Will Joe Biden be the next president?

[Isaac]

If the site owner wasn't involved I'd probably split all this off into it's own thread.

Lol.
Well, it could end up being relevant to whether Joe Biden becomes the next president, if enough Republicans act on Jon's principle

 

[pbaldy]

Well, it could end up being relevant to whether Joe Biden becomes the next president, if enough Republicans act on Jon's principle

Ha! Good point.

 

[RahulSharma]

Joe Biden is not popular as Trump and i don't think he will successful. But this time America needed to take a chance a female candidate. Already supremacy of male presidents taken America at brink.

 

[Jon]

Well, it could end up being relevant to whether Joe Biden becomes the next president, if enough Republicans act on Jon's principle

False statement. Realising that my individual vote does not make a difference has nothing to do with large numbers of voters deciding not to vote. You continue to conflate the two.

There is so much I can say to this!

I don't think you understand the maths behind it. You are coming up with a hypothetical that one side will suddenly adopt my beliefs. But why should one side suddenly adopt them? Why not the other side? 92 million people already don't vote. What about the main reasons people don't vote, such as lack of interest, don't like either candidate, feel disenfranchised, can't be bothered and so on? My position is a very minority view because people are deluded into thinking that their vote will make a difference. Whatever the reasons, you still seem confused by all of this.

nope I never was. I was only saying if many people take your principal to heart, it will have an effect.

It doesn't matter if many people take the no-voting principle to heart or not, because my one vote doesn't alter the outcome of the election, whether they take it to heart or not.

The thing is, you cannot successfully argue that my one vote will alter the election. So you come up with hypotheticals about groups of people thinking in one way, which has nothing to do with my one vote. i.e. you have to misrepresent my argument to justify your position. And it is not "Jon's principle." It is just a law of maths that one vote has near zero chance of effecting anything. You can deny reality as much as you like.

The statisticians estimate that the chances of your one vote affecting the outcome of the election in the US is about 1 in 60 million, from memory. That means that on average, you will have to go to the voting booth 60 million times to have your vote make any impact at all. That works out at...

1/60m = 0.0000000167% chance of your vote having an impact.

They estimate that you are more likely to die from an accident in driving to place your vote than alter the outcome of the election. So getting those 92 million other voters to go to the voting booths will likely result in 1 to 2 deaths, let alone numerous car accident injuries.

Think of the carbon footprint of mobilising 92 million extra people, the increase in spread of infectious disease, the additional costs of planetary resource usage, the opportunity cost of allocating that time to something else. And to what end? Half the people will be happy, the other half not happy, whoever wins.

I'm suggesting the rational basis for the decision might be based on things outside of the vacuum.

Well, there is no vacuum anyway. But what did you mean by the above statement. It is very vague.

But since they know they're making it as part of a conglomerate of other people making a similar decision, I'm not even sure that statement is entirely true.

How is it not true? You concede that your one vote won't make any difference. Yet you seem to be contradicting yourself here, by saying if you are part of a group of other people making a similar decision, that suddenly your vote does make a difference. That makes no sense. The maths stays the same.

It seems like you are doing everything you can to avoid a simple truth. Your vote (to all extents and purposes) won't count and that it won't effect the election. You want to argue that if large numbers of people think this way, then it will make an effect. But your one vote still won't effect anything. This is already the status quo. People have all sorts of reasons for voting or not voting. None of that matters, the maths is the same.

 

[Jon]

If the site owner wasn't involved I'd probably split all this off into it's own thread.

Feel free, I don't mind either way!

While @Isaac and I have a ding dong, maybe others can learn something from this individual voting is futile debate. It reminds me a bit of the flat earthers. The round earthers have science on their side, while the flat earthers is more religion. They try to rationalise the flat earth using as many contortions as they possible can, but ultimately, none of them survive scrutiny. With the voting argument, the science is on my side and the religion is on the side of the voters. You can't argue with raw maths. Yet when you are confronted with uncomfortable truths that go against a lifetime of belief, it takes a while to come to terms with it. Only the open-minded will see the truth, those prepared to see things in objective reality, putting aside ego, the need to be right. When indoctrinated into a religion, it takes a critical mass of evidence to then break free into atheism.

Only the open-minded will see the truth,

That is starting to sound like a religious cult!

 

[Steve R.]

Only the open-minded will see the truth, ....

That is so fraught with subjective (insane) viewpoints.

