Voting Strategy 101

since9 · Nov 6, 2014

These forums have seen many discussions on voting strategy. The notable ones include the following:

Voting for your favorite candidate regardless of whether they have a chance to win
Voting for your favorite candidate only if they have a reasonable chance to win
Voting for the lesser of two evils
Not voting because there are only two evils

Here's what happened when the voters in Louisiana choose the first option:

Landrieu: 42%
Cassidy: 41%
Maness: 14%

Do the math. I have zero respect for Maness, trying to run when he didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning. His greed/pride/ego (pick one) handed the race to Landrieu on a silver platter.

Nor do I have no respect for those who stupidly throw their votes away on people like Maness. Clearly, they weren't thinking at all, and for their folly, the get to see gun-hating Landrieu in office instead of either Republican.

As for the list of options above, 2 and 3 work. 1 and 4 do not. They never have. Option 1, well... You've seen the results of Option 1. As for Option 4, just ask yourself what's preferable? Half-bad? Or full-bad? By not voting for half-bad, you removed your vote of opposition to full-bad. In effect, you're saying you'd rather sit on the couch and be served full-bad because you were lazy, instead of working towards something only half as bad. I'm sorry, but that's as stupid as letting your roof rot because you're too lazy to reshingle it.

How people trick themselves (or allow others to trick them) into believing otherwise is unfathomable.

This subset of Gaming Theory should be required reading all grades from middle school on.

The Truth · Nov 6, 2014

Not voting is multi-faceted. What you are analyzing are numbers based on actual votes. Those numbers mean nothing unless you give them meaning. You'll not convince anyone to vote by asking them to play a role in some game that they apparently don't understand, or in your words, "I'm sorry, but that's as stupid as letting your roof rot because you're too lazy to reshingle it."

You're saying to vote for who you think will win or vote for the lesser of two evils, and you're calling people who don't vote, "lazy." If those are the only options, then I'll never vote. You're alienating an entire voting block that you could have swayed using some better logic.

since9 · Nov 7, 2014

The Truth said:
You're saying to vote for who you think will win or vote for the lesser of two evils, and you're calling people who don't vote, "lazy." If those are the only options, then I'll never vote. You're alienating an entire voting block that you could have swayed using some better logic.

If that's what you believe, that if this is the case, you'll "never vote," then by all means stay away from the polls!

People lose their shirts every day in Las Vegas because they believe in luck instead of the hard, cold facts of statistics. They don't understand the basics. I used to live there, and have seen it first-hand on several occasions. Sad.

Similarly, Americans vote themselves out of house and home on a regular basis because they too don't understand the basics.

The Truth · Nov 7, 2014

Right, by using counter-intuitive voting tactics like voting for the lesser of two evils, or voting for who you think will win instead of the candidate with the best principles. Compromise is how rights are lost.

davidmcbeth · Nov 7, 2014

Should ask the GOP not to run anyone and just have a libertarian run ... most GOP members would vote against the dem and many dems would vote for the libertarian.

Problem solved.

The Truth · Nov 7, 2014

davidmcbeth said:
Should ask the GOP not to run anyone and just have a libertarian run ... most GOP members would vote against the dem and many dems would vote for the libertarian.

Problem solved.

+1 Illuminati confirmed

Grapeshot · Nov 7, 2014

davidmcbeth said:
Should ask the GOP not to run anyone and just have a libertarian run ... most GOP members would vote against the dem and many dems would vote for the libertarian.

Problem solved.

The Truth said:
+1 Illuminati confirmed

Disagree. Both tactical and practical FAIL. It is an "only in your dreams" solution.

Tongue in cheek reply understood, but attempted humor is not an answer to a very real problem.

marshaul · Nov 7, 2014

Nonsense thread.

1. Third party votes tend to take equally from both of the primary parties.

2. Individual votes are statistically irrelevant.

3. As for me personally, I would never, ever vote (R). Period. It's not an option. Not on the table.

Your attempt to apply "game theory" is laughably shallow.

Firearms Iinstuctor · Nov 7, 2014

From Ross Perot on voting third party has resulted in democratic wins.

Sorry having been a former third party voter one has face the facts, third parties have handed a lot of wins to the democrats.

OC for ME · Nov 7, 2014

Folks in LA who voted for who they thought would win were the folks who voted for Landrieu.

davidmcbeth · Nov 7, 2014

Grapeshot said:
Disagree. Both tactical and practical FAIL. It is an "only in your dreams" solution.

Tongue in cheek reply understood, but attempted humor is not an answer to a very real problem.

And what do you base your analysis upon?

Superlite27 · Nov 7, 2014

since9 said:
Do the math. I have zero respect for Maness, trying to run when he didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning. His greed/pride/ego (pick one) handed the race to Landrieu on a silver platter.

Nor do I have no respect for those who stupidly throw their votes away on people like Maness. Clearly, they weren't thinking at all, and for their folly, the get to see gun-hating Landrieu in office instead of either Republican.

