The Race For 2024

[Jimmy Higgins]

What’s a BETTER alternative than voting for Biden?
What will YOU do?

I know my vote won't change anything. I know this even though I was told my 3rd party vote in California is the reason Hillary lost in 2016.

Since my vote won't change anything, I have no reason to hold my nose and select a lesser evil. I'm voting 3rd party again.

This is why it would make more sense to elect presidents by a popular nationwide vote rather than have 50 states send electors to Washington DC

My vote still wouldn't have changed anything.

I was thinking more about how you framed the significance of voting in California. A popular vote isn't about guaranteeing change, but your vote might be different in an election where it could affect the election outcome. The fact is that, barring unusual circumstances, you only have two choices--Biden or Trump. Voting won't change that, and not voting won't change it either. Hence, a vote for a third party candidate is equivalent to not voting at all. You live in California, where many conservative libertarians may prefer not to bother voting at all. So your impact in that state is diminished even further. I know libertarians in Michigan that plan to vote for Biden, not the Libertarian candidate, because voting for the so-called "lesser evil" makes more sense there. The election will be much closer, and it could determine the outcome of the national election. Your vote in California doesn't make any difference, because California is sure to give all of its electors to Biden anyway.

The vote spread between the two candidates is sufficiently large that there's no way mathematically that my vote makes a difference under either system.

The chances of your vote being the deciding difference is near zero. The chances of your vote making a difference is much greater than zero. People seem to not understand this significance.

 

[Swammerdami]

There was one VERY close election: it was in 2000 where Bush-43 took Florida in a squeaker. Let's do the numbers.

There were six million voters in Florida (6% of the electorate) and because the count was VERY close, the margin was 537 votes. Roughly speaking a Florida voter had, individually, about a 0.083% chance of settling the election. If we assume that the person assessing the probability thinks a razor-thin election is likely, but doesn't know whether the voter's state is a key swing state, we can call it a one-in-20,000 chance of swinging the election.

But that's for an extremely close election. More plausible is to say you have one chance in-a-million to affect the outcome in a swing state, zero if not a swing state.

Is it unusual that a SINGLE state will decide the election? Elections are EXTREMELY close overall -- especially in SOME venues -- in post-rational Amerika. There is indeed a reason for this! If the election is close but red-shirts are winning, things may go peacefully. The winning margin is whatever. But a close election that favors blue-shirts will be quite different. Red-shirts will litigate, throw accusations of cheating, and cheat themselves. The result is that close elections are more common than normal statistics would suggest.

Here's a moral dilemma. Suppose a voter lives in a swing state; is planning to vote; but is offered $10 not to vote. He says $10 cash is worth more to him than a lottery long-shot at selecting POTUS and accepts the offer. (But $9 would not be enough.)

But if gambling expectations are linear, and the chance is one-in-a-thousand instead of one-in-a-million would he need $10,000 not to vote? Or $10 million if offered the fact (1-out-of-one) of declaring the POTUS winner?

There are various ways to frame the scenario. Ask a Trump supporter if he would take $150,000 if he would agree to make Biden winner. Explain that it's the only way to "stop Trump." Most would accept the offer (at least if they could keep it secret from their friends). Yet (assuming linearity) that means he considers his normal vote to be worth only 15¢ (or even less in a non-swing state), hardly worth the expense and bother of starting his car engine.

 

[bilby]

My vote is valueless, but our votes are what decides who is in power.

For any value of "our" that is sufficiently in agreement with my views as to prevent me from prepending a "y".

If any one of the people who worked on the pyramids had not shown up, it would have made very little difference. But if none had shown up, Egypt would't have any massive pointy mausoleums.

Despite the prevalence of the daft idea that individuals are all that matters, societies and groups do exist, and are real and powerful.

 

[ZiprHead]

Supreme Court rejects appeals to review sanctions against Trump-allied lawyers over 2020 election case

The money is owed to the state and Detroit, for their costs in defending the lawsuit. The sanctions initially totaled $175,000, but a federal appeals court reduced them by about $25,000.

www.pbs.org

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected an appeal from Sidney Powell and other lawyers allied with former President Donald Trump over $150,000 in sanctions they were ordered to pay for abusing the court system with a sham lawsuit challenging the 2020 election results in Michigan.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

The vote spread between the two candidates is sufficiently large that there's no way mathematically that my vote makes a difference under either system.

