Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Should I Vote in IL's GOP Primary?Follow

#1 Mar 07 2012 at 10:06 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Illinois looks like it'll actually be relevant this primary season as Romney battles for Chicago area voters vs Santorum looking for more conservative downstate votes. Illinois has an open primary so I can vote whatever ticket I want and I don't believe the Democratic House primary in my district is seriously contested.

Should I cast a ballot in the GOP primary?
Yes, for whoever I think would be the best GOP candidate to govern:16 (41.0%)
Yes, for whoever I think would be the easiest GOP candidate to defeat:14 (35.9%)
No, there's a moral/ethical issue with you voting in the Republican primary when you oppose all the candidates:8 (20.5%)
No, for some other reason:1 (2.6%)
Total:39
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#2 Mar 07 2012 at 10:08 AM Rating: Good
******
43,987 posts
Go for it. Treat it like vacation time without having to take vacation time.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#3 Mar 07 2012 at 10:18 AM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
I'm somewhere between option 1 and 3, I personally wouldn't vote because I don't support any of them but if you vote, at least vote for who you think will be the best candidate and not to "sabotage" the GOP.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#4 Mar 07 2012 at 10:30 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,065 posts
In my crazy little world it seems a bit ethically incorrect to vote for someone for the purposes mentioned above.

On the flipside, its not forbidden in the EULA, so if you fail to vote you're not utilizing your full voting potential.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#5 Mar 07 2012 at 10:39 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,892 posts
Vote for Ron Paul. It'll make interesting conversation.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#6 Mar 07 2012 at 10:39 AM Rating: Decent
*****
19,898 posts
Voting for the one you think would be best seems fair to me. Voting for sabotage seems wrong, especially when you consider the fact that Santorum could win both elections. Unlikely, but possible.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#7 Mar 07 2012 at 1:20 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,982 posts
Vote for the fire hydrant at the corner of Kimball and Fullerton in Logan Square.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#8 Mar 07 2012 at 1:34 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
That'll need to be a write-in.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#9 Mar 07 2012 at 2:46 PM Rating: Good
**
697 posts
Wait...Illinois?

Just do what you always do.

Vote early and often.
____________________________
Shadechaos of Seraph Bismarck
R.I.P. Cindy 2.26.56 - 4.18.13
~She made a difference~
#10 Mar 07 2012 at 3:19 PM Rating: Excellent
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,063 posts
RaiseIII wrote:
Wait...Illinois?

Just do what you always do.

Vote early and often.

That's only for mayoral and gubernatorial elections!

Rahm totally killed the dead demographic, too.
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I'm biased against statistics

#11 Mar 07 2012 at 6:04 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,264 posts
Quote:
Rahm totally killed the dead demographic, too.


Well, to be fair, it was looking at him funny.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#12 Mar 07 2012 at 6:18 PM Rating: Good
******
43,987 posts
Yeah, but did he get 1,482 from 1,389 people?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#13 Mar 07 2012 at 6:22 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,264 posts
Some of them were Hindus. Reincarnation = more votes!

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#14 Mar 07 2012 at 8:04 PM Rating: Excellent
Repressed Memories
******
20,582 posts
Option 1. Any other choice is a probabilistic injury to yourself. A very simple rule of thumb for voting is that you should always vote whenever possible and always vote for your most preferred option.

The reason to do so is as follows. Your overall most preferred candidate, that being the one you want to see ultimately win the election, has a certain degree to which you'd prefer he'd win. You might like him a lot or you might like him a little, but there is some value that he is worth to you. This is akin to the pay off on a bet. To assign arbitrary numbers, he/she could be worth $20 to you or $100, and whatever this amount is it is the highest pay off available to you in your betting pool. Let's say this is Jophiel making the bet and that Obama is his primary choice. Since the Democrat candidate is decided we can ignore other democratic candidates. Obama is worth $50 to Jophiel.

Now Jophiel has the decision whether to vote in the GOP primary or which candidate to vote for if he choose to do so. Each of these candidates is not Jophiel's most preferred candidate, and therefore presents an opportunity cost. This is akin to the value of losing a bet. Let's simplify it to just 2 candidates: Mitt and Rick. The same is true regardless of the size of the candidate pool. Let's pretend that of these two Jophiel prefers Mitt over Rick. Mitt is worth -$30 to Jopiel and Rick is worth -$70. First of all, Jophiel must vote. To not vote is stating that all options are equally preferable to you, which is almost never true. So Jophiel must vote, who does he vote for? Any vote Jophiel casts increases the candidates odds of winning the primary, and since this is the most he can do to affect the primary results this is akin to picking a candidate to win the primary. So we can simplify this to saying Jophiel gets to straight up pick the winner of teh GOP primary, wow you've got a lot of connections Jophiel.

