That’s correct. Is buying a lottery ticket a rational decision? Or do people buy the tickets because of the warm fuzzies?
And that’s taking into account that there are lottery winners every week. Last time a federal election was decided by one vote was 1910. And never before that that I could find.
Sure it is, since the cost is so low. You pretty much lose nothing. Buying $1,000 in lottery tickets might be a bad idea, but one or two? A million to one odds are still better than zero chances. And you still get the intangible warm and fuzzy feeling of dreaming about what you’d do if you won.
Kind of like how voting costs very little.
The question is whether or not you are accurate in your claim that there is “zero” as opposed to a small chance of a single vote deciding an election. You are obviously wrong. Whatever you or I think about paying money to play the lottery is a different issue, and a sidetrack to a claim you made that is just false.
BTW, back on topic - Terr’s logic and attitude, regardless of whether we judge them rational or not, are a product of the geography-based winner-take-all system that proportional representation would fix. Under a PR system, his vote would always count.
Snark deserves snark.
I am not “obviously” wrong. It is a very good supposition that no modern federal election will be allowed to be decided by one vote. Not by the legal system and not by the political system.
I was responding to a post in which you basically said that lots of little donations of money don’t add up to alot of money, which is demonstrably absurd.
Perhaps I should have been the first one to say “fail.”
I don’t think that would fix his specific complaint. As he laid it out, “[P]eople who go to vote in federal elections because they think their individual vote may affect the outcome are deluding themselves.”
As I read it, unless an individual vote sways the outcome for candidate A, B or C (and the implied defeat of all other candidates), I believe he’s saying that an individual’s vote would continue not to count under virtually all electoral systems.
What the hell are you talking about, “allowed to be decided” by one vote?
Is the election fairy going to come down and nullify federal elections because one candidate won by the barest of pluralities? Get a grip.
Terr, if your vote is worthless, along with any small contribution you make to charity, why do you expend so much time on these comments? Wouldn’t comments on a board like this be that much more pointless? What makes you take the effort to post? Why even lift a finger?
This is not a rhetorical or snarky question - I’d really like to know.
I didn’t say that. I said YOUR little donation doesn’t add up to a lot of money. Which is obviously correct.
But all votes sway the outcome in a PR system. All votes are counted and all result in representation.
Exactly what I said. No court or political system will decide that a Senator is seated when the difference in the count is one vote. There will be another recount and more votes will be “found”.
You misinterpreted my comment then.
My donation, when combined with others, adds up to alot. I thought that was obviously what I was saying. Nevertheless, there it is.
Cuz I like to argue? You missed my point, didn’t you. If you get some kind of pleasure/satisfaction/warm fuzzies from an irrational act - all power to you, go ahead and do it. But if it is a chore, a hassle and irrational, then people don’t (and really shouldn’t) do it. Human nature.
And all the other donations, when combined, without yours, add up to “alot”. So?
I think the people who think that the moon landing was faked have more evidence for their theory than you do for yours.
As much as you have for your theory that a modern federal election can possibly be decided by one vote.
I get what you’re saying, but that’s not strictly true. Let’s say 1,000 people are represented by multiple seats. Whether the top vote-getting candidate gets 501 or 502 votes is irrelevant: that 502nd vote counted, but “did not affect [sic] the outcome” as Terr stated.
(I acknowledge that I said that an individual’s vote would not “count” in the post you responded to; I used that word inaccurately. I should have said that an individual’s vote would not be “decisive,” which I believe is Terr’s underlying point.)
You’re the one claiming that mysterious powers would intervene. I know of no rational or legal basis for what you’re claiming.
By the way, you seem to be insinuating that pre-modern federal elections were more honest. You can’t seriously believe that, can you?