I hate the idea of compulsory voting

And yet you also hate the idea of weighted voting

I'm in favour of people having an equal say in who their representatives are, weighting in favour of young people in a referendum such as Brexit has more going for it than any of the other weighting mechanisms discussed in this thread.

I'm guessing you are going to argue that not voting weights against certain demographics that vote at lower rates and I'm going to argue that doesn't do anything to an individuals vote and so that vote is not weighted against.

I'm slightly entertained by the notions of things I could scribe onto a compulsory ballot besides a vote.

On a related note, North Korea has compulsory voting. (and the wrong vote is treason)

Australia will have a compulsory vote later this year for/against gay marriage. it a plebiscite and the decision of the people will be carried through parliament (if we are to believe those in power).

quite preposterous that a group of people who are not gay or married should decide whether a legal subset of the population should be allowed to do something legal.

perhaps voters who are gay should have a higher weighting?

How much higher should these votes be weighted then? I would argue that any number you propose would be just as arbitrary as not weighting at all.

An extremal version of this is called dictatorship.

According to Sklansky the rational person weighs the trouble it takes to vote against the probability of actually deciding the election by their vote and decides it's in their best interest to not vote. So voting is therefore weighted in favor of Sklansky-Irrational people. Count me as one.

PairTheBoard

Fourteen to one, if you are an Alien. Space Alien that is.

That would instantly make them typically irrational though dont you think (because their calculation is impossible also)? Clearly if all the people who thought that way didnt go to vote, this adds up to a significant number that can affect the election. So they better take well into account in the calculation how many will think like them and not go and how they would have voted on avg (or its distribution).

So its not that you will not likely have your vote determine the outcome because it will be so close that one vote is the difference. What you have is that many like you adding up to maybe 1 mil (eg in US) will indeed often decide the result with their failure to vote if they are not split down the middle which is unreasonable due to so many population differences of the various parties that likely make it not a 50-50 split (on a random obscure in correlation topic such as this i mean with every election also being so different in terms of candidates' qualities).

So do they know how many will think like that and perform the perfect calculations to render the process rational? Of course not. They are just horsing around assuming they know the answer is some tiny number without having done any work or proven to themselves that the work is common to all (or the statistical analysis of the work lol) that will think that way to secure some trusted solution and valuation.

The rational thing (if you dont want to vote or considering it) is to not go to vote and accept that you cause the election often because of the similar to your perspective population adding up (to something hard to estimate but significant likely) or go and vote already and remove the burden of this hard to perform properly calculation.

So its a cost analysis with the loss of the election with some significant probability on one side (still small of course i agree - but how small?) vs the simple bothering task to go and vote (plus you typically vote for more than 1 thing).

Having multiple clear problems with at least one of the candidates is a given for any rational person because they are total (in comparison) losers typically in most races that have horrible positions on many topics that differ a lot with the potential voter positions if that person is indeed rational (i mean seeing all candidates as equally bad is rather simplistic). They would definitely see an impact in their lives over 4 or more years (supreme court and similar lasting policy impacts) that is worth at least $30*3 for 3 hours of their time every 4 years in stupid money terms and probably far more than that in other hard to see ways instantly (stock market, wars, climate change, energy policies, healthcare, environmental issues etc) and therefore additional money not seen originally. These potential consequences that are not identical for all candidates are worth a thought and a direction guess.

It does look like a hard topic and rational people ought to know its not that simple to claim it was a rational decision to not vote because they evaluated some consequence to be smaller than 3 hours value (or whatever it takes possibly often less eg with absentee voting or proper time selection in that day).

Why else vote besides for the purpose of winning one contest or another? Partisanship. Participation in a movement. Voting to protest. Voting to give more parties access to the main stages. Boredom. More here than just winning or losing a particular contest is my point. Good luck weighing!!!

Obviously if people are also taking into account that others are also thinking this way it changes the calculation. As does the fact that other people are taking THAT into account etc. etc.

The math problem that this brings up along with its spin offs is actually a lot more important than who is president.

So the Sklansky-Rational person adopts a mixed strategy and votes with some game theoretic optimum probability p < 1. In which case the voting is still weighted in favor of the Sklansky-Irrational people who just go ahead and vote with probability 1.


PairTheBoard

“From now on I'm thinking only of me."

Major Danby replied indulgently with a superior smile: "But, Yossarian, suppose everyone felt that way."

"Then," said Yossarian, "I'd certainly be a damned fool to feel any other way, wouldn't I?”

― Joseph Heller, Catch-22

But if you pay attention to what i said the only thing that can stop you from voting is some extraordinary opportunity event that election day or some emerging risk. Other than that its irrational not to vote because you always stand to gain something if you vote for the candidate that will have greater EV for your life or country or both hopefully (even if you dislike both say and are convinced the pathological system in places will be served by both). Even a small 4 year EV accumulates over time to serious consequences. What would the world be like if Iraq war had never happened of it had happened a lot better. Does that suddenly now make the Florida 2000 fiasco so critical? What if the wrong decision for recounts is responsible for 10-15 tril of debt, millions of dead people and a lot more in both down the road for the world?

