Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Time to give Trump Presidency it's own Thread.Follow

#827 Dec 19 2017 at 10:23 PM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,595 posts
Quote:
I'd like to point out that none of the losing votes mattered. in the maximal case scenario for a majority winner take all system, 50% or more of the votes can never matter.

On the contrary, at least 50% of the votes always matter. It's really simple if you think about it.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#828 Dec 19 2017 at 11:04 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,975 posts
No, they don't.

Let me reword an earlier example to perhaps make it clearer.

Adam and Bob are running for class president in a class of 100. In this class everyone likes to gossip and so everyone already knows who everyone else plans to vote for. 60 people prefer Adam and 40 people prefer Bob. The school is holding the election on a Saturday and so students would prefer not to show up if they didn't have to. They are willing to show up if it will guarantee their candidate will win, but that is the only reason they will show up. On the day of the election, 41 Adam supporters show up bright and early to vote for Adam, because they know there are at most 40 Bob supporters and this is all they need to win. They post selfies on their social media of them casting their ballots so everyone knows they did in fact vote for Adam. The 19 remaining Adam supporters then decide to not show up to cast a vote, because they know Adam has secured a win and their additional votes are not needed. The 40 Bob supporters also do not show up to vote because they know Bob now cannot win. Out of 100 students split 60-40, a minimum of 41 needed to vote to make sure the result was unalterable. No additional votes beyond the 41 cast can possibly affect the results.

Edited, Dec 19th 2017 11:06pm by Allegory
#829 Dec 19 2017 at 11:39 PM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,595 posts
You're describing a plurality-winner system, not a majority-winner system.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#830 Dec 20 2017 at 12:32 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Demea wrote:
Quote:
I'd like to point out that none of the losing votes mattered. in the maximal case scenario for a majority winner take all system, 50% or more of the votes can never matter.
On the contrary, at least 50% of the votes always matter. It's really simple if you think about it.

Smiley: schooled
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#831 Dec 20 2017 at 11:30 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,601 posts
What if you bring in buses full of black people? Then you don't need quite 50% because you can make up the difference with voter fraud!

Smiley: tinfoilhat
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#832 Dec 20 2017 at 12:58 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
3,671 posts
I should read before I post

Edited, Dec 20th 2017 10:58am by stupidmonkey
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#833 Dec 20 2017 at 2:20 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,601 posts
Smiley: confused

Smiley: um

Smiley: mad

Smiley: ducttape

Smiley: monkey

Smiley: drool

Smiley: chug

Smiley: nod

Smiley: schooled

Reading is over rated.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#834 Dec 20 2017 at 4:36 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,440 posts
Demea wrote:
It's really simple if you think about it.
I don't need to think about it. You told me its true, so I'm good with it.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#835 Dec 20 2017 at 4:54 PM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,595 posts
Great. Coincidentally, I have some beachfront property in Kansas you might be interested in.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#836 Dec 20 2017 at 7:28 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,975 posts
Demea wrote:
On the contrary, at least 50% of the votes always matter. It's really simple if you think about it.

I understand the point you think you are making about the necessity of a majority-winner election to have greater than 50% of the votes cast be towards a singular candidate. However, losing votes and votes in excess of the number needed to win given the vote allocation (maybe that helps?) are votes that don't matter.

We're holding a silent auction, and whoever bids the most wins. I have $60 on me; you have $40 on you. I write down $41 dollars as my bid on a mint condition Barack Obama trading card and half-eaten ham sandwich. Do you bother to bid $40? Do I bother to bid my remaining $19? No. I would need $51 of the $100 between us to guaranty I win, but I only need $41 of the $60 I have to win. None of our other dollars can affect the outcome of the auction.

Edited, Dec 20th 2017 7:29pm by Allegory
#837 Dec 20 2017 at 10:07 PM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,595 posts
I love how none of your examples are majority-winner scenarios, which is specifically the scenario you mentioned in the post I responded to.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#838 Dec 20 2017 at 11:06 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,975 posts
Quote:
If Adam wins against Bob 60-40 then 19 Adam voters could have stayed home and Adam will have the number he needed to win. All 40 of Bob voters could have stayed home because Bob could not have won. 41/100 votes mattered.

This is a majority-winner example. Adam needs 51% of the votes cast to win, but only 41% of the votes matter and actually need to be cast.

"Votes that matter" isn't about certainty of winning, it's about the proportion of votes that could affect the outcome. If there is a 60-40 split between two candidates in a majority-winner election, what is the minimum number of people that could show up and the result be unalterable? 41. If 41 Adam voters show up to vote for Adam, then it doesn't matter if Bob's 40 voters bother to vote or not, Adam still wins. It doesn't matter if the remaining 19 Adam voters bother to vote or not, Adam still wins.
#839 Dec 21 2017 at 10:54 AM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,595 posts
Quote:
If there is a 60-40 split between two candidates in a majority-winner election, what is the minimum number of people that could show up and the result be unalterable? 41. If 41 Adam voters show up to vote for Adam, then it doesn't matter if Bob's 40 voters bother to vote or not, Adam still wins.

