Voting: Math is Hard

I think this set of rules is a bit less deceptive than the last which clearly shows some biased belief in a benevolent tyrant.

Rule #1) The person you want to win is either a person that they want to win or cannot win

Rule #2) By voting for a person that you don't really want to win, well that's what majoritarian systems are all about. Everyone does it at some point. No need to be ashamed just remember you don't have to keep doing it.

Rule #3) Voting against someone that you don't want to win will get you the same thing as voting for someone that you do want to win. A feeling of frustration and failure, as you clearly still believe in myths like the easter bunny and democratic governments.

Rule #4) If you're trying to guess how others are voting, it's kind of like trying to guess what religion others believe in. If you ask them they'll probably tell you at length until you feel like shooting both them and yourself. And beyond that it doesn't matter because no matter how hard they root for their personal supernatural tyrant, it wont make their myths into realities.

Rule #5) Whether you know how others are voting or not, you can be rest assured that you know who will win. A rich, white, heterosexist, christian, capitalist, male, that may or may not pretend to be accepting of those who have failed to meet all of those standards themselves.

Rule #6) Polls are manipulative, they make you think that people's opinions matter to the machines of imperialism.

Rule #7) Voting based on how others are voting is not voting based on how you want to vote. Just like praying based on how others are praying isn't praying based on how you want to pray... that is if you still fall for either.

Rule #8) If three people decide an election, based on voting for B, even though they want A to win, because they are afraid of C, then they fell for the belief that the differences between A, B, and C actually matter or that they'll actually do what they say. When in fact 100% of elections throughout history have only brought the same thing, government and law. Which, over the course of it's ten thousand year reign, has not fixed a damn thing but has certainly brought us wars, genocide, classes, slavery... oh and elections.

Rule #9) Repetition does not help a point, but it does offend the reader.

Rule #10) The value of candidate A never increases really, but the value of yourself and every other human being decreases when you put faith in representative majoritarian tyrants. Markets are nonsense based on exploitation just like elections, a very interesting discussion as well but not one for this post.

Rule #11) A person you want to win is much like the sports team that you want to win. They've never heard of nor care about you, they're too rich an privileged to give a damn about the issues that actually affect people, and their victory is never going to change the game.

Rule #12) No matter who the winner is, the loser is the person who voted and believed that anybody in the game would actually serve their interests.

Rule #13) Voting machines don't matter, all elections are frauds.

Rule #14) If you think you can out fox the foxes by voting... you were just outfoxed by two people, them and you.

Rule #15) If you're tired of listening to stupid reformist rhetoric about how you need to vote because father state (Yes, father because we know all states are patriarchs) will only help you if you tell him what you think. then you can always find some other means to affect change, just think you're smart enough to figure it out I'm sure.

I thought that was a great response! It's rare you see a good response like that. But, I have to make some additions and subtractions here and there, and yes, math is still hard. First, the response mischaracterized the author. In fact, even the tactic of going after a person rather than the content means math is hard. But, aside from that, it was just plain wrong. The topic was voting and how decisions are made based on fear and how the prisoner's dilema and stock market principles underlying it operates. But, in easy to understand rules, with a pissed off and slightly sarcastic tone. Notice that NOWHERE in the article does it encourage people to vote or put any value marker on the voting. That was all assumed.

The response was rooted, or seemed rooted, in the idea that because someone was speaking about a topic, voting in this case, that they valued voting. That's just wrong. The topic was how voting works. No need to draw personal inferences and make assumptions. You know what happens when you assume? Similarly, while one may not practice in any religion or have any believe in certain myths, they can none the less describe how religion and myth functions. That's what the original article did. To try to educate those that believe in a certain religion or dogma how to operate in it more effectively. But, also to show something that applies to any decision, not just voting.

Now, the main thing the response did was to brush aside the math because it didn't like the topic it applied to in this case. It looked like this. One train leaves station A at 12:00pm going West at 60 miles/hour. Another train leaves station B at 3:00pm going East 40 miles/hour. The stations are 456 miles apart and connected by one track. At what time will they meet? The response basically said: "But, I don't like trains!"

