While I’m looking for a charity-giving study, I’ll point out that giving a small amount is not “nothing”. A meal for a child can be provided for very little money – less than a dollar per child – with smart management, and I don’t think providing a meal for a needy child is “nothing”. Helping a child avoid being hungry for a few hours is a nice, good, and valuable thing to do for society.
So your answer is that you get warm and fuzzy expending energy on telling us why you don’t vote and don’t hand out money to charity and all that?
And ten people giving 1 dollar has the exact same impact as one person giving 10 dollars.
Well, yes, since representation itself involves fractions, not every vote changes the outcome.
That’s life.
But alot more votes would change the outcome than in our current system.
You need to clarify whether you’re claiming that an election can’t ever end with a one-vote margin because you just don’t think it’s likely, or whether you’re claiming there will always be someone there to steal it through fraud.
The former is simply false; the latter is not really part of this discussion.
What more need be said?
Somehow a whole bunch of people with donations that you consider worthless ended up funding a huge charity. How’s that possible?
Here is a discussion of a psychology and charity study at UT Dallas. Relevant portion:
So people gave more when they believed that the previous donor gave a large gift.
Simple. There is a legal basis to order another recount.
The total # of votes was way less, so the “fuzziness factor” was smaller. To the level of one ballot.
And yet you were talking about “a quarter”.
No fraud is needed. The “fuzziness factor” is MUCH higher than one ballot. Think “hanging chads”.
Is a quarter “a large gift”?
Here’s another study, about charitable giving in Canada. It found that social pressure, including the giving habits of those around you, influenced the likelihood and amount of donations.
A quarter can buy a healthy snack for a needy child. That’s a good, positive, and valuable thing to do for society.
In addition, the studies I’ve linked to show that your giving habits can positively affect the giving habits of others.
"“There are a number of empirical studies that suggest individuals do respond to peer pressure – they respond when there is a [charitable] norm,” says Devlin.
We’re not talking about “norm”. We’re talking about your idea that you putting a quarter into the bucket will influence others to do it.
First, you didn’t link to studies. You linked to some vague handwaving about some studies. And second, the studies don’t say what you want them to say.
I shouldn’t have to prove it (though I very nearly have) – all I need to do is demonstrate that it’s a reasonable supposition. It takes no effort and very little material sacrifice to give a quarter to charity, and based on the discussions of studies I’ve linked to (as well as common sense understanding of human psychology) it’s very reasonable to suppose that giving even small amounts has a better-than-zero chance of stimulating someone else to give based on social pressure alone.
In addition, even small gifts (like a quarter) can materially benefit society; by getting a snack to a needy child, for instance.
Here is a direct link to a study that finds that peer pressure, in the form of donating in pairs rather than individually, increases the amount donated.
The UK government’s “Giving White Paper” states:
In fairness, they’ve backed up their positions far better than you have.
Seems to me that groups like the Red Cross and the Salvation Army can do a lot of good with $100. I fail to see what difference it makes if it comes from one guy dropping a $100 bill or 400 people kicking in a quarter. If $100 is significant, than surely a quarter is 1/400 times as significant.