**** Elections thread *****

[MadMojoMonkey]

Where do you think the electors get their decisions from?

Depends on the elector, I suppose. All but 2 states have laws that the electoral college must all vote for the same candidate. I.e. they are not allowed to split their votes to reflect the state's divided vote.

In no case can anyone on the electoral college be forced to place their vote in a certain way. They can only (maybe) be punished afterward.

Your implication that the electors follow the popular vote is belied by the simple fact that in many states, the electoral college casts their votes before the public polling is closed.

I found this. Not sure if still reliable since it says it was last updated in 2009. Also, looks like it may be some bleeding heart liberal org., so unknown bias.
http://archive.fairvote.org/?page=967

these [electoral college] violators [of state laws governing how they must vote] often only face being charged with a misdemeanor or a small fine, usually $1,000. Many constitutional scholars agree that electors remain free agents despite state laws and that, if challenged, such laws would be ruled unconstitutional. Therefore, electors can decline to cast their vote for a specific candidate (the one that wins the popular vote of their state), either voting for an alternative candidate, or abstaining completely. In fact, in the 2000 election, Barbara Lett-Simmons, an elector for the District of Columbia, cast a blank ballot for president and vice president in protest of the District’s unfair voting rights. Indeed, when it comes down to it, electors are ultimately free to vote for whom they personally prefer, despite the general public's desire.

POTUS is the most important one. Keep this in mind over the next 8 years of Trump and you see vast changes in our culture.

Lol

You pretend that your vote will have any affect on whether Hillary or Donald will be POTUS.

You know well better, but you persist in believing the lie, even when you know it's a lie.

lol.

People are confusing.

[wufwugy]

Depends on the elector, I suppose. All but 2 states have laws that the electoral college must all vote for the same candidate. I.e. they are not allowed to split their votes to reflect the state's divided vote.

In no case can anyone on the electoral college be forced to place their vote in a certain way. They can only (maybe) be punished afterward.

Your implication that the electors follow the popular vote is belied by the simple fact that in many states, the electoral college casts their votes before the public polling is closed.

The electors vote the way the popular vote goes.

You pretend that your vote will have any affect on whether Hillary or Donald will be POTUS.

That isn't my argument.

The line that because of scale POTUS votes don't matter doesn't stack up. One example for why is that for every bit one loses by the votes scaling up, one gains by the outcome being more impactful.

Viewing it in the frame that the individual vote doesn't matter because it is never the decider is misleading. The body would never fight off a sickness if each cell felt that way.

I'm never going to have a correct view of reality. What matters is what I believe.

[Poopadoop]

Viewing it in the frame that the individual vote doesn't matter because it is never the decider is misleading.

It's perfectly logical and mathematically indisputable (except you need to replace 'never' with 'practically never').

The body would never fight off a sickness if each cell felt that way.

We're not cells cooperating to keep our host alive so we live too. We're people faced with our limitations in personal power.

If you really want to have a realistic chance of influencing an election you need to influence a large number of voters.

[wufwugy]

It's perfectly logical and mathematically indisputable (except you need to replace 'never' with 'practically never').

I'm talking about something else. According to his logic, one's vote only matters in elections where the outcome was decided by one vote. Given that this is exceedingly rare and that votes change outcomes, the frame is poor

We're not cells cooperating to keep our host alive so we live too. We're people faced with our limitations in personal power.

The principle remains intact. One man doesn't win a war. The logic behind the claim that voting doesn't matter is the same as that man in the war not fighting because one man doesn't win a war. Clearly there are extra levels, and the simplistic frame misses them.

If you really want to have a realistic chance of influencing an election you need to influence a large number of voters.

If we use the simple frame, even this is mostly useless. Elections are movements. The most powerful group of people in the world could have done everything they could to stop Brexit legally and they would have failed.

This anti-voting zeitgeist is no different than a person who believed everything MLK stood for yet didn't want to march because his presence or absence wouldn't tip the scales.

[Poopadoop]

votes change outcomes

The important word here is 'votes'. Note how it is different that 'a vote'. You're conflating the two.

The principle remains intact. One man doesn't win a war. The logic behind the claim that voting doesn't matter is the same as that man in the war not fighting because one man doesn't win a war. Clearly there are extra levels, and the simplistic frame misses them.

Sure, whatever. Go ahead and vote if you want. I'm just telling you why I can't be bothered.