It doesn't matter if you don't like trains or if they are going to crash into each other. The point is the math still works. Making any decision, voting for example, out of fear and not understanding the prisoner dilema and manipulation of those on a voter who DO understand these things involves this same math. The math part would make a better place to critique the original article, I think. But, the none the less the response tries to point to larger topics it thinks are more important, but throws the baby away with the bath water.

Finally, there's another myth defying math that needs to be explored. I personally agree with the response that adherence to voting as the enshrined gospel to make change creates a myth and that it is essentially useless for many reasons. However, ONE of those main reasons is that people don't MATHEMATICALLY know how to vote. That's one of the reasons it doesn't work. That's what the response missed. But, also what is created by not understanding that this lack of education about voting by secret ballot (or any similar decision) is a myth of its own. Namely, that, voting can not work.

The american experience with voting has lead some down the path of a creating a religion out of saying that voting works to create change and some others down a path of creating a religion saying it doesn't work. Adherence to either dogma is dog-gone wrong. Voting machines and fraud aside, It IS possible for an anarchist to run for governor and win if people want to vote for them and DO vote for them, but this is only possible if they were to vote for whom they wanted to win. One may say that an anarchist wouldn't run for governor, but it still doesn't matter if you like trains, mathematically if everyone wanted it that way the ONLY way it could happen in a voting system if they voted for that person and not AGAINST one of the capitalists. That's all, it's just math.

So it is a myth that voting works. It is also a myth that voting can't work. At least within the scope of any framework. Consensus process is voting. The framework is different, but most all the same problems that the article talked about apply there too. You may not be voting for representatives, but you are voting for something. You probably never have perfect information about what others in your collective want in that consensus process. If the decision was whether to serve dumpstered food to people on Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday. You and everyone else really wanted to serve food on Tuesday and everyone really didn't want to serve food on Thursday. If everyone votes based on what they want, Tuesday wins. If people, not knowing what others might vote for, are worried that Tuesday really doesn't have enough support and that they just can't stand Thursday, they may vote for Wednesday. Math. Everyone wanted Tuesday, but they got Wednesday.

Luckily, in a very small consensus process people have better information because they can talk face to face. Also, people have the chance to vote, shorthand for express an opinion in a fixed form, many times and discuss. If result becomes Wednesday and everyone talks after the fact or during a larger discussion and finds out they all really wanted Tuesday. They can do better the next time. But, still they don't know what people might want next time as circumstances have changed. Running the prisoner's dilema over and over again... This is why only voting systems with a very small number of geographically close people work even mildly effectively. Large geographically dispersed voting systems could work too, but only if people vote without taking what other people are doing into account.

Let me respond directly to some of the response:

Rule #1) The person you want to win is either a person they want to win or cannot win.

-- Cannot win why? Who is they? Cannot win because they don't have enough support? Well, then they shouldn't win. But, if they do have the support, they should. It isn't just the mythical "the man" voting. Real people. Real people, who are good people are voting. So "they" encompasses both capitalists and, shockingly, anarchists. Outside of voting machines and fraud, the belief that someone you want to win, cannot win, is also a myth. Counting is not voodoo. However, whether representative democracy with a capitalist economy is something you want to participate in at all is, A SEPARATE QUESTION from how voting works inside it.

Rule #2) By voting for a person that you don't really want to win, well that's what majoritarian systems are all about. Everyone does it at some point. No need to be ashamed just remember you don't have to keep doing it.

-- This point is weaker than some of the others. I'm happy to say that I've never voted my fears, even when I was voting. There is no spell that can be cast over voting in a majoritarian system that makes it "about" voting for who you don't want to win. Although, any voting system composed of voters that don't understand voting turns out looking that way. So maybe, combined with the realization that you don't have to keep NOT understanding how voting works and keep voting for who you don't want to win, it proves the original point of the article in a round a bout way.

Rule #3) Voting against someone that you don't want to win will get you the same thing as voting for someone that you do want to win. A feeling of frustration and failure, as you clearly still believe in myths like the easter bunny and democratic governments.

