My vote doesn't really count, but it should dammit

[kermalou]

My mom isn't voting for pResident, just the other stuff on the ballot that she cares about...

 

[Dissipate]

On the statistical absurdities of voting

Statistical absurdities of voting part 2

You might as well carve your candidate's name on a tree than vote, because it will have about same effect on their chances of getting elected.

 

[raildogg]

Originally posted by: Engineer
Same in Kentucky....

But my vote will be in the national total.....although that doesn't mean much.

well for bragging rights

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: Luck JF
If California was so liberal why do they have a Republican governator?
Oh I don't count any states out.

yup ca is a big place...has the most liberal and most coservative areas in the country so it confuses the rest of the nation. Most just think about berkeley

As to your question.... they don't have a Republican gov but a Celebrity gov

California really sucks. This place is a complete socialist wasteland, especially with the Hispanic vote coming out of Mexico.

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: Dissipate
On the statistical absurdities of voting

Statistical absurdities of voting part 2

You might as well carve your candidate's name on a tree than vote, because it will have about same effect on their chances of getting elected.

My own math...

Tennessee is as good a state as any to find the answer as it was more or less representative of the states in the 2000 election. Its 2 million votes cast were approximately 1/50th of those in the nation and George W. Bush's three percentage point victory in that state mirrored his narrow victory in the electoral vote.

I'll do a standard cost-benefit analysis.

The costs are mostly trivial and for most voters, will not amount to much more than the gas used to get to the ballot box, and lost wages or lost leisure time.

The benefits, obviously, are those derived from the benefit of a favorable candidate being selected over an unfavorable candidate. In this election, there seem to be more than a few very important issues with both candidates extremely passionate about the side they've chosen so it could be argued that any vote that swings the election is worth a whole lot; Let's arbitrarily say every potential voter perceives the value of getting his or her preferred candidate getting elected at $1 million.

However, the benefit must be scaled down appropriately as the benefit of voting only matters when that one vote decides the entire election.

The probability that the Tennessean decides the overall vote is the combined probability that the difference in the electoral vote among the other states is less than or equal to the electoral votes his state has been allotted and that other voters in his state are deadlocked at exactly 50%.

In the 2000 election, the state of Tennessee was given 11 electoral votes. Since the US came into being, the president has been decided by 11 electoral votes or less in only four out of 54 elections--a ratio of 7.4%.

Round the number of voters to 2 million and assume that each voter was equally likely to vote for either candidate. The probability that Bush and Al Gore were exactly even would have been (2 million)! / (1 million)!² or about one divided by 10 to the 591,200th power.

Therefore, even the outrageously high quantification of $1 million for a successful campaign is nullified when multiplied by 7.4% to account for electoral college races that aren't always close and then by 1/(10^591,200) for statewide voting that is almost never exactly even. So low is the result that it is dwarfed even by the most trivial of voting costs.

As voting as a means to affect the election is almost worthless in practical terms, those who vote in elections are almost completely driven by the feelings of pride and duty associated with voting.

That said, get out there and vote, damnit.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: Dissipate
On the statistical absurdities of voting

Statistical absurdities of voting part 2

You might as well carve your candidate's name on a tree than vote, because it will have about same effect on their chances of getting elected.

My own math...

Tennessee is as good a state as any to find the answer as it was more or less representative of the states in the 2000 election. Its 2 million votes cast were approximately 1/50th of those in the nation and George W. Bush's three percentage point victory in that state mirrored his narrow victory in the electoral vote.

I'll do a standard cost-benefit analysis.

The costs are mostly trivial and for most voters, will not amount to much more than the gas used to get to the ballot box, and lost wages or lost leisure time.

The benefits, obviously, are those derived from the benefit of a favorable candidate being selected over an unfavorable candidate. In this election, there seem to be more than a few very important issues with both candidates extremely passionate about the side they've chosen so it could be argued that any vote that swings the election is worth a whole lot; Let's arbitrarily say every potential voter perceives the value of getting his or her preferred candidate getting elected at $1 million.