So who does Jophiel pick? Jophiel has already decided he will vote for Obama in the general election, so now all he can do is choose who Obama faces. Each candidate is polling differently against Obama, and we can say that this reflects their odds of winning against Obama. So picking a candidate is akin to choosing the probabilities of getting Obama over the candidate you picked. It seems then that the simple logic is to pick the opponent which gives Obama the best chance of winning. This is the logic behind "Yes, for whoever I think would be the easiest GOP candidate to defeat." This is bad logic. To show this, let's assign an arbitrary win chance of Obama agaisnt these candidates.

Obama versus Mitt - 55/45%
Obama versus Rick - 60/40%

Ah, but as any gambler knows, you don't just need the odds, you need the payoffs.

Obama versus Mitt - $50 @ 55% / -$30 @ 45%
Obama versus Rick - $50 @ 60% / -$70 @ 40%

So let's do the math.

Obama versus Mitt - ($50*55%=$27.5) + (-$30*45%=-$13.5) = $14 average
Obama versus Rick - ($50*60%=$30) + (-$70*40%=-$28) = $2 average

This is why picking the easiest candidate to defeat isn't always the best option. Because while you increase the odds of the outcome you want, you potentially risk an outcome that is much, much worse. It can be a riskier gamble.



However, I only proved that picking the easiest candidate to defeat isn't always the best option when earlier I said always vote for your most preferred option. Any basic logician can see the first doesn't necessarily imply the second, so now we move on to how I got there.

I presented a case where unpreferred GOP candidate was someone Jophiel really didn't like (-$70 for Rick compared to -$30 for Mitt). But what if we kept the polling odds against Obama the same, but maybe we only like Mitt (now -$60) slightly more than Rick.

Obama versus Mitt - ($50*55%=$27.5) + (-$60*45%=-$27) = $0.5 average
Obama versus Rick - ($50*60%=$30) + (-$70*40%=-$28) = $2 average

Ah so in this case we do end up with averaging out better if we elect Rick in the primary to face off against Obama, even though we still like Mitt more than Rick. So why should we vote for Mitt?

Well, Rick is polling worse against Obama than Mitt, which means fewer people would vote for him, and thus he is the less preferred candidate by the nation. We've already said Jophiel gets to just pick the GOP primary winner, so let's say we let a Republican pick the Dem primary winner the next time an election is up. What happens if he uses the same strategy? Well we end up with 2 candidates who are each less preferred by the nation than either of the other two primary candidates and we are all worse off.

At this point the game becomes a prisoner's dilemma. If we all vote for the person who is easiest for our guy to beat we all lose. However, anyone who has study the prisoner's dilemma will know that one of the most effective strategies for playing it over an iterated session is tit for tat. That is, you cooperate as long as the other person cooperates and cheat when they cheat. You are willing to play nice, yet you aren't taken advantage of. This still clashes with always vote for your most preferred option. How do I resolve this?

Simply, punishment and cooperation in tit for tat only works if people understand what is going on. Punishing people when they don't understand what you're doing or why is pointless. That's why all of the logic posted here has to be boiled down into a consistent and unyielding command that can be easily communicated. People can accept "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" even if they don't understand the nuances behind it.

And thus concludes my very thorough proof of why we must all pick option 1.
#15 Mar 07 2012 at 8:10 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,905 posts
What if some evil admin comes in and edits option 1 so its actually option 5, and adds some sneaky option about voting for wombats instead?
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#16 Mar 07 2012 at 8:13 PM Rating: Excellent
Repressed Memories
******
20,582 posts
Then I'd have to write you a complaint letter so long and boring it'd make gbaji blush.
#17 Mar 08 2012 at 12:15 AM Rating: Excellent
Allegory wrote:
Then I'd have to write you a complaint letter so long and boring it'd make gbaji blush.
Statistical improbabilty.
____________________________
Allegory wrote:
Bijou your art is exceptionally creepy. It seems like their should be something menacing about it, yet no such tone is present.
#18 Mar 08 2012 at 5:13 AM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
Allegory wrote:
Then I'd have to write you a complaint letter so long and boring it'd make gbaji blush.
Statistical improbabilty.
I'm pretty sure Allegory can do it if he sets his mind to it.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#19 Mar 08 2012 at 6:39 AM Rating: Good
I voted for A, but C works also.
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#20 Mar 08 2012 at 7:28 AM Rating: Decent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,065 posts
Allegory wrote:
Option 1. Any other choice is a probabilistic injury to yourself. A very simple rule of thumb for voting is that you should always vote whenever possible and always vote for your most preferred option.

