> > ... There can be no useful relation between a model that assumes a > > maximum of purposive rationality and a reality that demonstrates > > none. No voter ever attempts to improve her standing in the > > electoral "game", because no single vote ever affects the outcome > > of a typical election.
Warren Smith wrote: > ---ok, now you are going too far. "None"? Sorry, that is nonsense. It looks like none. You offer this, as an example of "some": > ... humans were designed by Darwin for smaller group sizes, > e.g. tribes of a few 100 members, and their notions of "rational" > are designed for groups of those sizes. I think a lot of behavior > about sizes larger than that (such as a country-wide election) can > be understood roughly, by saying "humans do stuff that'd be rational > if it were size<300. The human inbuilt pseudo-rationality device > basically can only count up to 200 and all populations>200 are > treated by it as 200." A flaw in reason, then - a delusion. But delusion is a poor grist for rational mills, like Nash; not to mention a poor foundation for democracy. What would happen if people should ever become un-deluded? You for instance, Warren. You are not deluded. Do you still vote in local, state or federal elections? Has your vote ever affected the outcome? (I admit that I still vote, though it has no effect.) -- Michael Allan Toronto, +1 647-436-4521 http://zelea.com/ ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