However, the benefit must be scaled down appropriately as the benefit of voting only matters when that one vote decides the entire election.

The probability that the Tennessean decides the overall vote is the combined probability that the difference in the electoral vote among the other states is less than or equal to the electoral votes his state has been allotted and that other voters in his state are deadlocked at exactly 50%.

In the 2000 election, the state of Tennessee was given 11 electoral votes. Since the US came into being, the president has been decided by 11 electoral votes or less in only four out of 54 elections--a ratio of 7.4%.

Round the number of voters to 2 million and assume that each voter was equally likely to vote for either candidate. The probability that Bush and Al Gore were exactly even would have been (2 million)! / (1 million)!² or about one divided by 10 to the 591,200th power.

Therefore, even the outrageously high quantification of $1 million for a successful campaign is nullified when multiplied by 7.4% to account for electoral college races that aren't always close and then by 1/(10^591,200) for statewide voting that is almost never exactly even. So low is the result that it is dwarfed even by the most trivial of voting costs.

As voting as a means to affect the election is almost worthless in practical terms, those who vote in elections are almost completely driven by the feelings of pride and duty associated with voting.

That said, get out there and vote, damnit.

Pride and "duty" in voting? Duty to whom? Pride in what?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: Luck JF
If California was so liberal why do they have a Republican governator?
Oh I don't count any states out.

yup ca is a big place...has the most liberal and most coservative areas in the country so it confuses the rest of the nation. Most just think about berkeley

As to your question.... they don't have a Republican gov but a Celebrity gov

California really sucks. This place is a complete socialist wasteland, especially with the Hispanic vote coming out of Mexico.

Feel free to leave at any time, the rest of us sure won't miss you! Some of us happen to LIKE it here. Yeah, there are way too many special interests...I'll deal with it to avoid having to put up with crazy religious people (well, the Christian kind anyways ) Besides, Californians are starting to get REAL sick of the zillions of special interests, and with Arnold in charge I think there could actually be some positive changes. Oh, and the 3-strikes law is on the ballot this year (sort of)...almost makes up for the fact I can't vote against Bush in Iowa.

By the way, anyone who thinks Arnold was elected because he's a Republican needs to have their head examined

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: Luck JF
If California was so liberal why do they have a Republican governator?
Oh I don't count any states out.

yup ca is a big place...has the most liberal and most coservative areas in the country so it confuses the rest of the nation. Most just think about berkeley

As to your question.... they don't have a Republican gov but a Celebrity gov

California really sucks. This place is a complete socialist wasteland, especially with the Hispanic vote coming out of Mexico.

Feel free to leave at any time, the rest of us sure won't miss you! Some of us happen to LIKE it here. Yeah, there are way too many special interests...I'll deal with it to avoid having to put up with crazy religious people (well, the Christian kind anyways ) Besides, Californians are starting to get REAL sick of the zillions of special interests, and with Arnold in charge I think there could actually be some positive changes. Oh, and the 3-strikes law is on the ballot this year (sort of)...almost makes up for the fact I can't vote against Bush in Iowa.

By the way, anyone who thinks Arnold was elected because he's a Republican needs to have their head examined

I will be leaving, once I get my degree. How could you like California? Let's see here.

California has:

Very high cost of living
Most restrictive gun laws
Very un-friendly business regulation environment
High taxes
Ubiquitous and pervasive freeway gridlock

Shall I go on?

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: Dissipate
I will be leaving, once I get my degree. How could you like California? Let's see here.

California has:

Very high cost of living
Most restrictive gun laws
Very un-friendly business regulation environment
High taxes
Ubiquitous and pervasive freeway gridlock

Shall I go on?

5th largest economy in the world!

 

[judasmachine]

It's OK I'm voting either Kerry or Cobb and I live in Texas.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: Dissipate
I will be leaving, once I get my degree. How could you like California? Let's see here.

California has:

Very high cost of living
Most restrictive gun laws
Very un-friendly business regulation environment
High taxes
Ubiquitous and pervasive freeway gridlock

Shall I go on?