You're not the only vote that might make a difference though. Imagine if everyone thought their vote wouldn't make a difference.

The vote spread between the two candidates is sufficiently large that there's no way mathematically that my vote makes a difference under either system.

Oh, well, because there are so many who are not thinking as you you. If 200,000 all agreed with you, that would no longer be true.

When talking with my fellow libertarians, every time one of them starts a sentence with "if we got everyone to do X" I tell them they're dreaming. That's because they are.

 

[Swammerdami]

I agree that gerrymandering should be done away with. Next, how about Illinois?

Wuddabout this? Wuddabout that? Wuddabout, wuddabout, wuddabout blah-blah-blah?

For someone who frequently complains about "whataboutism" you may be the worst offender on the Board!

Did Democrats gerrymander in the PAST? You betcha! Is there at least some effort by D's to gerrymander in the PRESENT? Probably.

BUT in the PRESENT-DAY, GOP gerrymandering is at least ten times as egregious as Dem gerrymandering.
Did you really not even know this?

I'd link to proofs for the claim, but we know you're in a bubble and aren't interested in facts -- you wallow in wilful ignorance. I wish we had a betting shop here. Settle on an amount -- $10,000? $20,000? What would it take to stifle you? -- and an "escrow agent" and play "Put up or Shut up" on some of your laughable pretenses.

 

[Swammerdami]

There was one VERY close election: it was in 2000 where Bush-43 took Florida in a squeaker. Let's do the numbers.
... If we assume that the person assessing the probability thinks a razor-thin election is likely, but doesn't know whether the voter's state is a key swing state, we can call it a one-in-20,000 chance of swinging the election.

But that's for an extremely close election. More plausible is to say you have one chance in-a-million to affect the outcome in a swing state, zero if not a swing state.
... Here's a moral dilemma. Suppose a voter lives in a swing state; is planning to vote; but is offered $10 not to vote. He says $10 cash is worth more to him than a lottery long-shot at selecting POTUS and accepts the offer. (But $9 would not be enough.)

... Ask a Trump supporter if he would take $150,000 if he would agree to make Biden winner. Explain that it's the only way to "stop Trump." Most would accept the offer (at least if they could keep it secret from their friends). Yet (assuming linearity) that means he considers his normal vote to be worth only 15¢ (or even less in a non-swing state), hardly worth the expense and bother of starting his car engine.

Nobody responded to my post. What I demonstrate is that (ignoring issues on the ballot other than POTUS) mathematically it is simply NOT worth the bother to vote. The minutes wasted could be better spent, e.g. by writing a letter to your Congressperson. This is a good reason for making voting MANDATORY.

It's a "secret" we must be hush-hush about. We do NOT litter despite that our bother of finding a trash-bin outweighs the unit harm to OURSELVES. It's an application of the Golden Rule. Similarly we "should" vote (cf. Golden Rule) even though it is economically irrational to vote!

The vote spread between the two candidates is sufficiently large that there's no way mathematically that my vote makes a difference under either system.

You're not the only vote that might make a difference though. Imagine if everyone thought their vote wouldn't make a difference.

The vote spread between the two candidates is sufficiently large that there's no way mathematically that my vote makes a difference under either system.

Mathematics is more precise than you imagine. Very small but non-zero numbers do exist! But if don't live in a swing state the chance can indeed be well-approximated as zero.

 

[Copernicus]

I keep thinking that there might be an election where my favored candidate wins by just one vote. I'd love for that to be my vote, but, with my luck, it would probably be some other voter's vote. It all depends on who would be the last person to cast a vote for my candidate on that day, so I'm wondering if I should try to vote very late in the day. Then I remembered that we all vote by mail in my state, so it seems hopeless. No matter what I do, my vote likely won't be the one that counts.

 

[Politesse]

The vote spread between the two candidates is sufficiently large that there's no way mathematically that my vote makes a difference under either system.

You're not the only vote that might make a difference though. Imagine if everyone thought their vote wouldn't make a difference.

The vote spread between the two candidates is sufficiently large that there's no way mathematically that my vote makes a difference under either system.

