*0
Voting for the lesser evil, you're expected utility is:.50000000001*(-10) +.4999999999*(-10^100) + 0
Which is slightly greater than the top value. All the numbers were completely arbitrary. In the case where you truely cannot distinguish between the two major candidates, then I suppose that voting for a major party candidate does not have any payoff.
I suspect that the Prob(3rd party candidate winning) = 0 assumption is frustrating, but can you really say it's unrealistic? This analysis is based off of our plurality voting system. Basically, under such a system, voting for a third party candidate is never an optimal strategy. If we had a better system, this wouldn't be an issue and I believe a 3rd party candidate would have a nonzero chance of winning.
I was glad to finally read a positive post. Seriously, IRV and EC abolishion are essential. Maybe people are just more prone to post when they have something negative to say.
By the way, I will admit that these two bills should really go hand in hand. At least, we should not abolish the electoral college without IRV. The reason for this is that a candidate needs a majority of the vote to win the Presidency. If he does not get this, then the decision is left to congress, which would happen quite frequently in a close election. I think most people would be pretty outraged if the President were elected by congress. IRV guarantees that one candidate will always get a majority, and thus this situation will never happen.
Perhaps there is some relationship to voter turnout and the current system. I did not vote in 2000 because I didn't like either candidate, and I didn't think my vote would count. I'm voting this time around despite the persistence of these two facts. Will it make a difference? No. But maybe others would vote if these issues were corrected.
One way to make people's votes count would be to eliminate the electoral college. One way to allow voters to receive some payoff from voting for a third party would be to implement IRV instead of plurality voting. Hmmmm...
I disagree with his argument. It sounds like he looks at voter power as a random variable with some distribution, and that under the electoral college, the expected value of a citizen's "power" is greater than without it. However, that's not necessarily a good metric. I'd argue that the variance of power could be extraordinary, and that it is in the reality of red, blue, and swing states. Basically, this corresponds to people with a fuckload of power in swing states, and people with absolutely no power in the rest of the country. Honestly, try telling anyone who voted for Al Gore in New York or California in 2000 that his or her vote made any difference in the outcome of the election.
I'll admit that as someone who does not vote in a swing state, I'm a bit biased on this matter. However, I'm really not even suggesting that I deserve more power than anyone else. I just want to have an equal amount, even if that corresponds to people having less power on average. Favoring a policy that treats everyone equally really ought to be something that everyone can agree on. It should certainly be a lot more important than making sure that at least somebody has a significant say in the outcome of an election.
Slashdot Mirror
Does he expect the amoebas to die off in the event too, or just humans? There are plently of other single-planet species that survived the most catostrophic event on this planet (that we know of). And besides, do we really care about prolonging the existence of our species?
If I may, I'd like to phrase this in game theory terms. You get to make a move in this game tomorrow that will ultimately affect your utility (happiness). Let's say, for example, if your candidate wins, you have a utility of 0 (it's all relative). And, let's say you can distinguish between the other two candidate with utilities of, for example, -10 and -10^100.
.5 without your vote. If you vote for one or the other, you shift the chances to .50000000001 and .4999999999 or whatever.
.5*(-10 + -10^100) + 0*0
.50000000001*(-10) + .4999999999*(-10^100) + 0
Now, the expected utility you'll get from the outcome is based on your expectation of who will win given whom you vote for. I think it's pretty safe to assume that the chances of the 3rd party candidate winning is negligibly close to 0, regardless of how you vote. This is based on a pre-election compromise where most people decide they are going to vote for one of two candidates. In the US, it's always a democrat or a republican. Lets say because the election is close, the chances of each of the major candidates winning is
Without voting for a major party candidate, you're expected utility is:
Voting for the lesser evil, you're expected utility is:
Which is slightly greater than the top value. All the numbers were completely arbitrary. In the case where you truely cannot distinguish between the two major candidates, then I suppose that voting for a major party candidate does not have any payoff.
I suspect that the Prob(3rd party candidate winning) = 0 assumption is frustrating, but can you really say it's unrealistic? This analysis is based off of our plurality voting system. Basically, under such a system, voting for a third party candidate is never an optimal strategy. If we had a better system, this wouldn't be an issue and I believe a 3rd party candidate would have a nonzero chance of winning.
Who cares if your vote is altered if it wasn't going to be counted in the first place?
I was glad to finally read a positive post. Seriously, IRV and EC abolishion are essential. Maybe people are just more prone to post when they have something negative to say.
By the way, I will admit that these two bills should really go hand in hand. At least, we should not abolish the electoral college without IRV. The reason for this is that a candidate needs a majority of the vote to win the Presidency. If he does not get this, then the decision is left to congress, which would happen quite frequently in a close election. I think most people would be pretty outraged if the President were elected by congress. IRV guarantees that one candidate will always get a majority, and thus this situation will never happen.
Perhaps there is some relationship to voter turnout and the current system. I did not vote in 2000 because I didn't like either candidate, and I didn't think my vote would count. I'm voting this time around despite the persistence of these two facts. Will it make a difference? No. But maybe others would vote if these issues were corrected.
One way to make people's votes count would be to eliminate the electoral college. One way to allow voters to receive some payoff from voting for a third party would be to implement IRV instead of plurality voting. Hmmmm...
I disagree with his argument. It sounds like he looks at voter power as a random variable with some distribution, and that under the electoral college, the expected value of a citizen's "power" is greater than without it. However, that's not necessarily a good metric. I'd argue that the variance of power could be extraordinary, and that it is in the reality of red, blue, and swing states. Basically, this corresponds to people with a fuckload of power in swing states, and people with absolutely no power in the rest of the country. Honestly, try telling anyone who voted for Al Gore in New York or California in 2000 that his or her vote made any difference in the outcome of the election.
I'll admit that as someone who does not vote in a swing state, I'm a bit biased on this matter. However, I'm really not even suggesting that I deserve more power than anyone else. I just want to have an equal amount, even if that corresponds to people having less power on average. Favoring a policy that treats everyone equally really ought to be something that everyone can agree on. It should certainly be a lot more important than making sure that at least somebody has a significant say in the outcome of an election.