-- Outside of voting machines and fraud (meaning, I guess, inside of math), the observation in #3 is itself a myth. It relies on a foggy notion that even if things weren't rigged numbers wouldn't add up. That's not true. However, my set theory professor was from Poland, and he described the VERY rigged Polish election system of the 80's in this way. A -> B , B -> B (A implies B, B implies B). He thought that was very funny. Dry Polish wit. I loved it.

-- The easter bunny is not real? Somebody better tell the christians. Democratic governments are not real? Someone better tell the americans. Shangri-La? Utopia? Venezuela? Palestine? Cuba? China? Soviet Union? Cascadia? Who you gonna tell about these myths?

Rule #4) If you're trying to guess how others are voting, it's kind of like trying to guess what religion others believe in. If you ask them they'll probably tell you at length until you feel like shooting both them and yourself. And beyond that it doesn't matter because no matter how hard they root for their personal supernatural tyrant, it wont make their myths into realities.

-- This is a strong point in the first part. Representative democracy and the players in it have become a religion in america. However, what is totally incorrect, is to say these myths haven't become reality. The people who believe most strongly in the myths create a self-fullfilling prophecy. You might say the whole trouble is that the myth, along with its tyrants and heroes, is all too real and the nightmare won't stop so long as people believe in it.

-- Thinking that others will want to vote for candidate B when they, in fact, want to vote for A is a fantasy. One believes in something that is not true. However, if everyone has this belief, and votes for B... guess what, B wins. The myth became real. You thought everyone would vote for B and everyone did.

Rule #5) Whether you know how others are voting or not, you can be rest assured that you know who will win. A rich, white, heterosexist, christian, capitalist, male, that may or may not pretend to be accepting of those who have failed to meet all of those standards themselves.

-- Another myth. It could easily be a rich, black, homophobic, socialist, woman, or a rich, black, muslim, constitutionlist, male, or a rich, gay, white, communist, woman, or a rich, asian, bi-sexual, buddhist, libertarian, male... or even a rich, white, bi-sexual, anarchist, woman.

Rule #6) Polls are manipulative, they make you think that people's opinions matter to the machines of imperialism.

-- Someone call the plumber, the baby is stuck in the drain pipe. Polls are manipulative. But, it is important to know what their goal really is and not obscure it. Waving the magic wand over the point about polling won't make the decision science behind polling go away. The true goal of a poll, in america, is to try to convince others falsely about how others might vote and to build a self-fullfilling prophecy based on this lack of knowledge problem in large elections. The opinions of imperialism don't matter to pollsters. They get paid to manipulate the prisoner's dilema.

Rule #7) Voting based on how others are voting is not voting based on how you want to vote. Just like praying based on how others are praying isn't praying based on how you want to pray... that is if you still fall for either.

-- Ok. Trains are stupid. Praying that voting won't have any practical affect is not something to fall for either. The reality is that voting and organized religion are here. Those who don't practice either, can either choose to try to explain science to them or ignore them. I believe ignoring them won't make them go away. A lot of good people want to vote. A lot of good people want to pray. Helping them to understand how their belief system works and how to improve it helps us all.

Rule #8) If three people decide an election, based on voting for B, even though they want A to win, because they are afraid of C, then they fell for the belief that the differences between A, B, and C actually matter or that they'll actually do what they say. When in fact 100% of elections throughout history have only brought the same thing, government and law. Which, over the course of it's ten thousand year reign, has not fixed a damn thing but has certainly brought us wars, genocide, classes, slavery... oh and elections.

-- This is a good point. I'm starting to hate trains too. I never really liked them. There CAN definietly be a difference between A, B, and C. The differences do matter, if there is a difference, just not if they aren't any differences. Clearly when voting 'yes' or 'no' on some ballot measure there is a difference. Clearly there are candidates who run for office inside a capitalist system that are very different. It's a myth to say there aren't. That doesn't change the system and perhaps the good people that run for office can't change it either. But, that doesn't make the differences between good and bad people any less different.

