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.

Can't you envision a situation where the difference between winning and losing could be 1 vote? In 2000, Gore lost the state of Florida by 500 votes (out of millions). Clinton lost having enough Electoral votes in three Rust Belt states by less than 80,000.

500 or 80,000, a small number of individual votes can decide the results of an election.

 

It takes all of the legal votes to make a vote count. Each vote has the same value. The total vote count determines the outcome.......not a sliver of the it.

 

Can't you envision a situation where the difference between winning and losing could be 1 vote?

Sure, sometimes my family votes between pizza or Chinese food for dinner. But when an election is big enough to require a voting system -- and that's what we're talking about here -- systematic errors become inevitable: ballots get lost, chads get hung, etc. These errors lead to uncertainty in the outcome by some threshold number of votes. When the difference in votes between the winner and loser is smaller than the vote uncertainty, the election results are meaningless: we have no idea who actually won. As a single vote will always lie within the uncertainty of any state or federal election, any single vote cannot determine the election.

500 or 80,000, a small number of individual votes can decide the results of an election.

Whether the difference is 500, 80k, or 800k, only the aggregate matters. Even 500 votes is a lot more than 1.

 

Whether the difference is 500, 80k, or 800k, only the aggregate matters. Even 500 votes is a lot more than 1.

Each vote has the same weight. It's the total that determines the outcome.

In every national election, millions of people choose not to vote and millions more choose to exercise their right. If you don't think your vote counts, no one is going to be able to convince you otherwise. But it does count whether you vote or not.

 

Each vote has the same weight. It's the total that determines the outcome.

In every national election, millions of people choose not to vote and millions more choose to exercise their right. If you don't think your vote counts, no one is going to be able to convince you otherwise. But it does count whether you vote or not.

Say you want to know the voltage of a dc voltage source with millivolt precision, but your measurement instrument has +/- 100 mV uncertainty. No problem, take a few hundred measurements and average them. Only the aggregate is meaningful -- each measurement has the same weight, but any single measurement is meaningless on its own.

 

Sure, sometimes my family votes between pizza or Chinese food for dinner. But when an election is big enough to require a voting system -- and that's what we're talking about here -- systematic errors become inevitable: ballots get lost, chads get hung, etc. These errors lead to uncertainty in the outcome by some threshold number of votes. When the difference in votes between the winner and loser is smaller than the vote uncertainty, the election results are meaningless: we have no idea who actually won. As a single vote will always lie within the uncertainty of any state or federal election, any single vote cannot determine the election.


Whether the difference is 500, 80k, or 800k, only the aggregate matters. Even 500 votes is a lot more than 1.

While I agree that a single vote probably lies within any reasonable margin of error in most elections, the simple fact is that elections HAVE to be decided EVEN when the results lie within that margin of error. You can stand up and shout all day long that we don't know who SHOULD have won, but we WILL know who ACTUALLY won because the election rules deal with that situation. Most of them deal with it by saying that whoever is ahead in the final recount, even if only by a single vote, is the winner (i.e., the person that ACTUALLY wins). If that final recount comes out to be a tie, then some other means, often a simple game of chance such as drawing lots, is used to decide the winner. Numerous elections HAVE ended in ties or single-vote wins. It's pretty hard to claim that no one person's vote mattered in those cases, isn't it?

 

While I agree that a single vote probably lies within any reasonable margin of error in most elections, the simple fact is that elections HAVE to be decided EVEN when the results lie within that margin of error. You can stand up and shout all day long that we don't know who SHOULD have won, but we WILL know who ACTUALLY won because the election rules deal with that situation. Most of them deal with it by saying that whoever is ahead in the final recount, even if only by a single vote, is the winner (i.e., the person that ACTUALLY wins). If that final recount comes out to be a tie, then some other means, often a simple game of chance such as drawing lots, is used to decide the winner. Numerous elections HAVE ended in ties or single-vote wins. It's pretty hard to claim that no one person's vote mattered in those cases, isn't it?

In the (rare) cases where the final recount is settled by 1 vote, a winner is indeed declared. But with the margin of victory below the margin of error, we have no way of knowing who actually had more votes. That someone won is not the point, right?

Consider an election system in which people voted and then, in the end, a random number generator decided the victor. No one would believe that their voice was heard in such a system, yet that is precisely what happens when the margin of victory is below the margin of error. Such elections are a sham; it'd be more accurate to say that nobody's voice was heard.