One candidate may be willing to start a nuclear war for example or be angry enough on occasion to want to do dramatic things that have negative consequences that can cost lives and even fortunes.

I think for example that Obama had a very hard job to do after what Bush created and he lacked the determination to be stronger worldwide on many critical issues (like the rise of ISIS). But he didnt destroy the region (others did that and its still salvageable). A method a bit stronger than his and equally careful would do even better to handle a hard situation.

On the other hand someone like Trump would have been a lot more aggressive or indifferent to important topics. In the middle east the wrong kind of aggression can create a big problem if it involves a conflict with Russia for example or total war with Islam the religion. I dislike Islam (its dogmatic religious expansionist authoritarian suppressing unforgiving militant character, not some core ethical messages common to most religions) actually and see it (as currently realized) as a threat to mankind. See how the things have turned for the worse in Turkey with islamists there moving further away from its original modern secular trends. But Islam has to be undermined ethically from within from their own youth itself (recognizing a better more ethical and rational approach to their lives) not with a global confrontation. We need to help the cultures embracing it develop into more rational secular systems (because they can realize instant benefits), maintaining Islamic traditions and culture only at symbolic heritage level rather than a literal theocratic leadership role. That takes time.

One cannot allow their dislike for militant or authoritarian Islamists and the theocratic systems in place to expand to a generic hatred towards people in muslim countries (even those that support such systems) or muslims in general. Instead these people need to be our allies and friends and partners and our rational culture needs to influence their culture towards a global cooperation based on science, technology and education that will undermine and reveal the weaknesses of theocratic authoritarian systems with ingenious peaceful methods. Such approach takes long term planning and care.

With eg North Korea the wrong kind of aggression can cost South Korea Seoul and a nuclear strike in US west coast even if then its all destroyed there in the north. Someone has to think of the innocent people and young soldiers that will be the victims on all sides.

I am prepared to risk nuclear war if the outcome is very important but you better know well that this is the only thing you can do and not the spectacular thing you can do to show you are strong and arrogant.

It is very hard to predict the future and on occasion even a more careful thinker can get in harder trouble than others the way chaotically things develop. But it tends to be more responsible to have leaders that actually care at a genuine deeper level for their country and not at the superficial level that has dictated their desires all their lives. When both candidates appear weak on many of their attributes one needs to select the one that will tend to operate more rationally and measured without being weak. It is still very significant not to ignore the importance of voting if it can apply to millions that think similarly and who could protect their country from a new irresponsible era of failed naive actions.

I consider that the US has declined as a system for the period i have been here. This is definitely in part the result of irresponsible leadership and voting choices that further enhanced partisan division which has destroyed any sense of rational governing that cares for the progress of the country in a united coordinated by all sides manner (also the pathology of naive capitalism when operated at the expense of more important things helped there - corporations do not see the US as their responsibility). If Obama had a better treatment by republicans his presidency would have been more successful. The people failed Obama by giving congress and senate to permanently stalling and uncooperative republicans moreover their irrational positions on countless of issues. At the same time certain behavior by democrats has also made that easier to happen (when they had the control). Even more the true rational conservatives on the republican side have failed their party by allowing it to be hijacked by irresponsible people and causes over the past 2 decades. Voters are highly responsible for the decline that has taken place in the US at many levels. What if all those that have lost any faith in the system tried instead of apathy to at least vote for the more rational people that showed a desire to cooperate with the other side. There are always such more moderate people available that need help.

You're ignoring the trouble it takes you to vote. That's key to Sklansky's total EV calculation. He assumes that trouble is more negative that the probability of your vote deciding the election multiplied by whatever value of the benefit that would bring. It's not a free roll like you're saying.

PairTheBoard

Voting is not just about choosing the next Emperor of Idiocy and their party hacks.



United_States_elections,_2016

Individual states and municipalities also have many ballot measures and local elective offices to decide on. Ballot measures and Bond measures at the local level are ubiquitous and extent. If I vote at all it is usually these measures that get me to stop cleaning my gun and go vote. And although the presidential election garners the most attention, there are many voting opportunities in most states and municipalities throughout the year, school board elections for example, or an election for the local sheriff and other morons.

But probably the most important thing to vote on is a bond measure to construct a local library. I vote against all bond measures except ones for libraries. It almost makes voting worth your time. Or not.