Adam required a majority of all votes cast to win. Ergo, at least 50% of the votes cast, in this case exactly 51 votes, mattered. If only 81 total votes were cast (41-40), then 41 votes, or 50%, mattered.

What is this, Calvinball?

Edited, Dec 21st 2017 11:05am by Demea
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#840 Dec 21 2017 at 10:56 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,601 posts
Allegory wrote:
It doesn't matter if the remaining 19 Adam voters bother to vote or not, Adam still wins.
Well if the vote is too close you could have problems. Recounts cost money, and there's always some shift in the vote number after a recount. There's people who don't fill in their square completely, try to erase, dimpled chads, hanging chads, and so on. Winning by one vote could become losing by one vote if you have to invalidate 2 of the ballots. So you could argue each additional vote is extra insurance of a victory, with diminishing returns up at least up until the point you're above the threshold that could trigger a recount.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#841 Dec 21 2017 at 12:08 PM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,595 posts
Two final things:

1. If you start with the assumption that X votes were cast, then look at the outcome and say "the winning candidate would have also won if only Y votes were cast", that's technically true, but changes your baseline assumptions. In each case in a majority-winner scenario, if given that X votes will be/have been cast, the winner needs at least 50% of X votes to win.

2. You assume in your examples that the winning candidate's voters only have two options: vote for the winning candidate or stay home. However, they could also vote for the other candidate. Therefore, in a 60-40 scenario (assuming 100 total votes are cast), the winning candidate needs 51 votes to win. If they secure fewer than 51 of 100 total votes, they don't win. So, every vote up to 51 votes, assuming 100 total votes, is one that doesn't go to the other guy and is therefore a vote that "mattered".

Edited, Dec 21st 2017 12:09pm by Demea
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#842 Dec 21 2017 at 12:14 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,975 posts
I'm at work and on mobile at the moment, but I wanted to leave a link here that may help since it seems I have been ineffective in communicating the idea.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wasted_vote
#843 Dec 21 2017 at 12:17 PM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,595 posts
Wikipedia wrote:
If this is a plurality voting election for a single seat...

So it's not based on a majority-winner scenario.

Gotcha.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#844 Dec 21 2017 at 1:04 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,601 posts
I like how wasted votes are considered an efficiency metric for how successful a gerrymander is. I'll be interested in the outcome of that supreme court case; that's actually a really creative and interesting way to address to problem.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#845 Dec 29 2017 at 10:17 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,601 posts
Quote:
There is no collusion, and even if there was, it’s not a crime


Smiley: glare

That's going to need some explaining.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#846 Jan 02 2018 at 7:38 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,389 posts
Collusion itself isn't a crime, but the statement kind of ignores that what you collude to do can be.

Edited, Jan 2nd 2018 8:39am by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#847 Jan 03 2018 at 1:04 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Steve Bannon is quoted extensively in an upcoming book about the Trump presidency including calling the Trump campaign meeting with the Russian lawyer "treasonous" and that the chance Trump didn't personally meet with them "zero".

Trump is saying that Bannon is an unhinged nobody who had nothing to do with his campaign.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#848 Jan 03 2018 at 1:43 PM Rating: Good
*******
50,389 posts
Twitter, 4:33 AM - 19 Aug 2017 wrote:
"I want to thank Steve Bannon for his service. He came to the campaign during my run against Crooked Hillary Clinton - it was great! Thanks S,"
How fun is the existence of Twitter?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#849 Jan 03 2018 at 2:08 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,601 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Steve Bannon is quoted extensively in an upcoming book about the Trump presidency including calling the Trump campaign meeting with the Russian lawyer "treasonous" and that the chance Trump didn't personally meet with them "zero".

Trump is saying that Bannon is an unhinged nobody who had nothing to do with his campaign.
Kudos for Bannon for sticking to his guns I guess. Hating all foreigners and their friends regardless of the country, instead of just hating on brown people. Smiley: rolleyes
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#850 Jan 03 2018 at 2:10 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,601 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Twitter, 4:33 AM - 19 Aug 2017 wrote:
"I want to thank Steve Bannon for his service. He came to the campaign during my run against Crooked Hillary Clinton - it was great! Thanks S,"
How fun is the existence of Twitter?
Somewhere between a large nuclear button and a house cat in a swimming pool.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#851 Jan 04 2018 at 9:09 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,389 posts
Statement by the Press Secretary on the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity wrote:
Despite substantial evidence of voter fraud, many states have refused to provide the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity with basic information relevant to its inquiry. Rather than engage in endless legal battles at taxpayer expense, today President [...] signed an executive order to dissolve the Commission, and he has asked the Department of Homeland Security to review its initial findings and determine next courses of action.


Edited, Jan 4th 2018 10:09am by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 0 All times are in CDT