5th largest economy in the world!

Not for long. The populations of California and other high tax/high regulation states are actually declining due to net emigration.

 

[jpeyton]

:thumbsup: for this thread.

 

[RobCur]

sometime i think this voting crap is nothing more then a popularity rigging game... just because more poeple voted for kerry does not mean he will be our next president. what count is who has more money to promote his evil campaign~!

 

[Jhhnn]

Dissembling again, CsG?-

"Oh, and to anyone who doesn't think their vote count...think again. There hasn't been a president elected with the majority of popular votes for the last few elections ..."

While quite true, the statement is misleading wrt Bush and 2000. He's the only president since 1888 who failed to win a plurality of votes, more than any opponent. It's one thing to rule from the center with a plurality, a la Clinton, entirely another to govern from the right fringe w/o anything approaching a mandate...

Want your vote to count more? move to a state like N Dakota, Wyoming, Alaska. The 3 vote electoral college minimum insures that your winning side vote will be worth about 4 such California votes... something that Repubs exploited rather neatly in 2000 to install a true minority president...

 

[3chordcharlie]

Some of you seem to have forgotten that economics is a predictive, not a normative science, especially as it relates to human behaviour.

Therefore AT BEST what you're missing out on WRT voting when 'it won't matter anyway' is some sort of benefit or cost that the voter seeks to gain or avoid.

At worst the incentive/marginal choices model simply doesn't apply.

In any case, many (though clearly not all) eligible voters seem to find it worth their while to actually vote.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Those who UNDERSTAND the purpose of the Electoral College regard is as the smart, NECESSARY system that it is.

Jason

Originally posted by: Perknose
But, hell, we all LOVE the Electoral College, right? :roll:

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Um, no, no we really, really DON'T. The Electoral College does what it is supposed to do: It prevents the large populace states from deciding every election. It WORKS, and your vote DOES count.

Jason

Originally posted by: Infohawk
We need to do away with the antiquated electoral college and have a proportional system in Congress.

 

[Pliablemoose]

Vote or Die!!!

 

[PoPPeR]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: Dissipate
I will be leaving, once I get my degree. How could you like California? Let's see here.

California has:

Very high cost of living
Most restrictive gun laws
Very un-friendly business regulation environment
High taxes
Ubiquitous and pervasive freeway gridlock

Shall I go on?

5th largest economy in the world!

heavily influenced by the million millionaires that we have living here... i'd say due to cost of living, much of our state is quite poor. I for one am getting out as soon as I can, and while you may say don't let the door hit you on your way out, bleh to you

 

[LtPage1]

Originally posted by: Perknose
But, hell, we all LOVE the Electoral College, right? :roll:

wrAong.

 

[Budarow]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Pepsei
That place used to be a republican state, a long time ago.

And the Republicans used to be Democrats... a long time ago.

That funny! I've read/heard that several times before. Do you happen to know when about this change supposedly occured?

 

[colonel]

We need to do away with the antiquated electoral college and have a proportional system in Congress

I know, I agree but is our way to do thing here in this country, but after the Civil War the Fathers thougth we are not mature enough to do changes.....

 

[PingSpike]

Didn't Gore win the popular vote but lose the electoral college last election? Seems like you should be kissing the EC's ass to me.

 

[Mathlete]

Man, I HATE THIS F'IN LOGIC.

Let's say for example that I asked everyone in the USA to send me a penny. You would probably think that your penny doesn't matter. What you fail to realize is that is everyone had this attitude I would recieve far less money then if they didn't. You should vote because it is your DUTY to vote. America has become soooo lazy that they are just looking for an excuse to not vote.

So go buy some chips, sit on your lazy a$$, and don't vote. And after that don't ever talk about politics again because you made you decision not to participate.

 

[chess9]

You should vote anyway, because if Bush were to win the popular vote and Kerry win the EV the Republicans would be able to reverse the tables on the Dems about the legitimacy of this election. So, if I were a Republican in Texas, Oklahoma, or Wyoming, I'd vote regardless.

-Robert