An FAQ for the 2012 US Presidential Election
1–10 of 18 posts
Re: An FAQ for the 2012 US Presidential Election
#2Given raganwald's recent "Tell HN", is it possible to keep the discussion on this thread civil? I would assume it is still impossible to needlessly argue politics here, but please prove me wrong.
Re: An FAQ for the 2012 US Presidential Election
#3Assuming nothing extraordinary happens, this election is Obama's.
Having said that, I find Washington state initiative 502 (and to a lesser extent colorado amendment 64) to be the most interesting and important elections this year.
Recent polls have shown support for marijuana legalization of more than 50% and a state voting for legalization will be the start of the end of prohibition.
Re: An FAQ for the 2012 US Presidential Election
#4Assuming nothing extraordinary happens, this election is Obama's. Having said that, I find Washington state initiative 502 (and to a lesser extent colorado amendment 64) to be the most interesting and important elections this year. Recent polls have shown support for marijuana legalization of more than 50% and a state voting for legalization will be the start of the end of prohibition.
You're probably right, which as a Romney supporter makes me a bit sad. However, I think there's a good shot you see Romney win the popular vote by a .3% margin and still not pull down Ohio letting Obama win. I definitely can't see the margin being more than 1% either direction in the popular...
Re: An FAQ for the 2012 US Presidential Election
#5Assuming nothing extraordinary happens, this election is Obama's. Having said that, I find Washington state initiative 502 (and to a lesser extent colorado amendment 64) to be the most interesting and important elections this year. Recent polls have shown support for marijuana legalization of more than 50% and a state voting for legalization will be the start of the end of prohibition.
[deleted]
Re: An FAQ for the 2012 US Presidential Election
#6This is possibly the most reasonable and cool-headed analysis of an upcoming election that I have ever read.
I love how he concludes that voting is rational. I'd never thought to multiply the, potentially massive, cost of the candidate I disfavor getting elected, multiply it by the tiny chance my vote makes the difference, and compare the result to the amount of money I make in an hour. He admits his cost figures are fudged, but in principle, it works out.
Since I spotted this on the front page, it seems to have been nuked by mods. Perhaps that's for the better, but I'd be much more interested in discussing politics if everyone could handle it with the restrained style and tone in this article. Interesting link.
Re: An FAQ for the 2012 US Presidential Election
#7This is possibly the most reasonable and cool-headed analysis of an upcoming election that I have ever read. I love how he concludes that voting is rational. I'd never thought to multiply the, potentially massive, cost of the candidate I disfavor getting elected, multiply it by the tiny chance my vote makes the difference, and compare the result to the amount of money I make in an hour. He admits his cost figures are…
That calculation assumes your judgement is better than the typical voter's. You should weigh it by P(better)-P(worse). (I'm not necessarily saying people with reason to think they have at-best average judgement should patriotically not vote; but the calculation is.)
(It's also worth considering a la Hofstadter/Yudkowsky that something like your decision process is instantiated in other people like you -- if you decide not to vote, many of them won't either, even with no causal link.)
Re: An FAQ for the 2012 US Presidential Election
#8This is possibly the most reasonable and cool-headed analysis of an upcoming election that I have ever read. I love how he concludes that voting is rational. I'd never thought to multiply the, potentially massive, cost of the candidate I disfavor getting elected, multiply it by the tiny chance my vote makes the difference, and compare the result to the amount of money I make in an hour. He admits his cost figures are…
That calculation assumes your judgement is better than the typical voter's. You should weigh it by P(better)-P(worse). (I'm not necessarily saying people with reason to think they have at-best average judgement should patriotically not vote; but the calculation is.) (It's also worth considering a la Hofstadter/Yudkowsky that something like your decision process is instantiated in other people like you -- if you decid…
Also not everything is purely economic. If we assume that Candidate A would cost the US $7 trillion while B would be revenue neutral, then A's election would, on paper, be terrible. But how much would it actually make your life as an individual worse in a meaningful way? I suspect that in many cases, the practical impact of a presidential election on an individual's day-to-day life is relatively low. And that probably drives the intuitive notion that voting is irrational. Voting in local elections (mayor, city council, etc.) is probably more rational, both due to bigger impact of your vote and larger policy consequences for you as an individual.
Re: An FAQ for the 2012 US Presidential Election
#9Given raganwald's recent "Tell HN", is it possible to keep the discussion on this thread civil? I would assume it is still impossible to needlessly argue politics here, but please prove me wrong.
I must say, I've been flagging most election-related threads unless they're clearly hacker-related (statistical anaylis, integrity of voter data etc.).
This is one of the most bilious elections that I remember and although I'm interested to hear the spectrum of views on HN as a general matter I'm depressed by the likelihood that the discussion would just degenerate into a flamefest. I'd rather not see friends and fellow HNers slinging mud at each other, because heaven knows there's enough of it on the rest of the internet. Website comments on political matters make me question the whole premise of democracy :-(
Re: An FAQ for the 2012 US Presidential Election
#10OT, but interesting to see that Norvig pronounces FAQ eff-ay-cue not fack.