But how hard is it to go and vote or reply to a letter sent to you? Does it take more than 3 hours? I do not vote here yet but in Greece, that voting is compulsory if you are at that date near the center you are assigned to vote (plus it is on purpose Sunday to avoid issues like work for most people), it takes only 1-2 hours if you pick the right time to go there and usually less. Today with all kinds of technology available you can take a smart phone or tablet with you and read books, papers, go to sites, see a movie or documentary, listen to an audio book, even do your work or play games while you wait in line if needed (and you are so unlucky i mean) and the others around you waiting are not interesting people to start a conversation of something.

The actual longer process is to see all the measures and understand what they are for (hehe Zeno rejecting all but libraries - but isnt the usage of libraries leading eventually to better proposed measures too even 1 in 10 or 20 times to be worth voting for some or reading about them just in case?)


PS: You may start seeing why weighting actually leads to better democracy because some people that care will put the work to understand things better and stop the charlatans.

That would be fine if the butler then turned around and asked them;

- Gentlemen can i bother you with a question of my own?

- By all means Stevens, indulge us!

- Dear sirs ;

In the recent theory of the emerging world physicist Albert Einstein regarding Gravity he presented a set of 10 field equations that describes the fundamental interaction of gravitation as a result of spacetime being curved by matter and energy. A German physicist and astronomer Karl Schwarzschild shortly thereafter found an exact solution of these equations that describes the gravitational field outside a spherical mass, on the assumption that the electric charge of the mass, angular momentum of the mass, and universal cosmological constant are all zero. It is a useful approximation for describing slowly rotating astronomical objects such as many stars and planets, including Earth and the Sun. That was in 1915, a little more than a month after the publication of Einstein's theory of general relativity. It was the first exact solution of the Einstein field equations other than the trivial flat space solution. Schwarzschild died shortly after his paper was published, as a result of a disease he contracted while serving in the German army during World War I.

Would the matters that are of interest to you at this time be able to prevent such pointless loss of life shorty after a moment of brilliance?

If our wisdom cannot prevent senseless wars and our divisions remain superficial and unimportant in purpose then we all share the blame with our choices. I as a butler this evening have served you well but you as gentlemen of higher knowledge of political affairs have failed to enlighten me and render our collective democracy stronger, aiming instead to insult me, to synthesize a masquerading as potent argument that supports essentially a culture of laziness and ineffective elitism of its aristocracy.

The world gentlemen is after all what we make of it.


Democracy is only as strong as the characters of those voting allow. We build these characters with our lives, our daily choices...What are yours?

-----

There are many ways to introduce weights in our voting system without violating its original promising principle. One of them is by promoting education and cultural awareness among the members of our community. If we fail to do our job then we are no better than the proposed measures to remedy our current pathologies that we so much despise.

I think that is a poor account of how the rational person should look at voting.

Presumably the claim here is that voting is not rational because it is not a reasonable means to achieve some desired end. Now if your only reason for voting is to affect the decisive vote, then your motivation should be fairly low since the chances are low that you'll actually be the deciding vote (although, given the stakes, not so low that you should never vote).

However, talk to voters and you'll quickly find that this is not the main reason most people vote (I was a field organizer on a political campaign). It is like saying we should evaluate the rationality of attending a basketball game only on the probability that the added volume of your cheering will affect the outcome of the game.

Instead, people vote because they think it is civic duty, or to express solidarity, to signal membership in a group or organization (or social class). Many people enjoy voting, and the entire rigmarole of politics surrounding it. Or maybe they care about some issue and voting is a way of expressing that concern. Or maybe they strongly dislike some person or group of people and find voting a good way to express that dislike and anger.

Voting seems like a perfectly fine way of achieving these ends - I don't see any irrationality here. Now, maybe you don't have those desires or goals. Fine. But that doesn't make you any more rational in not voting than people who do have them are in voting.

I don't disagree with that.

Can you see that it is at odds with how your* various descriptions of and assumptions about how people choose (or would choose under various hypothetical conditions) to vote?

*and the "people vote their pocketbook," etc. accounts of human behavior.

US presidential elections votes are currently weighted negatively by a factor (population density) that typically correlates with IQ.

I'd probably prefer an IQ test to a knowledge test though. Harder to politicize IQ.

Here's my argument against weighted voting on any factor that correlates positively with IQ. A primary benefit of democratic systems of government is that citizens are more likely to view them as legitimate than other governmental forms. A government viewed as legitimate should be less susceptible to overthrow and have greater ability to motivate citizens to cooperative action.

Here's the problem. While people with below-average IQ benefit from a more rational government policy, they tend to be worse off and lower status than other people in their society (as IQ negatively correlates with income). This means that they are more likely to be dissatisfied with the status quo than higher IQ people. Voting, and the legitimacy that provides government, is one of the best ways of keeping these more dissatisfied citizens from rebelling against government. Weighting votes explicitly against low-IQ people would probably lower the legitimacy of government and so make it less effective in preserving social stability with exactly the group of people for whom this is most important.

No it isn't.