The most powerful group of people in the world could have done everything they could to stop Brexit legally and they would have failed.

How you do you know that? They could have dumped ten billion dollars into ads, hired people to go door to door, used all kinds of tricks, and changed the vote decisively. But not because they influenced one person, because they influenced thousands or hundreds of thousands or millions.

This anti-voting zeitgeist is no different than a person who believed everything MLK stood for yet didn't want to march because his presence or absence wouldn't tip the scales.

A person could march for other reasons, just like you can vote for other reasons. Maybe because it asserts your belief in democracy, maybe because it gives you a sense of belonging and being part of something bigger, maybe because it's your idea of a fun time. But if you think it's because you've got a good chance of making a difference with your one vote, you're just deluded and nothing more.

[wufwugy]

The important word here is 'votes'. Note how it is different that 'a vote'. You're conflating the two.

Looking at it this way doesn't tell much of the story. If the reasoning that the individual vote doesn't matter was correct, it would also be correct to say that voting itself doesn't matter, yet that is clearly not the case. If somebody wants to understand the vote, they can't just do a couple bits of arithmetic and call it a day.

How you do you know that? They could have dumped ten billion dollars into ads, hired people to go door to door, used all kinds of tricks, and changed the vote decisively. But not because they influenced one person, because they influenced thousands or hundreds of thousands or millions.

The causality those things have with influencing the vote is weak.

We've mostly been taught that history is about big men, but academia has been coming around to the better explanation that history is about movements and ideas.

But if you think it's because you've got a good chance of making a difference with your one vote, you're just deluded and nothing more.

I don't think that, but the cool thing is that "does your vote count" is not the question. Nobody's vote counts and yet voting counts. Square that circle.

[Poopadoop]

I don't think that, but the cool thing is that "does your vote count" is not the question. Nobody's vote counts and yet voting counts. Square that circle.

It's not a circle and it doesn't need squaring. I've already explained why one vote out of a large number of votes means a very small amount. Add a whole lot of very small amounts together and you get a big amount. That doesn't mean any one of those little small amounts is meaningful on its own; only their sum is meaningful.

Here's another way of looking at that might make you happier. If America lasts for a million years, there is a good chance that a POTUS election will be decided by a single vote one or two times. If that happens to be this election and you don't vote, then you'll be kicking yourself because you let the bad guys win. So you should go vote.

[MadMojoMonkey]

The electors vote the way the popular vote goes.

They cast their votes before the polls are closed in many states.
I cited a reference to a case where an elector did not vote in favor of their constituency.

How can you make this assertion in good conscience?

That isn't my argument.

Your argument is that engaging in the hubbub that surrounds a presidential election is of great benefit to society.

My point is that it is a (nearly complete) waste of your time and attention to engage in that one political conversation when literally every other political conversation you can engage in has more opportunity for you to incite a change which directly affects your life.

You think I'm saying the matter of who is the president doesn't matter. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that the matter of who is president is only affected by the general citizenry in fractions of a percent at best. Whereas, your letters to your congressmen will directly affect their policies, your vote for president has only indirect affect at best. Sometimes it blatantly has none.

I'm saying that if "America needs a fixin'," it's the political apathy and the sense of being entitled to good governance. Good governance requires an active citizenry. When the citizens only wake up to chatter about politics once every four years over the single most trivial thing they could affect change in... WTF, man?

And what to do about it?

The line that because of scale POTUS votes don't matter doesn't stack up. One example for why is that for every bit one loses by the votes scaling up, one gains by the outcome being more impactful.

I never took a line of scale. I'm not saying your vote doesn't count 'cause there's so many other voters. That's BS.

I'm saying that your vote doesn't count because it literally doesn't count.

Viewing it in the frame that the individual vote doesn't matter because it is never the decider is misleading.

Man, if anyone was making that point, you'd have nailed 'em good, there, huh?

The body would never fight off a sickness if each cell felt that way.

Does the body have an electoral college to elect the president of sickness fighting?
No?

What are you even talking about?
Is the presidency a disease?
Are people mindless cells in a biomechanical machine?

I'm never going to have a correct view of reality. What matters is what I believe.

I bet you're not so cavalier about your belief in gravity when you're deciding whether to exit your home through the upstairs window or the ground-level door, though.

FFS, I'm not telling you not to vote for the president. I'm telling you you are spending 1,000x more brain power than is cost effective given the resulting advantage you gain. It's literally economics. Take most of this time and attention you're spending on the presidential race and devote it literally any other political issue, and BAM! +EV.