The reason to do so is as follows. Your overall most preferred candidate, that being the one you want to see ultimately win the election, has a certain degree to which you'd prefer he'd win. You might like him a lot or you might like him a little, but there is some value that he is worth to you. This is akin to the pay off on a bet. To assign arbitrary numbers, he/she could be worth $20 to you or $100, and whatever this amount is it is the highest pay off available to you in your betting pool. Let's say this is Jophiel making the bet and that Obama is his primary choice. Since the Democrat candidate is decided we can ignore other democratic candidates. Obama is worth $50 to Jophiel.

Now Jophiel has the decision whether to vote in the GOP primary or which candidate to vote for if he choose to do so. Each of these candidates is not Jophiel's most preferred candidate, and therefore presents an opportunity cost. This is akin to the value of losing a bet. Let's simplify it to just 2 candidates: Mitt and Rick. The same is true regardless of the size of the candidate pool. Let's pretend that of these two Jophiel prefers Mitt over Rick. Mitt is worth -$30 to Jopiel and Rick is worth -$70. First of all, Jophiel must vote. To not vote is stating that all options are equally preferable to you, which is almost never true. So Jophiel must vote, who does he vote for? Any vote Jophiel casts increases the candidates odds of winning the primary, and since this is the most he can do to affect the primary results this is akin to picking a candidate to win the primary. So we can simplify this to saying Jophiel gets to straight up pick the winner of teh GOP primary, wow you've got a lot of connections Jophiel.

So who does Jophiel pick? Jophiel has already decided he will vote for Obama in the general election, so now all he can do is choose who Obama faces. Each candidate is polling differently against Obama, and we can say that this reflects their odds of winning against Obama. So picking a candidate is akin to choosing the probabilities of getting Obama over the candidate you picked. It seems then that the simple logic is to pick the opponent which gives Obama the best chance of winning. This is the logic behind "Yes, for whoever I think would be the easiest GOP candidate to defeat." This is bad logic. To show this, let's assign an arbitrary win chance of Obama agaisnt these candidates.

Obama versus Mitt - 55/45%
Obama versus Rick - 60/40%

Ah, but as any gambler knows, you don't just need the odds, you need the payoffs.

Obama versus Mitt - $50 @ 55% / -$30 @ 45%
Obama versus Rick - $50 @ 60% / -$70 @ 40%

So let's do the math.

Obama versus Mitt - ($50*55%=$27.5) + (-$30*45%=-$13.5) = $14 average
Obama versus Rick - ($50*60%=$30) + (-$70*40%=-$28) = $2 average

This is why picking the easiest candidate to defeat isn't always the best option. Because while you increase the odds of the outcome you want, you potentially risk an outcome that is much, much worse. It can be a riskier gamble.



However, I only proved that picking the easiest candidate to defeat isn't always the best option when earlier I said always vote for your most preferred option. Any basic logician can see the first doesn't necessarily imply the second, so now we move on to how I got there.

I presented a case where unpreferred GOP candidate was someone Jophiel really didn't like (-$70 for Rick compared to -$30 for Mitt). But what if we kept the polling odds against Obama the same, but maybe we only like Mitt (now -$60) slightly more than Rick.

Obama versus Mitt - ($50*55%=$27.5) + (-$60*45%=-$27) = $0.5 average
Obama versus Rick - ($50*60%=$30) + (-$70*40%=-$28) = $2 average

Ah so in this case we do end up with averaging out better if we elect Rick in the primary to face off against Obama, even though we still like Mitt more than Rick. So why should we vote for Mitt?

Well, Rick is polling worse against Obama than Mitt, which means fewer people would vote for him, and thus he is the less preferred candidate by the nation. We've already said Jophiel gets to just pick the GOP primary winner, so let's say we let a Republican pick the Dem primary winner the next time an election is up. What happens if he uses the same strategy? Well we end up with 2 candidates who are each less preferred by the nation than either of the other two primary candidates and we are all worse off.

