??????

Imagine picking 10 quantities. Each quantity is either -1 or 0 or +1 [subtlety notice: +1 is a vote 'for', 0 is 'did not vote' and -1 is a vote 'against'].

0 -1 -1 -1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1

If you take the sum of those 10 quantities, have you eliminated the power of any of the quantities? Of course not!

If you believe otherwise, identify which one(s) in the sequence had their power eliminated. If you say all of them, explain how you can end up with the correct sum after eliminating the power of all of them.

The sum of a series is not an emergent property, of course we can't simply remove an addend. If you want a mathematical analog, consider the interval Ω = [0, 1] over the reals. Using the natural measure,

\(\int_\Omega \, dx = 1\)

Now, let r ∈ Ω be any real number, say, r = 0.5, and remove it from Ω. Call this ξ = { x ∈ Ω \ r}. Now take the measure on ξ and you'll find that it is still identically 1. As this is true for any r, the "length" of any single value is zero.

As in election results, it is the aggregate that matters.

 

I'm not trying to politicize this thread; just stating facts.

One point to consider is that the US system of 2 senators per state gives us a government body that doesn't represent the will of the people. About 70% of the US senators represent 30% of the population, so on an issue such as gun control where 94% of the people support universal background checks; the Senate doesn't vote that way because it represents the minority view. For some reason, the Founding Fathers wanted it this way.

And, due to the Electoral College system, in recent history, the only time a Republican president won the popular vote was in 2004. While all Democratic presidents won both the Electoral College and the popular vote.

 

The senate was not setup to be the will of the people. The house was setup for that.

The senate was to represent the states. That was perverted about a hundred years ago by liberals.

The states lost their constitutional rights.......and is now a taxpayer funded part time hobby for the elite.

They then outlawed booze and let women vote.

We all lost and are still losing.

 

of course we can't simply remove an addend.

Thank you for that as it demonstrates to me that you know exactly the point here. Those pretty symbols and all that verbosity is a nice subterfuge, I suppose, but I don't want a mathematical analog, I already provided one. You seem to me to to profess prima facie nonsense and then borrow from sanity when it suits you...as a discussion technique (e.g., "If your vote is ineffectual, why bother" and then "As in election results, it is the aggregate that matters."). That does not strike me as heavy, mind-blowing philosophy.

I feel like if I were to ask you...what is Zen, I imagine your response would be, Zen isn't (and then wanting to argue the point compulsively for hours).

What I really want is for you to admit/understand that your original post which stated, "I'd guess that you have a better chance of dying on the drive to the voting booth than having your particular ballot actually affect the election (this may still be true even if you mail in your vote!). If your vote is ineffectual, why bother" is, essentially simplistic and provocative. I do not believe that you will do so. Nor, do I believe that you just want to know why intelligent/rational people vote. I believe that you understand why people vote and you also understand that votes are not ineffectual.

Good luck with your political career and maybe next time you will get the outcome you need.

 

The senate was not setup to be the will of the people. The house was setup for that.

The senate was to represent the states. That was perverted about a hundred years ago by liberals.

The states lost their constitutional rights.......and is now a taxpayer funded part time hobby for the elite.

They then outlawed booze and let women vote.

We all lost and are still losing.

You mean you don't want to be ruled by our benevolent overlords in NYC, Chicago, L.A., and San Francisco?

I cannot imagine why not.

 

If state legislators had votes in the us senate........we wouldn't have to argue over most of this crap.

 

Thank you for that as it demonstrates to me that you know exactly the point here. Those pretty symbols and all that verbosity is a nice subterfuge, I suppose, but I don't want a mathematical analog, I already provided one. You seem to me to to profess prima facie nonsense and then borrow from sanity when it suits you...as a discussion technique (e.g., "If your vote is ineffectual, why bother" and then "As in election results, it is the aggregate that matters."). That does not strike me as heavy, mind-blowing philosophy.

I feel like if I were to ask you...what is Zen, I imagine your response would be, Zen isn't (and then wanting to argue the point compulsively for hours).

What I really want is for you to admit/understand that your original post which stated, "I'd guess that you have a better chance of dying on the drive to the voting booth than having your particular ballot actually affect the election (this may still be true even if you mail in your vote!). If your vote is ineffectual, why bother" is, essentially simplistic and provocative. I do not believe that you will do so. Nor, do I believe that you just want to know why intelligent/rational people vote. I believe that you understand why people vote and you also understand that votes are not ineffectual.

Good luck with your political career and maybe next time you will get the outcome you need.

Wow. Where did that hostility come from?

 

Wow. Where did that hostility come from?

Dood like chillax man. You're harshing my mellow. It's all good. It's all groovy...oh the colors!

 

True freedom is also the choice not to participate at all (the right to silence). Mandating voting is just un-American.

Now that is a level of self- centerdness not even recognized by google grammar control( An all American company btw)

You could have said that everybody has the right to not vote but yeah you had to make it about America. Tsk Tsk Tsk.

 

The senate was not setup to be the will of the people. The house was setup for that.

The senate was to represent the states. That was perverted about a hundred years ago by liberals.

The states lost their constitutional rights.......and is now a taxpayer funded part time hobby for the elite.

They then outlawed booze and let women vote.

We all lost and are still losing.

I'm so effing sorry but maybe you should check yourself before you wreck yourself. This better be some sort of sarcasm or you'll find yourself on the wrong side of history like everybody in the Americas except some European descendants.

No politics just a matter of fact.

 

On the original subject of voting (and whether or not it is effective in giving the Average Joe some control over government), here's an article about Google being the largest political contributor to Congress:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ry-other-company-on-federal-lobbying-in-2017/

It's a sure bet that Google is also a big contributor to the California legislature and local governments all around the state.

 

Not to mention weekly whitehouse meetings with obama for eight years. And not just google.

Didn't seem to bother anyone.

 

Not to mention weekly whitehouse meetings with obama for eight years. And not just google.

Didn't seem to bother anyone.

It seems to bother you.

Get well soon.

 

I must add that even those that have lost their way can find refuge in my silence

 

And, due to the Electoral College system, in recent history, the only time a Republican president won the popular vote was in 2004. While all Democratic presidents won both the Electoral College and the popular vote.

That is because there are more democrats in the world than republicans. In almost every election held the democratic totals over power the republican totals. Thus the voter suppression and extreme gerrymandering. The only place it isn't true that there are more dems than repubs is here in the forum.

 

@bogosort Here's a case where a small number of votes, even one, can matter:
On Thursday, Scott was winning the Florida Keys by one vote; on Friday, he was losing by 10

 

MOD NOTE: The TS has already requested that politics not be injected into his thread. Either quit doing so or be locked out of this thread.

 

@bogosort Here's a case where a small number of votes, even one, can matter:
On Thursday, Scott was winning the Florida Keys by one vote; on Friday, he was losing by 10

How is this an example of one vote mattering?

 

How is this an example of one vote mattering?

He was winning an area by one vote at one point. If one of the people who voted for him had decided not to vote, it would have been a tie; at that point in time.

 

He was winning an area by one vote at one point. If one of the people who voted for him had decided not to vote, it would have been a tie; at that point in time.

Winning an area doesn't mean anything in a senatorial race. The Keys are less than 0.5% of the population of Florida, so a "tie" there doesn't actually mean anything.