[wufwugy]

They cast their votes before the polls are closed in many states.
I cited a reference to a case where an elector did not vote in favor of their constituency.

How can you make this assertion in good conscience?

Regarding that which is relevant for your argument that our votes dont elect because of electors, this doesn't matter, because the correlation of electors voting the way the popular vote goes is virtually indistinguishable from 1 to 1.

Your argument is that engaging in the hubbub that surrounds a presidential election is of great benefit to society.

I'm not arguing that.

My point is that it is a (nearly complete) waste of your time and attention to engage in that one political conversation when literally every other political conversation you can engage in has more opportunity for you to incite a change which directly affects your life.

You think I'm saying the matter of who is the president doesn't matter. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that the matter of who is president is only affected by the general citizenry in fractions of a percent at best. Whereas, your letters to your congressmen will directly affect their policies, your vote for president has only indirect affect at best. Sometimes it blatantly has none.

I'm saying that if "America needs a fixin'," it's the political apathy and the sense of being entitled to good governance. Good governance requires an active citizenry. When the citizens only wake up to chatter about politics once every four years over the single most trivial thing they could affect change in... WTF, man?

And what to do about it?

This is where I perceive the line on scale is. This lesson is in poker. Local elections are like when the pot is small but you have big enough odds to win to continue; national elections are like when the pot is enormous but you have tiny odds to win (yet still enough to continue).

Sure, the smaller the scale, the more one person can change it, but also, at least in this context, the less the change matters. The importance of the President on people as individuals is vastly underrated BTW. A good President can stop a depression. A bad one can create one.

I'm saying that your vote doesn't count because it literally doesn't count.

Color me confused.

I bet you're not so cavalier about your belief in gravity when you're deciding whether to exit your home through the upstairs window or the ground-level door, though.

My statement is relevant when it is not a situation like this.

It is clearly the case that voting matters. Some claim otherwise using tools that don't tell much of the story.

FFS, I'm not telling you not to vote for the president. I'm telling you you are spending 1,000x more brain power than is cost effective given the resulting advantage you gain. It's literally economics. Take most of this time and attention you're spending on the presidential race and devote it literally any other political issue, and BAM! +EV.

Since you're going the route of economics: utility. I get far more utility from presidential elections than others.

If we're thinking in terms of hypothetical optimization of benefits and costs, your line of logic here is reasonable in that I would get way more out things if instead of caring about politics I would instead only focus on my tiny world of my personal life. That's a different issue than the one I've addressed, though.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Since you're going the route of economics: utility. I get far more utility from presidential elections than others.

Yes, absolutely. No one is saying otherwise.
The utility you gain is not in question, it's the utility you enact which is in question.

Plus, you're doing actual harm by ignoring every other political issue worth discussing at this time.
Like the uncivilized way the MO legislature is trying to screw poor people out of their votes, for instance.
I'm sure there are plenty of meaningful issues on the ballot besides the presidency you will cast a vote on.

What are they?

What is going on in the political world besides the presidency?
Specifically anything you care about and/or will be voting on.

If we're thinking in terms of hypothetical optimization of benefits and costs, your line of logic here is reasonable in that I would get way more out things if instead of caring about politics I would instead only focus on my tiny world of my personal life. That's a different issue than the one I've addressed, though.

That's literally the opposite of what I'm saying.

I'm saying you'll get way more out of life if you participate in politics.
Not once every 4 years, but on a regular basis.
Not one political decision, but many.
Not merely the top of the pyramid, but every layer.

Do you think it's by chance that our choices for presidential candidates are spiraling?
No one is caring about the entire rest of the process except the beauty show (ugly show) at the end.

What else in politics will you be voting on?
What are the nuances of the issue?
What motivates your position?

[Poopadoop]

Is there any recorded instance of the electoral college going against the popular vote? There's a lot of things that are legal, doesn't mean people will do them...

[wufwugy]

Is there any recorded instance of the electoral college going against the popular vote? There's a lot of things that are legal, doesn't mean people will do them...

If there was (I assume there probably is), it would change the math behind the idea of voting in an unnoticeably small way.

[Poopadoop]

If there was (I assume there probably is), it would change the math behind the idea of voting in an unnoticeably small way.

I agree. It's hard to go down much from 'practically zero'.