At this point the game becomes a prisoner's dilemma. If we all vote for the person who is easiest for our guy to beat we all lose. However, anyone who has study the prisoner's dilemma will know that one of the most effective strategies for playing it over an iterated session is tit for tat. That is, you cooperate as long as the other person cooperates and cheat when they cheat. You are willing to play nice, yet you aren't taken advantage of. This still clashes with always vote for your most preferred option. How do I resolve this?

Simply, punishment and cooperation in tit for tat only works if people understand what is going on. Punishing people when they don't understand what you're doing or why is pointless. That's why all of the logic posted here has to be boiled down into a consistent and unyielding command that can be easily communicated. People can accept "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" even if they don't understand the nuances behind it.

And thus concludes my very thorough proof of why we must all pick option 1.
I skimmed this post never questioning my assumption that gbaji was it's author. But look - it's allegory.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#21 Mar 08 2012 at 8:21 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
5,159 posts
Which is worse, Alma, or people who quote enormously long posts just to post a one-line reply?
#22 Mar 08 2012 at 8:39 AM Rating: Excellent
Unforkgettable
*****
13,251 posts
Majivo wrote:
Which is worse, Alma, or people who quote enormously long posts just to post a one-line reply?
Alma.
____________________________
Banh
#23 Mar 08 2012 at 9:12 AM Rating: Excellent
Sir Spoonless wrote:
Majivo wrote:
Which is worse, Alma, or people who quote enormously long posts just to post a one-line reply?
Alma.

____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#24 Mar 09 2012 at 4:38 PM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
Elinda wrote:
I skimmed this post never questioning my assumption that gbaji was it's author. But look - it's allegory.


You know Elinda, I don't think I've ever seen you write more than one paragraph in a single post? Are you too stupid to string together more than a few sentences or are just too lazy to raise you lard filled limb?

We all come to the Asylum to have a good time, but spam is not funny. It's crap and no one cares. Even with all your circle jerks you're still at scholar because you post nothing but crap. You are a waste of space.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#25 Mar 10 2012 at 3:35 AM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,923 posts
Duke Lubriderm wrote:
Sir Spoonless wrote:
Majivo wrote:
Which is worse, Alma, or people who quote enormously long posts just to post a one-line reply?
Alma.


What Allegory said. My Nuance: contribute to having the least disasterous disaster that might possibly happen later.

As an Australian who gets preferential voting, where we all get the chance to vote for more than one candidate/party in the lower house, and get to proportion out greater and lesser fractions of our vote to candidates in the upper house, the notion of voting for a candidate/party that we see as "enemies" is not so queasy for me.

In effect in both lower and upper houses, we get to list our preferences, first to last. That often means ranking a disliked party above an even more disliked party.

Our Coalition party houses social conservatives who are economic progressives, social conservatives who are economic conservatives, and social progressives who are economic conservatives. Therefore, while I heartily dislike the Coalition as a whole, there are individuals within the party whose stances on some issues I completely agree with. I always wish them well in acquiring power or influence over the other members whose stances I completely disagree with!
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#26 Mar 11 2012 at 7:00 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Polls have them 4 points apart (Romney in the lead).

Seeing a lot of Santorum signs though that doesn't mean anything.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#27 Mar 11 2012 at 9:07 PM Rating: Excellent
***
1,877 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Polls have them 4 points apart (Romney in the lead).

Seeing a lot of Santorum signs though that doesn't mean anything.


Yeah it could be just a lot of supporters of back door loggers.
____________________________
#swaggerjacker
#28 Mar 12 2012 at 7:28 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,987 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Polls have them 4 points apart (Romney in the lead).
So it was being heralded as the greatest victory of all time?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#29 Mar 12 2012 at 8:23 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Only if Romney wins. If he loses, it'll be meaningless.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#30 Mar 12 2012 at 8:53 AM Rating: Excellent
Sniping Sweetpea
*****
18,461 posts
Option 4/D/Other: Close your eyes and throw a pencil at it. Whoever you vote for will still lose against Obama. It's like John Kerry and Al Gore are running against each other. Either way, doesn't matter.
____________________________
That's the kind of dude
I was lookin' for
And yes you'll get slapped
if you're lookin', ho

Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 65 All times are in CDT