Oh, well, because there are so many who are not thinking as you you. If 200,000 all agreed with you, that would no longer be true.

When talking with my fellow libertarians, every time one of them starts a sentence with "if we got everyone to do X" I tell them they're dreaming. That's because they are.

And yet libertarians are routinely talked into things that they heard on tv or what have you. Clearly, someone knows how to coordinate mass social actions, even within communities that pride themselves on individualism.

 

[bilby]

I keep thinking that there might be an election where my favored candidate wins by just one vote. I'd love for that to be my vote, but, with my luck, it would probably be some other voter's vote. It all depends on who would be the last person to cast a vote for my candidate on that day, so I'm wondering if I should try to vote very late in the day. Then I remembered that we all vote by mail in my state, so it seems hopeless. No matter what I do, my vote likely won't be the one that counts.

In democracy, it's your vote that counts. In feudalism, it's your Count that votes.

 

[Playball40]

There was one VERY close election: it was in 2000 where Bush-43 took Florida in a squeaker. Let's do the numbers.

There were six million voters in Florida (6% of the electorate) and because the count was VERY close, the margin was 537 votes. Roughly speaking a Florida voter had, individually, about a 0.083% chance of settling the election. If we assume that the person assessing the probability thinks a razor-thin election is likely, but doesn't know whether the voter's state is a key swing state, we can call it a one-in-20,000 chance of swinging the election.

But that's for an extremely close election. More plausible is to say you have one chance in-a-million to affect the outcome in a swing state, zero if not a swing state.

Is it unusual that a SINGLE state will decide the election? Elections are EXTREMELY close overall -- especially in SOME venues -- in post-rational Amerika. There is indeed a reason for this! If the election is close but red-shirts are winning, things may go peacefully. The winning margin is whatever. But a close election that favors blue-shirts will be quite different. Red-shirts will litigate, throw accusations of cheating, and cheat themselves. The result is that close elections are more common than normal statistics would suggest.

Here's a moral dilemma. Suppose a voter lives in a swing state; is planning to vote; but is offered $10 not to vote. He says $10 cash is worth more to him than a lottery long-shot at selecting POTUS and accepts the offer. (But $9 would not be enough.)

But if gambling expectations are linear, and the chance is one-in-a-thousand instead of one-in-a-million would he need $10,000 not to vote? Or $10 million if offered the fact (1-out-of-one) of declaring the POTUS winner?

There are various ways to frame the scenario. Ask a Trump supporter if he would take $150,000 if he would agree to make Biden winner. Explain that it's the only way to "stop Trump." Most would accept the offer (at least if they could keep it secret from their friends). Yet (assuming linearity) that means he considers his normal vote to be worth only 15¢ (or even less in a non-swing state), hardly worth the expense and bother of starting his car engine.

Except he didn't.

 

[bilby]

The fact that more people in Florida voted for Gore, but Bush was declared the winner, puts the lie to the idea that close run elections are decided by the small numbers of voters in the eventual declared margin of victory.

As with all large scale measuring efforts, there is always a margin of error; Even in the absence of bad actors, recounts typically lead to a different count than the original (indeed I cannot recall a single case where a recount didn't give different totals from the original count.

Any election where the result is close might as well be decided by a coin-toss. That's one reason why it would be far better to require a do-over if no candidate gets a supermajority, (say 60 or 65 percent of the vote) on a two candidate preferred basis. Instant run-off voting would allow this to be determined for ballots with any number of candidates; A two party system is not required.

If nobody can get a 2cp margin of 60%, then none of the candidates are popular enough to sensibly represent the constituency. At which point, you should go looking for some better candidates, rather than trying to choose between two equally unpopular options.

 

[Derec]

Actually, I read that district is actually not remotely as gerrymandered as it appears (and it certainly appears to be). It is a minority district, I think Latino.

A gerrymandered district is no less gerrymandered just because it benefits an ethnic group Democrats like.
Illinois in general is ridiculously gerrymandered in favor of Democrats. In the 2022 midterms, Ds got 56.1% of the vote but 82.4% of the seats (a Δ of 16.3 percentage points).

You wanna talk gerrymander, check out Ohio.

Ohio is not nearly as bad as Illinois.
56.4% of the vote, but 2/3 (66.7%) of the seats (a Δ of 10.3).