• Biden, as one example, claims that the rich need to pay their fair share of taxes. Well he leaves out that the poor don't pay taxes. Not only that but they actually pay negative taxes in that they receive taxpayer funded welfare payments.
• The claim is made that we want everyone to be treated equally, yet the "left" claims that the use of identity politics is justified to give certain people preferential rights so that they will be equal.
• Many sports people claim that they have a right to kneel and disrespect the US flag as a 1st Amendment right. Try to erase BLM graffiti or put up your own1st Amendment message and you are accused of disrespecting the Black community and occasionally put in jail.

 

[Jon]

Yes, I too find it very difficult to understand the other side on the points you made. It is the mystery of why either side doesn't understand each other.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

@The_Doc_Man - Shouldn't you be evacuating?

Nope. Laura aimed at the Sabine River area, at Louisiana's western boundary. I'm closer to the Pearl River area, which is the eastern boundary. But thanks for your concern. At most, I am worried about a few cousins who live near Lake Charles, but if I recall correctly, they have a high spot in the area where my cousins have their houses. Less likely for them to be badly flooded. Coastal SW Louisiana caught a big one, though.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Sorry Doc, that was a little too opaque for me, even if I have an inkling on what you might be getting at. Care to clarify, so I can then clarify in response?

"Two-pass algorithm" is merely a reference that you cannot even speculate whether your one vote made a difference until you see the margin of loss or victory, but you have to vote BEFORE the loss or victory occurs. You have to be a seer, a fortune-teller, to know that your vote won't make a difference. Life comes to you one day at a time and you don't know what is coming next. Ever. (Well, unless you see an asteroid coming straight down on top of you, in which case you might have a guess...)

Two-pass algorithms stem from early language compilers that didn't have advanced memory management tricks to help them keep memory segments separate. They had to gather together all of the variables and code in a way to assure that in the final program, you didn't have a data declaration in the middle of in-line code. The advent of segmented memory and advanced virtual memory hardware reduced the need for such actions, but in the earlier days of 2nd and 3rd generation languages, a pre-scan was necessary. It was the early equivalent of what happens when you declare Option Explicit in VBA today. You couldn't compile ANYTHING until you knew where all the variables were located.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

You are now conflating groups of voters with an individual voter. They are not the same.

But statistically, they ARE the same, just different numbers with different statistical weights. Jon, first and foremost, it is always your decision to vote or not to vote. So don't take this as me chastising you. But I believe your logic is flawed and wish to explore that. You seem willing to discuss it, so pardon me if I get heavy-handed.

You have the right to choose to vote or note. Unless, like the Soviet Union before it all collapsed around them, it was MANDATORY to vote but made no difference at all. Or, looking back to 1776, George III said we didn't get a vote anyway so it didn't matter that we didn't vote because THAT made no difference at all.

The issue now is that you have the option to vote. If you feel that the items on the ballot are not worth your attention, that is a choice that only you can make and I will never fault you for that rational choice. However, the whole POINT of getting a country's voters to express their opinion is base on the law of large numbers and the idea that when enough people vote, even for a dichotomous choice, you have a better sense of which way most people are thinking and you can act on it. To be honest, your choice to not vote WILL feed back as well, because it tells the politician that "nobody cares" - so that person can get away with any damned choice in the book. Is THAT the message you wanted to send?

 

[Jon]

I thought that might be what you were getting at, yet that is to ignore probability. We all speculate based on probability. You know that the odds are minuscule before you vote. You have to be a seer, a fortune-teller, to know that your vote will make a difference. I do worry about asteroids though, however small the risk.

Let us tease out the argument. You could drive at 150mph down the freeway. You have to be a seer, a fortune-teller to know that you might not survive. But we know probabilistically that it would not be rational to do so if you wanted to live, unless you were in a real rush!

 

[The_Doc_Man]

can you name any of the people you know that have influenced enough to decide any national election in their lifetime? Any relatives?

Will you take "local election influence"? My great-uncle Arthur Bear was a lawyer and the time before 1918 (when Women's suffrage was on the ballot), he was an activist in favor of the proposition. (Came from marrying my aunt, who was... strong-willed, shall I say?) He parked a wagon outside the polling place and offered everyone going in to vote a drink (decent bourbon, according to Aunt Renee). He would ask them how they felt on the vote. Those who had already decided? No problem, "Thanks for voting." Those who were still on the fence? They got another drink and a brief talk in favor of Women's Suffrage. His precinct strongly supported Women's Suffrage by a surprising margin.

