2020 presidential election straw poll

[Bo Diddley]

Which is very much my point. If you vote to affect the outcome you are wasting your time. The real reason we vote is much different-- something akin to the reason I am wearing a blue shirt today and plan to spend my evening yelling at a TV even though doing so won't change the game at all.

:crazy:

[All-American]

But "by definition" none of our votes elected them. They are all worthless!

That's right. Your vote did not matter. If you voted to change the outcome you wasted your time.

[falafel]

That's right. Your vote did not matter. If you voted to change the outcome you wasted your time.

You can keep saying it, but it's still absurd.

[falafel]

Which is very much my point. If you vote to affect the outcome you are wasting your time. The real reason we vote is much different-- something akin to the reason I am wearing a blue shirt today and plan to spend my evening yelling at a TV even though doing so won't change the game at all.

This is not a good analogy. If 60,000 of us all tell the same thing at the tv tonight, it won't make a difference in the outcome. But if 60,000 of us vote the same way in a local election, it certainly will impact the outcome.

[All-American]

You can keep saying it, but it's still absurd.

Yet it's not wrong.

I think the problem you (and maybe JL) are running into is extrapolating beyond your vote-- what if EVERYBODY decided voting was a waste of time? If your decision to vote or not vote affected whether others voted or didn't vote, then that would be a better point. But you determine the utility of your actions based on what you can affect, taking into account the actions of others that you do not affect. And the odds that your vote will have any noticeable effect is statistically zero.

[All-American]

This is not a good analogy. If 60,000 of us all tell the same thing at the tv tonight, it won't make a difference in the outcome. But if 60,000 of us vote the same way in a local election, it certainly will impact the outcome.

Yup. There it is.

The problem is that you do not affect what 60,000 do. If you could control what 60,000 people do, then yes, your actions would (might?) matter. But even you, whose significance is so great that Jeff owes us something simply because you decided to grace us with your presence, only get to cast one vote.

[Flystripper]

It is collective utility. The collective has no value unless it has members (voters) each member of the collective has little value by itself but the collective has tremendous value versus the opposition collective and the degree of that power is directly related to the numbers in the collective.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[falafel]

Yet it's not wrong.

I think the problem you (and maybe JL) are running into is extrapolating beyond your vote-- what if EVERYBODY decided voting was a waste of time? If your decision to vote or not vote affected whether others voted or didn't vote, then that would be a better point. But you determine the utility of your actions based on what you can affect, taking into account the actions of others that you do not affect. And the odds that your vote will have any noticeable effect is statistically zero.

But you can't really separate the single vote from the aggregate. That's The absurdity of your position.

[All-American]

But you can't really separate the single vote from the aggregate. That's The absurdity of your position.

Can't I? Why not?

I don't decide who you vote for, or whether you vote. I only decide who I vote for, or whether I vote. I cast a single vote-- that's all.

[fusnik]

Trump has broken AA's brain.

I envision AA and Ben Sasse to be the same guy. Ben apparently found his brain a couple days ago, maybe AA will recover his sooner rather than later?

[All-American]

Trump has broken AA's brain.

I envision AA and Ben Sasse to be the same guy. Ben apparently found his brain a couple days ago, maybe AA will recover his sooner rather than later?

Trump has nothing to do with this. I've made this point before I ever knew Trump was running for President.

But if you needed more convincing that I have no political ambitions or prospects, surely this helps.

[Bo Diddley]

This is not a good analogy. If 60,000 of us all tell the same thing at the tv tonight, it won't make a difference in the outcome. But if 60,000 of us vote the same way in a local election, it certainly will impact the outcome.

I've had about enough of you and AA's lack of faith!

[Now who’s the dean?]

That's right. Your vote did not matter. If you voted to change the outcome you wasted your time.

Give it up man.

[Katy Lied]

Wow. What a brouhaha. Totally on AA's side, sorry.

AA: This has puzzled political scientists for many years. Why would anyone ever vote, since logically they can be shown that their vote doesnt matter? This is also studied in game theory as well, because there are costs to voting, so it is not logical to vote. (Although those costs are much lower for mail in ballots, a fact I was reflecting whilst voting on my kitchen table over a bowl of raisin bran.)

I think there is a paper by Matt McCubbins (may he rot in hell) and Gary Cox on this. People vote because they are reacting to a fear that it will come to election day, and their candidate will lose by 1 vote. Which could have been their vote. The closer straw polls are, the stronger the fear. McCubbins and Cox did not write about Trump, but I also sense that this year, when the President of the USA is making noises about invalidating mail votes based upon supposed corruption, or bad mail service that will deliver their ballot late, etc, more people want to make sure that their vote counts. So Trump is really bringing out the vote-- for his opponents.

Times like this I remember you are a U Chicago alum.

[falafel]

Jeez, the condescension is getting pretty thick in here.