2 ms·

Speaking of rounding errors, you shouldn't vote, either. In fact, even literally throwing up your hands is a waste of energy.

• hanniabu 7y ago
  That's not at all the same comparison. An equal comparison would be where the president's vote counts at 1 trillion votes. In that case I wouldn't bother voting because even if everybody in the country votes for candidate A it'll mean nothing if the president votes for president B. The president's vote will always overpower everyone else's vote.
• deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
• claudiawerner 7y ago
  > Speaking of rounding errors, you shouldn't vote, either. Quite a few philosophers of politics and radicals would agree with that statement; from SEP[0]: >There is some debate among economists and political scientists over the precise way to calculate the probability that a vote will be decisive. Nevertheless, they generally agree that the probability that the modal individual voter in a typical election will break a tie is small, so small that the expected benefit (i.e., p[V(D)−V(R)]) of the modal vote for a good candidate is worth far less than a millionth of a penny (G. Brennan and Lomasky 1993: 56–7, 119). The most optimistic estimate in the literature claims that in a presidential election, an American voter could have as high as a 1 in 10 million chance of breaking a tie, but only if that voter lives in one of three or four “swing states,” and only if she votes for a major-party candidate (Edlin, Gelman, and Kaplan 2007). Chances are, you can use the time to do other things, things that gain you more benefit than "a millionth of a penny" (if we must use the economism of time = money). [0] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/voting/#1 https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/voting/#1
  • rconti 7y ago
    I disagree with it too, but it follows from this silly theory of not taking any action unless it's the biggest possible action.