Of course, modern electioneering laws in the USA would make that illegal now. But back then, no problem.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Think of the carbon footprint of mobilising 92 million extra people, the increase in spread of infectious disease,

Think of the spread of mindless complacency. People get the government they deserve by letting stuff happen. Trump won in 2016 because to vote for Hillary (or to not vote at all) was a sign of complacency, of acceptance of the status quo. It is exactly THAT attitude that made HRC the "ho, hum, business as usual" choice - and people were tired of that.

Look at it this way, Jon. Your attitude would have allowed Hillary to win and then what would the people in the "Politics and Current Events" topic have to talk about in the USA?

 

[Jon]

That's fine Doc. I will do the same!

But statistically, they ARE the same, just different numbers with different statistical weights.

The context of the argument is about the influence of one vote. So the framework is about the statistical weights. They are therefore not statically the same. 50 Republican voters are not statistically the same as 1 Republican voter.

But I believe your logic is flawed

My logic is indisputably sound, so there must be a misunderstanding of my position.

You have the right to choose to vote or note. Unless, like the Soviet Union before it all collapsed around them, it was MANDATORY to vote but made no difference at all. Or, looking back to 1776, George III said we didn't get a vote anyway so it didn't matter that we didn't vote because THAT made no difference at all.

It does not matter what anybody said, be they George III or anybody else. It does not matter if the Soviet Union had a compulsory vote or not. The math remains the same, the probability remains the same. If you think otherwise, please tell me one person you know in Western civilisation who changed the outcome of the national election with their single vote. I'm will be patient...

However, the whole POINT of getting a country's voters to express their opinion is base on the law of large numbers and the idea that when enough people vote, even for a dichotomous choice, you have a better sense of which way most people are thinking and you can act on it.

I agree. The whole point of voting is about large numbers of people voting. I am not arguing that the voting system is not a good idea. You need it exactly for the purposes you state. That is my position, as it seems to be yours. No disagreement there.

To be honest, your choice to not vote WILL feed back as well, because it tells the politician that "nobody cares" - so that person can get away with any damned choice in the book. Is THAT the message you wanted to send?

This is where I think you are clearly mistaken, if you forgive me for a second. If 92,000,000 decide not to vote, and I also decide to not vote and therefore make that number 92,000,001, that will have no impact on the "nobody cares" perception. They will already think that. It is the common error in thinking that my one vote has a bulk impact. It doesn't. The message I send has no impact, just like my vote, and for exactly the same reasons. The feedback is so small as to make no difference, just like the impact of your one vote.

 

[Jon]

Will you take "local election influence"?

The smaller the size of the voting pool, or the closer the margins between winning or losing, the higher the probability I would vote, due to my vote having higher weight.

 

[Jon]

Look at it this way, Jon. Your attitude would have allowed Hillary to win and then what would the people in the "Politics and Current Events" topic have to talk about in the USA?

Actually Doc, my attitude would not have had any influence on the election because I only have one vote. Even if millions of other people had the same attitude, it makes no difference. I am an individual with the power of one vote, or I should say lack of power!

Besides, 92 million people already didn't vote and she still didn't win.

 

[Jon]

This reminds me of the great movie, "12 Angry Men." If you haven't seen it, you ought to. The original black and white version was the best, IMHO. I won't spoil it for those who haven't watched it, but for those who have, you will know what I am getting at. I may be a lone individual arguing a case against everybody, but when truth is on your side, you cannot lose.

Edit: You can however waste a lot of time in the process!!

 

[Isaac]

Realising that my individual vote does not make a difference has nothing to do with large numbers of voters deciding not to vote.

Are you sure? It's one of the most commonly heard sentiments on why people don't vote. Jon I don't mean anything rude by this, but I have a feeling you get our point very well and are just refusing to accept it. It's obvious that if the principle you have put forth becomes taken to heart by numbers of people, then those numbers will make a difference on the election. Now don't go saying I said one person would influence large numbers--I didn't say that. I just said that your principle of "no influence on the election" only works if a lone, single person was the only person who stood by your principle. But real life isn't like that - millions of people all feel that their vote doesn't count. Then those millions, obviously, make a difference. I think 99% of people would agree with that statement. It's just overwhelmingly self evident. But you're welcome to use math if needed ... Check out the potential election impact of millions of people's individual decisions not to vote, then let me know if it makes a difference. Otherwise, I'm out.

 

[Jon]

Large numbers of people may have the exact same reason for not voting. But me realising that my individual vote does not make a difference will only effect one vote.

 

[Isaac]

Large numbers of people may have the exact same reason for not voting. But me realising that my individual vote does not make a difference will only effect one vote.

Yep - that's true.