Seriously, when the Dems win in a landslide in the House, their majority is smaller than when the Republicans win in a landslide.

A lot of that is due to demographics and geography. Urban areas favorable to Democrats tend to be more heavily lopsided.

That tells you all you need to know about who gerrymanders the most. If California gerrymandered like Texas, the House would look quite a bit different.

Texas is not that bad actually. 58.8% of the vote, 65.8% of the seats (a Δ of 7.0).
California is 63.3% of the vote, but 76.9% of the seats (a Δ of 13.6).
California seems to be gerrymandering far more than Texas.

In the end, we should do away with the medieval idea of districts and move to a proportional representation system anyway.

 

[Derec]

Here is what they tried to pull off.

I don't see how these districts look worse than the worms and salamanders in the Illinois map. And the election numbers (Δ between vote and seat percentages) shows that Ohio is not as heavily gerrymandered as California and especially Illinois, which is a case of extreme gerrymander.

 

[Derec]

The irony that the (f)rightwing won't admit to is that all the states with fair (non-partisan, using some sort of process instead of politics) districting are all Dem.

And the (c)leftwing won't admit that in the states where Dems have the majority in the state legislature and are allowed to gerrymander, they do so in an extreme fashion. They do so in Illinois. They tried to do it in NY, but got rebuked by the courts. The court is now more heavily biased toward the left, so they are trying to do an extreme gerrymander again.

But for the record, I do think all states should have an impartial redistricting process, or even better, move to a districtless proportional representation system.

 

[Derec]

BUT in the PRESENT-DAY, GOP gerrymandering is at least ten times as egregious as Dem gerrymandering.

[citation needed]
Illinois is as gerrymandered as they come. Show me a state that is 10x more gerrymandered.

Did you really not even know this?

I did not. I also did not know the Moon is a space dragon egg, that the Earth is flat, or that socialism is a viable economic system. That's because all these claims, including your claim about gerrymandering, are bullshit.

I'd link to proofs for the claim, but we know you're in a bubble and aren't interested in facts -- you wallow in wilful ignorance.

Please, show me that supposed "proof". I would very much like to see it.

I suspect it is about as real as Principal Skinner's Aurora Borealis ...

I wish we had a betting shop here. Settle on an amount -- $10,000? $20,000? What would it take to stifle you? -- and an "escrow agent" and play "Put up or Shut up" on some of your laughable pretenses.

Sure. But I'll hold you to your actual claim.

BUT in the PRESENT-DAY, GOP gerrymandering is at least ten times as egregious as Dem gerrymandering.

No trying to weasel out. Illinois gerrymander resulted in a >16 percentage point Δ between votes and seats in the last Congressional elections. A 160 percentage point Δ is impossible. You have lost already. Kindly pay up.

 

[laughing dog]

The irony that the (f)rightwing won't admit to is that all the states with fair (non-partisan, using some sort of process instead of politics) districting are all Dem.

And the (c)leftwing won't admit that in the states where Dems have the majority in the state legislature and are allowed to gerrymander, they do so in an extreme fashion. They do so in Illinois. They tried to do it in NY, but got rebuked by the courts. The court is now more heavily biased toward the left, so they are trying to do an extreme gerrymander again.

But for the record, I do think all states should have an impartial redistricting process, or even better, move to a districtless proportional representation system.

But until that day, it’ll be “Yes, but whatabout those evil leftist Democrats!”

 

[Derec]

But until that day, it’ll be “Yes, but whatabout those evil leftist Democrats!”

It's "pox on both their houses".
To pretend that gerrymandering is solely (or chiefly) a Republican problem is to be willfully blind.

 

[laughing dog]

But until that day, it’ll be “Yes, but whatabout those evil leftist Democrats!”

It's "pox on both their houses".
To pretend that gerrymandering is solely (or chiefly) a Republican problem is to be willfully blind.

True. But exclusively “whatabout those Democrats” makes your “both houses” claim appear hypocritical.

 

[Derec]

True. But exclusively “whatabout those Democrats” makes your “both houses” claim appear hypocritical.

I am not making exclusive claims. I am just correcting the misleading claims by the likes of Jimmy and Swammy.