Comments on: Voting Is Irrational http://www.markpneyer.com/wp/2008/08/22/voting-is-irrational/ Finding Interesting, Useful, and Beautiful Mathematical Patterns in the Universe Thu, 26 Jan 2012 02:40:30 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Maggie’s Blog » Blog Archive » Ms Placed Democrat » Washington State Says Screw Off! http://www.markpneyer.com/wp/2008/08/22/voting-is-irrational/comment-page-1/#comment-304 Maggie’s Blog » Blog Archive » Ms Placed Democrat » Washington State Says Screw Off! Sat, 14 Feb 2009 06:22:22 +0000 http://markpneyer.com/wp/2008/08/22/voting-is-irrational/#comment-304 [...] Voting Is Irrational « MarkPNeyer.com [...] [...] Voting Is Irrational « MarkPNeyer.com [...]

]]> By: Tim Tepe http://www.markpneyer.com/wp/2008/08/22/voting-is-irrational/comment-page-1/#comment-292 Tim Tepe Thu, 16 Oct 2008 13:26:27 +0000 http://markpneyer.com/wp/2008/08/22/voting-is-irrational/#comment-292 I can't hope to disagree with the math, so I wont try. What I can say is that I think a decrease in federalism has absolutely made American electoral politics a zero-sum game. All of the energy is placed upon the office of the executive, which is of course not the way that the system was designed. I would argue that a major devolution of federal power is JUST what the spin doctor ordered if this country's political system is ever going to get itself on the right track. I think that Rex has a point about primary voting. It definitely matters in the primaries because one vote can certainly affect the outcome of someone else's vote. Speaking practically, I voted for Ron Paul because when I saw that McCain was winning, I realized that it was a total crapshoot. All I would add is that voting, while maybe an irrational game, is an essential game if people are goign to be willing to participate in the larger game of democracy (represenative). But that's not really your point here, just an added thought I can’t hope to disagree with the math, so I wont try. What I can say is that I think a decrease in federalism has absolutely made American electoral politics a zero-sum game. All of the energy is placed upon the office of the executive, which is of course not the way that the system was designed. I would argue that a major devolution of federal power is JUST what the spin doctor ordered if this country’s political system is ever going to get itself on the right track.

I think that Rex has a point about primary voting. It definitely matters in the primaries because one vote can certainly affect the outcome of someone else’s vote. Speaking practically, I voted for Ron Paul because when I saw that McCain was winning, I realized that it was a total crapshoot.

All I would add is that voting, while maybe an irrational game, is an essential game if people are goign to be willing to participate in the larger game of democracy (represenative). But that’s not really your point here, just an added thought

]]> By: Rex http://www.markpneyer.com/wp/2008/08/22/voting-is-irrational/comment-page-1/#comment-293 Rex Fri, 22 Aug 2008 23:36:08 +0000 http://markpneyer.com/wp/2008/08/22/voting-is-irrational/#comment-293 Interesting points, Mark. I wonder how much the high cost of running a modern campaign and the current paradigm of a dominant two-party system influences that. I mean, if running a campaign was able to cost less, more parties would be able to run a candidate, and fewer votes would be needed for a straight majority, perhaps increasing the apparent value of one single vote. It would be also interesting to consider the secondary effects of a single vote that could increase its value. For example, if a candidate wins the primary in a state whose primary is early in the season, that in turn influences voters who vote later in their respective primaries. Additionally, I think that the modern media has a large role in influencing voters through campaign commercials and political analysis, and i'd be interested in hearing what you have to say about that. Additionally, the math in your example is somewhat incorrect. Due to the electoral college, the voting pool is really somewhat smaller. For primaries, the pool would only be those member's of your political party in your state (plus the random people who come to vote from out of state if you have open primaries and those who cross-vote during primaries, i'm not sure if either one is significant enough to matter) and during the final election it would just be the total population in the state. So, essentially, we have a very limited system that is somewhat similar to what you are describing. Interesting points, Mark. I wonder how much the high cost of running a modern campaign and the current paradigm of a dominant two-party system influences that. I mean, if running a campaign was able to cost less, more parties would be able to run a candidate, and fewer votes would be needed for a straight majority, perhaps increasing the apparent value of one single vote. It would be also interesting to consider the secondary effects of a single vote that could increase its value. For example, if a candidate wins the primary in a state whose primary is early in the season, that in turn influences voters who vote later in their respective primaries. Additionally, I think that the modern media has a large role in influencing voters through campaign commercials and political analysis, and i’d be interested in hearing what you have to say about that.

Additionally, the math in your example is somewhat incorrect. Due to the electoral college, the voting pool is really somewhat smaller. For primaries, the pool would only be those member’s of your political party in your state (plus the random people who come to vote from out of state if you have open primaries and those who cross-vote during primaries, i’m not sure if either one is significant enough to matter) and during the final election it would just be the total population in the state. So, essentially, we have a very limited system that is somewhat similar to what you are describing.

]]>