-- Ten thousand years is a bit overstated. Government brings us all those bad things. But, so does society without government at least during the first 4000 years of tribal society... or heck, even the tribal societies of today still make war, committ genocide, have classes, and slavery and chiefs. Don't get me wrong. I'm not advocating for government. But, lack of government won't cure any of those evils. That's just a myth. Society will always be with us.

Rule #9) Repetition does not help a point, but it does offend the reader.

-- Caveat Lector. Objects may appear more offensive than they are.

Rule #10) The value of candidate A never increases really, but the value of yourself and every other human being decreases when you put faith in representative majoritarian tyrants. Markets are nonsense based on exploitation just like elections, a very interesting discussion as well but not one for this post.

-- When you put faith in any myth, perhaps that's the point, value decreases to all of us. Markets are non-sense based on exploitation of imperfect knowledge, just like elections. That was EXACTLY what the original post was about on this point. That's why a point was made analogizing them. That would have made a GREAT discussion for the original article. That's what it's about. How do decision mechanisms work? How do people misunderstand them? How are they manipulated? That's the original post in a nut-shell.

Rule #11) A person you want to win is much like the sports team that you want to win. They've never heard of nor care about you, they're too rich an privileged to give a damn about the issues that actually affect people, and their victory is never going to change the game.

-- Is a collection of myths, a religion? I know people that I have wanted to win, they know me and care about me and give a damn about the issues that affect people. Any religion that ignores the reality of good people participating in a broken system is not for me. If they were victorious, it would change the game. The game that's being discussed in the article is not capitalism, but voting. If a candidate that people thought should not be able to win won. Then they would be more likely to believe that someone else that they thought should not be able to win could win. This is how people make decisions about all sorts of things. These micro-economic decisions, have, in the macro, a very practical effect. Otherwise known as 'hope'.

Rule #12) No matter who the winner is, the loser is the person who voted and believed that anybody in the game would actually serve their interests.

-- This is a very strong critique of our government as a whole. Doesn't address the question of voting fears instead of desires, but a very strong point. I would just add that the person who loses the hardest is the person who didn't vote their desires AND got the person they thought would not serve their interests. That's just sad on so many levels.

Rule #13) Voting machines don't matter, all elections are frauds.

-- Does Nietzsche have his own religion? What is that? Nihilism? Voting machines do matter. They are part of what make elections frauds. Elections don't have to be frauds, regardless of whether they are. You can have people vote, count the votes and see which thing got the most votes. It does require knowing how to count though.

Rule #14) If you think you can out fox the foxes by voting... you were just outfoxed by two people, them and you.

-- This is the strongest point in the response. But, also the place consequently where the most power is derived. You may not like trains or Kung Fu movies, but consider this possibility. The place where someone thinks that they are strongest; where they derive their power is the last place they will look for you to strike, making it in some sense the weakest point. I think of Daoist thought as less of a myth or religion, but more like math. So, in effect, voting could be the exhaust tunnel of the death star. Like them or not, Hamas snuck one right up there when no one even saw it coming. Keep that tucked under your pillow.

-- Could you imagine what it might be like if a government fell one day because the duly elected anarchist representatives formally repealed all its laws. It would come to guns first, you might say, but some people hold on to the religion of their government and law so much that they would rather see it dismantled according to the proper processes and procedures then to see it toppled by force of arms or non-violent revolution. Few people have the conviction to go right into the belly of the beast, but our earliest litterature suggests this can be the only alternative in dire circumstances.

Rule #15) If you're tired of listening to stupid reformist rhetoric about how you need to vote because father state (Yes, father because we know all states are patriarchs) will only help you if you tell him what you think. then you can always find some other means to affect change, just think you're smart enough to figure it out I'm sure.

-- Another good point. But this goes for matriarchs too. Mater, Pater, Geri, any kind of arch's. Change can best be affected by using ALL the most effective means simultaneously. The change I would like to affect today is to get people to understand that whatever the participatory decision is in front of you, the only possible way to achieve your desired outcome is to vote for your desired outcome. There is NO possibility of achiving your desired result otherwise. In fact, all sorts of weird results happen when you do anything else. Results, that you will not like.