 

In the (rare) cases where the final recount is settled by 1 vote, a winner is indeed declared. But with the margin of victory below the margin of error, we have no way of knowing who actually had more votes. That someone won is not the point, right?

You can believe whatever you want, but since the fact that person A being declared the winner instead of person B has very real consequences, regardless of whether or not they should have won, I kinda do consider it being the point.

Consider an election system in which people voted and then, in the end, a random number generator decided the victor. No one would believe that their voice was heard in such a system, yet that is precisely what happens when the margin of victory is below the margin of error. Such elections are a sham; it'd be more accurate to say that nobody's voice was heard.

So consider two cases -- first an election that is one vote just outside whatever the margin of error is. If that person hadn't voted, no it would be within your margin of error. Second, what if instead of using a random number generator they called upon YOU to cast the deciding vote. Would you still claim that your vote didn't matter?

 

You can believe whatever you want, but since the fact that person A being declared the winner instead of person B has very real consequences, regardless of whether or not they should have won, I kinda do consider it being the point.

So you believe your voice was heard by simple fact of casting your ballot, even if the outcome of the election was random? That doesn't seem like the point of voting to me.

So consider two cases -- first an election that is one vote just outside whatever the margin of error is. If that person hadn't voted, no it would be within your margin of error. Second, what if instead of using a random number generator they called upon YOU to cast the deciding vote. Would you still claim that your vote didn't matter?

In your first case, the uncertainty cannot be associated with one vote or another (if it could, then we wouldn't have uncertainty). In your second case, clearly my vote would matter.

 

So you believe your voice was heard by simple fact of casting your ballot, even if the outcome of the election was random? That doesn't seem like the point of voting to me.


In your first case, the uncertainty cannot be associated with one vote or another (if it could, then we wouldn't have uncertainty). In your second case, clearly my vote would matter.

So let's focus on the second case. What difference does it make if you voted in the election and the result was 100,001 to 100,000 in favor of the person you voted for and the case where it was 100,000 to 100,000 and then you cast the final vote? Or, even if you cast the deciding vote afterward, how can you say that ANY the 100,000 other votes cast for your candidate didn't matter since YOUR vote wouldn't have even been asked for if even a single one of those 100,000 other people hadn't voted?

 

@bogosort

Having read-through this entire thread, I've a brace of observations (for whatever they're worth):

1) -- Of course your point, as stated and qualified, is inarguable (i.e. I wholeheartedly agree! -- Last I checked, a fact is yet a fact - without regard to the 'popularity' of its expression).

2) I believe the 'blow-back' you're experiencing here owes to the notion oft expressed: 'if everyone took your stance...' - which, of course, is clearly not your point --- Still... It is a rather 'scary' message -- then too, many folks distrust statistics (for said discipline's' history of misapplication and frank abuse)...

But to your question: Well... I don't vote either - for said participation's statistical non-significance as well as my aversion to enrollment upon 'juror duty' rosters, survey lists, etc...

...and let women vote

[Baby Huey voice] HEY! [/Baby Huey voice] -- Be nice!

Very best regards
HP

 

We all know one absolute truth about voting.

It is impossible for your vote to count....if you don't vote.

With that confidence alone.....we have to vote for any possibility of your vote TO count.

Neither math or logic or philosophy, can be reasoned.....to not vote.

The election can only be corrupted by........an illegal vote.......or a miscount. Your legal vote also helps mitigate those corruptions. A legal vote can neither corrupt or even add too...... a corrupt election.

Graciously accepting a election result(the will of the people)......made us exceptional back in history.

Until our taxpayer academics taught us what real Americans should be. You're about to see a two year demonstration of secular tyranny. The self appointed Deacons(free press) will shepard us thru it.

Oh....and you will see no grace. The swamp wall is already up. Where the real BORDER is.

 

Wasn't this question answered seventy posts or more ago? Sure, the TS is a provocateur, but is that reason to leave a thread open when fact-based threads are often closed much earlier?

The answer should be simple for Americans, you have both the right and responsibility to vote. Period. If the TS feels differently, that is his right. He has yet to present a logical reason not to vote. He also has the right to emigrate to a single-party country where he is required to vote and where his vote is really meaningless.

