patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,189,962 comments by 13,851 users - porkchopXpress, stereotomy online now
invite responseComments 1 - 18 of 18 Search these comments
Yes, everyone stop voting so my vote counts more, and hopefully is the only one that counts. Don't worry, Stephen Colbert will make a great president.
In the business world, companies and individuals are assumed to be rational decision makers. The basis of all their decisions is an analysis between marginal costs and marginal productivity.
If only it was true and that simple! but its not! there is lots of EGO!
Essentially the winner is chosen by the largest group of irrational decision makers
Yes ! Carter and Obama come to mind.
skinnyninja
2012 Jun 27, 12:36am
Someone refute this please because I have thought this way my whole life and everyone tells me I am a moron.
I know that the margin of victory will not be a single vote so why should I bother to invest my time?
Would I not be better served writing a blog post to try to influence multiple voters, rather than to drive to the voting station myself?
Humans are irrational beings
When we find instance of a human acting rationally, we call them crazy and lock them away. Emotions drive decision making. people vote for whichever candidate they'd prefer to be sodomized by. People that claim to be rational need to be forced to take psychotropic drugs
Tenpoundbass
2012 Jun 27, 1:48am
It's very rational that I would rather take my chances with a Mormon out souring pioneer, that believes corporations are people, than to take my chances with the megalomaniac in office.
marcus
2012 Jun 27, 2:36am
One doesn't have to look very far to find the kind of gullibility or outright stupidity that tells you exactly why we are doomed by citizens united.
(and the propaganda that convinces so many dimbulbs of exactly what they want to believe)
freak80
2012 Jun 27, 2:59am
One doesn't have to look very far to find the kind of gullibility or outright stupidity that tells you exactly why we are doomed by citizens united.
(and the propaganda that convinces so many dimbulbs of exactly what they want to believe)
God Bless America.
Tenpoundbass
2012 Jun 27, 5:04am
Why do you folks have a problem with Citizens united but not with Unions that spend millions or billions, even against some of their card members wishes on a candidate?
I welcome Citizens united it's going to be just the thing we need to create a serious multiparty system(more than two) in this country.
If the Conservatives can generate enough money to silence the Left(Which I highly doubt, the left own the whole frequency spectrum that broadcasts every thing from television to radio signals) and can disenfranchise them and marginalize them to the point that their choice doesn't matter. I say "GET SOME!" welcome to the party asshole, how does it feel.
Now about that thing you said about Nader...
marcus
2012 Jun 27, 5:20am
Unions that spend millions or billions
Billions ? really ?
I welcome Citizens united it's going to be just the thing we need to create a serious multiparty system(more than two) in this country.
We are going to have one party. Sure if one corporations interests are in conflict with another they will be in a bidding war for their guy (not party) to win.
But if you think that the 2 parties are clase to the same now ? Just wait.
Also, do you really think the unions ever had so much influence that they could dominate corporate interests ? They neve could but with Citizens united, they won't even be heard from anymore.
The thing that's really stupid about your point of view, is that you want is a trajectory to swing us so so far to the right that there will only be two possiblilities:
1) either eventual revolution bringing about the communism that you supposedly don't want
2) serfdom for the masses and a fascist police state dictatorship to keep the masses in place.
FortWayne
2012 Jun 27, 5:28am
If people stop voting, we won't have leaders accountable to anyone. Voting isn't for irrational, it's for everyone who has cares about the outcome.
Tenpoundbass
2012 Jun 27, 6:01am
The thing that's really stupid about your point of view
You know, it never gets old having a Liberal call me Stupid.
Let me know how that works out for you.
FNWGMOBDVZXDNW
2012 Jun 27, 6:16am
If there are 10,000 voters, your probability of having a vote count is much greater than 2/10,000. You would know this if you were not stupid and you thought about it for a second.
If 10,000 voters flip a coin and vote accordingly, the winner is likely to win by something like 1/ sqrt(10,000) = 100 votes. So, there would be a 1% chance of changing the result. If the votes are not random, of course things change.
And, when people come from a very liberal or very conservative state, they may be more likely to stay at home or go have a protest vote for 3rd party. There are also local elections, so if people go for the local election, they may as well pull the national lever. There are more results to an election than if the pres wins or loses.
freak80
2012 Jun 27, 7:12am
If people stop voting, we won't have leaders accountable to anyone. Voting isn't for irrational, it's for everyone who has cares about the outcome.
Voting doesn't matter. Politicians aren't going to stop taking bribes just because people vote.
freak80
2012 Jun 27, 7:12am
Lisa Simpson: one nation, under the dollar, with liberty and justice for no-one.
Someone refute this please because I have thought this way my whole life and everyone tells me I am a moron.
I know that the margin of victory will not be a single vote so why should I bother to invest my time?
Would I not be better served writing a blog post to try to influence multiple voters, rather than to drive to the voting station myself?
What is irrational is that presidential elections have bigger turnout than off season local issue ones. As stated by OP, your chances of making the difference are better in the latter, but more people vote in the former.
As for presidential elections, it still may be economically rational for the following reasons - if the good citizens vote and expect you to, you may be considered anti-social and not a good citizen for not voting, which could cost you in your personal and even business life. So it's rational to vote. And I never line up and stand next to smelly people - I vote from home, by mail.
Also in presidential election years, there are still dog catchers and local measures and judges and what not on the ballot, so you need to vote for those, because you might influence those races more so than the presidential one.
But to vote for these smaller races, you have to be informed or research, since they are little discussed. Therefore, I am not a proponent of GET OUT THE VOTE! or ROCK THE VOTE! since this encourages people who don't know anything to show up and vote in large numbers. And when that happens, we get Obama.
Dan8267
2012 Jun 28, 11:53am
Voting doesn't scale. A continuous feedback system where your individual choices affect you more than they affect others is needed. This gives people the power to shape their environment by simply doing what is natural.
The United States' political democracy elects their leaders based on the largest number of irrational thinkers. This can easily be proven! In the business world, companies and individuals are assumed to be rational decision makers. The basis of all their decisions is an analysis between marginal costs and marginal productivity. When marginal costs exceed marginal productivity, the action will NOT take place. When marginal productivity is higher or equal to marginal costs, the action occurs. Again, this is assuming they are rational.
So, the only way for voting to be a productive endeavor is if the election is won by 1 vote. The probability of this occurring is very slim. If the vote is won or lost by 2, 20, or 2,000 votes, the individual’s vote had no influence to the outcome of the election and therefore had a productivity of 0. With a thousand voters, the probability of influencing the election is about a 0.2% chance. With 10,000 voters the probability is about 0.02% chance. So, this means that because each individual knows going into voting that there will be about 10,000 voters, they must understand that their individual vote will be of no influence to the outcome, 0 productivity. There were 0 gains from voting, yet there were considerable costs.
This means that with 10,000 voters, the probability of the marginal productivity being greater than 0 is 0.02% chance. Anyone who assumes considerable costs; gas, time, registering, waiting in line, and being close to smelly people, for a probability of 0.02% chance of having a marginal productivity greater than 0, is irrational! Again, since marginal costs will exceed marginal productivity 99.98% of the time, it would not be rational to vote! Each person could use that time and energy to actually produce value for themselves.
This is a major flaw in the U.S. political atmosphere. Essentially the winner is chosen by the largest group of irrational decision makers. This indicates that the exact opposite opponent probably should have been elected!