The relative insignifance of a single vote is in part why the chronically
pejorative use of "spoiler" and "wasted vote" by the pundits is so pernicious.
But in addition to the proportionate insignificance of a single vote and the
vexing problem of vote fraud, there is the probably more ubiquitous problem of
human fallibility.
In 2004, a Democrat was elected governor in Washington State by a 133 vote
margin. In the course of the SECOND "HAND" RECOUNT one of the counties found
about 670 absentee ballots that had been inadvertently stuck in a drawer and
not counted the first two times. In the end, after a brief court battle, those
ballots were NOT COUNTED! On balance, it may not have mattered, as the
Democrat carried that county anyway.
But the point is the election system itself simply cannot guarantee that ANY
vote will make the difference, because no system is that perfect.
But that still leaves us with the problem of fighting a myth, that a single
vote DOES count, and votes for third party candidates are wasted.
Having given considerable thought to this problem I have come to the
conclusion that the point of leverage is in public opinion research. After
all, if a single vote is generally inconsequential the question becomes why we
go through this charade of elections in the first place. Answer: At least it
is more reliable than a poll based on a sample of 500; but in the final
analysis, not much. But the public is trained -- yes, "trained" -- to think in
terms of nothing but "red" or "blue," "this" or "that."
Think about this. How often does Rasmussen or Zogby or any of the others
report on third party races? Check the polls in your local area. Notice how
many even ASK about third party candidates. Even more telling, how often do
these reports couch anything in terms other than than "left" or "right",
"liberal" or "conservative?"
Once you have come to the conclusion that there really isn't much out there
to address these questions, think about what the media reports, and how it
chooses to report what it does report. Obviously, the media is very interested
in public opinion, because it is in the business of selling an audience to
advertisers.
And what resources does the media rely on to gauge those demographics? They
don't just wait for the national pollsters to send them a news release. Call
your local TV station and ask if they ever pay for public opinion polls to aid
in their coverage of political campaign seasons. Chances are the answer will
be yes.
Bear in mind that a bi-variate political typology (plotting economic issues
against social issues--e.g., the Nolan Chart) is now generally accepted among
political academia, and is regularly taught in introductory college political
theory classes. This means, according to prevailing political theory, EVERY
public opinion poll based on the traditional single variable spectrum is
inherently invalid, because it fails to recognize a necessary variable.
It also means that the polls upon which the media decides who should be
invited to televised debates (POLLS THAT THEY TYPICALLY PAY FOR!) are biased in
favor of issuing two invitations only. They need somebody on the "right" and
somebody on the "left." Have you ever noticed in the televised debates that
the Democrat usually shows up on the left side of your screen and the
Republican on the right?
So, while it is patently obvious to anybody who thinks it through that an
individual vote is pretty worthless, the establishment continues to perpetrate
the SUPERSTITION that it does. And the reason it does is because its easy to
think about, and because that is where the money is.
The Ds and Rs love it. They get not only to find things out, but also to
spread a vicious myth -- its THEM or US and those wing nuts in the margins do
not deserve your vote.
Meanwhile the Ls sit on their thumbs wondering why they get left out.
To those of you who are running campaigns and who do not get included in
the related polls, send out a press release every time a new poll comes out
that ignores you, and talk about the inherent biases in polls that fail to take
a bi-variate political typology into account. And especially go after the
polls that are paid for by the media that uses them. Obviously this needs to
be said in 8th grade language, but hopefully you get the idea.
OPEN OFFER:
I WILL SEND ANYONE TWENTY DOLLARS IF THEY CAN SHOW ME ANY NON-PRESIDENTIAL
POLL TAKEN IN THE LAST 2 YEARS, THAT WAS NOT FINANCED BY A THIRD PARTY, THIRD
PARTY CANDIDATE OR INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE, AND WHICH ASKS THE VOTERS EVEN ONE
QUESTION THAT SPECIFICALLY NAMES A THIRD PARTY OR INDEPENDENT CANDIDATE.
Fine Print: To get paid you need to provide me with a copy of the entire
polling questionnaire together with a copy of the pollster's final report on
the results. Also, I will not pay twice for the same poll. Finally, this
offer will end on 9/1/06, which gives you little more than a month to find
something. If you want to talk about this further, please email your phone
number to me offline and I will call you.
Richard Shepard
terry12622000 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
By counting I mean breaking a tie since that is the only time in a
secret ballot that a single vote will count. Set aside local
offices in small towns and counties. What are the odds of a single
vote counting for governor in CA or US senator. What are the odds of
a single vote counting in Ohio or Florida for president? What are the
odds of a single vote counting for a US House seat? Now in the odds
don't forget voting
fraud.
Ok now that you have fiqured in the odds of a single vote
breaking a tie and fiquring fiquring in voting fraud in the area, now
fiqure out what are the odds of the politican in office actually
making a diffrence in relation to a single voters
perference.
Kenneith Arrow's immpossiblity theorm says there is no
general way to aggreagate individual level preference to collective
level perference, Arrows theorm appears to also conclude that in fact
we do not have majority rule ( at least the representive type) but we
may only have election cycles and no general
majority.
Anthony Downs suggested that politicans tended to cater to the
median voter, Downs also said voters in general may have no rational
reason for voting, the postive impact is so little that any cost such
as bad weather, a line may be to may trump any direct benfit for the
voter. Mancur Olson a Public Choice Theory concludes in The Logic of
Collective
Action.
Down also concluded that individuals in general have no rational
incentive to learn enough to be able to vote their interest
intelligently.
What is a bit clearer is I think it is pretty safe to vote for a
third party in say a presidential race or a major state race because
the odds of your single vote making a difference is so low it will
not make a diffrence for the two main parties anyway.
Just do a google search on the odds of voting, lots of
work out there.
---------------------------------
Groups are talking. We´re listening. Check out the handy changes to
Yahoo! Groups.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