Coming on this day (November 11th), it is an insult to the tens of thousands of Americans who did their duty and did not return home to their families to question whether their vote counts.

Did the TS register for the draft? Was he drafted? Did he ever sacrifice to serve his country (USA)? Maybe his answer to that last question will put this entire thread into perspective.

Please close this thread as having been answered and move on to electronics.

 

There are valid reasons not to vote. My only point was that a vote always counts.

Some believe a personal standard is higher than civic duty. That's what the country was for.

Neither choice is acceptable. Don't vote.

There are many valid reasons not to vote. And it's ok......no one is required to explain.

 

Voting is now over. We can all go home.

 

Sure, the TS is a provocateur

I doubt that... His/her question appears all of genuine, valid and (certainly) timely - and his/her demeanor courteous -- Frankly, I too have often mused upon the self-same point - nor do I consider myself a 'provocateur'... Please be mindful that Statistics is an often highly non-intuitive discipline --- then too, as a perhaps trivial --yet telling-- 'aside' - the TS' choice of an 'XOR' block as an avatar lends credibly to his/her genuine interest in said area.

Wasn't this question answered seventy posts or more ago?

Perhaps not so far back as that - but yes! The question in the OP would seem to have been answered -- To wit: Each individual's decision to participate in elections (or not) is based upon their personal sense of rationality, responsibility, right, privilege or merely 'custom'...

Coming on this day (November 11th), it is an insult to the tens of thousands of Americans who did their duty and did not return home to their families to question whether their vote counts.

That would seem representative of conflation at worst or a non sequitur at best... Voting is neither a duty nor a sacrifice but, rather (so we are led to believe), a 'right'... Clearly, each service member's sacrifice (whether of life, ability or liberty) counts (i.e. is productive of a measurable effect)! -- Whereas, from an individual perspective, the quantitative value of balloting (even was the 'system' better than the corrupt, convoluted, 'dog's dinner' that it is) is precisely as the TS outlines...

That said, it is likewise undeniable that we'd be in 'a whole lot of hurt' sans elections and large numbers willing to participate therein! -- Governmental answerability is key to anything remotely resembling democracy!

There are valid reasons not to vote.

Neither choice is acceptable. Don't vote.

Ah! Yes! That too!

So you have a right to complain when it all works out badly.

---Emphasis Added---

Respectfully -- I've heard that refrain all my life -- along with a deafening din of 'crickets' following any request for expansion upon the 'logic' back of said sentiment

Inasmuch as one's vote changes nothing -- By what stretch of logic does an act of mere 'symbolic automatism' bolster the legitimacy of one's views upon governmental/legislative policy?

Voting is now over. We can all go home.

One can but hope...


With genuine respect all around!
HP

 

Coming on this day (November 11th), it is an insult to the tens of thousands of Americans who did their duty and did not return home to their families to question whether their vote counts.

On the contrary, not questioning is the insult.

 

So let's focus on the second case. What difference does it make if you voted in the election and the result was 100,001 to 100,000 in favor of the person you voted for and the case where it was 100,000 to 100,000 and then you cast the final vote? Or, even if you cast the deciding vote afterward, how can you say that ANY the 100,000 other votes cast for your candidate didn't matter since YOUR vote wouldn't have even been asked for if even a single one of those 100,000 other people hadn't voted?

You're actually describing the pizza or Chinese food dinner election: my wife wants Chinese, my daughter wants pizza, and it's up to me to break the tie. Clearly, every vote matters in such elections; mine is no more privileged than my wife's or daughter's, and with a different voting order, one of them could end up as the tie-breaker instead of me. This has never been in doubt.

But dinner elections don't scale to mass elections; systems have to be put in place and that introduces systematic error. The way elections are run, there is no realistic scenario where a 100,000 to 100,000 tie is a statistically meaningful election. In your scenario, where I am the privileged tie-breaker vote, the very fact of my being called to cast the deciding vote is a random event. Had a recount been ordered before calling me for my vote, it is practically certain that the count would not be 100,000 to 100,000, and so I wouldn't be called and my vote wouldn't matter. Within the +/- ε margin of error, the 100,000 to 100,000 result is just as likely as any other (x+ε) to (x-ε) result.

 

@Hypatia's Protege

Thank you.

 

The self appointed Deacons(free press) will shepard us thru it.

As opposed to the propaganda arm of the presidency? Faux news?