How people trick themselves (or allow others to trick them) into believing otherwise is unfathomable.

This subset of Gaming Theory should be required reading all grades from middle school on.

There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.

Convinced of your own infallibility, you steamroll ahead, eyes forced tightly shut, leading all the morons stupid enough to be suckered into your delusion to their "salvation": The mecca of mediocrity.

YOU are the problem.

Your ideology has successfully convinced 30% of the population who probably wanted Maness to win to vote for Cassidy out of fear of throwing away their vote.

BTW: If you keep rewarding a party who keeps putting up $#!tty candidates by voting for them anyway, what is the incentive to put up anything else in the future?

It's like a room filled with lonely single people acting like happily married individuals, each afraid to say anything revealing the truth out of fear of being the only one laughed at for being alone.

stealthyeliminator · Nov 7, 2014

since9 said:
These forums have seen many discussions on voting strategy. The notable ones include the following:

Voting for your favorite candidate regardless of whether they have a chance to win

Voting for your favorite candidate only if they have a reasonable chance to win

Voting for the lesser of two evils

Not voting because there are only two evils

Here's what happened when the voters in Louisiana choose the first option:

Landrieu: 42%
Cassidy: 41%
Maness: 14%

Do the math. I have zero respect for Maness, trying to run when he didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning. His greed/pride/ego (pick one) handed the race to Landrieu on a silver platter.

Nor do I have no respect for those who stupidly throw their votes away on people like Maness. Clearly, they weren't thinking at all, and for their folly, the get to see gun-hating Landrieu in office instead of either Republican.

As for the list of options above, 2 and 3 work. 1 and 4 do not. They never have. Option 1, well... You've seen the results of Option 1. As for Option 4, just ask yourself what's preferable? Half-bad? Or full-bad? By not voting for half-bad, you removed your vote of opposition to full-bad. In effect, you're saying you'd rather sit on the couch and be served full-bad because you were lazy, instead of working towards something only half as bad. I'm sorry, but that's as stupid as letting your roof rot because you're too lazy to reshingle it.

How people trick themselves (or allow others to trick them) into believing otherwise is unfathomable.

This subset of Gaming Theory should be required reading all grades from middle school on.

If this is your mindset then you are not voting, you're gambling.

Voting is indeed the act of deciding who you believe is the best candidate and filling the dot next to their name on the ballot. That you're unable to see the problem with using a gambler's decision making process to vote, which is a selection process, not gambling, is what is unfathomable. Really, your entire post is enraging. "You principled people are ruining my compromise! Whaaaaa!" Please go cry on a butter's forum, I'm sure they'll be more apt to agree with you.

stealthyeliminator · Nov 7, 2014

stealthyeliminator said:
If this is your mindset then you are not voting, you're gambling.

Voting is indeed the act of deciding who you believe is the best candidate and filling the dot next to their name on the ballot. That you're unable to see the problem with using a gambler's decision making process to vote, which is a selection process, not gambling, is what is unfathomable. Really, your entire post is enraging. "You principled people are ruining my compromise! Whaaaaa!" Please go cry on a butter's forum, I'm sure they'll be more apt to agree with you.

Too harsh? I've been trying to be nicer since it's more likely to lead to agreement/changed minds.

MAC702 · Nov 7, 2014

since9 said:
...[*]Voting for your favorite candidate regardless of whether they have a chance to win...

This is a viable choice, certainly, for those planning on changing things in the long term.

I know nothing about the Louisiana candidates, but I understand the issue.

If the lesser of two evils is not sufficiently lesser, than go to option one and SHOW the lesser of two evils that they will not be elected until they are actually a good candidate. Eventually, this party will tire of losing, and run a good candidate. Now you have a good candidate, AND a decent chance of winning.

Those who always vote in one of the two evils will never have a chance to see that. If you ONLY care about the next term, then I can't really help you understand the difference.

marshaul · Nov 7, 2014

Superlite27 said:
BTW: If you keep rewarding a party who keeps putting up $#!tty candidates by voting for them anyway, what is the incentive to put up anything else in the future?

Yes, "game theory" fails to account for this, which means it fails to predict the long-term result, which means it's completely worthless.

Redbaron007 · Nov 7, 2014

since9 said:
These forums have seen many discussions on voting strategy. The notable ones include the following:

Voting for your favorite candidate regardless of whether they have a chance to win

Voting for your favorite candidate only if they have a reasonable chance to win

Voting for the lesser of two evils

Not voting because there are only two evils

Here's what happened when the voters in Louisiana choose the first option:

Landrieu: 42%
Cassidy: 41%
Maness: 14%

Do the math. I have zero respect for Maness, trying to run when he didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning. His greed/pride/ego (pick one) handed the race to Landrieu on a silver platter.

Nor do I have no respect for those who stupidly throw their votes away on people like Maness. Clearly, they weren't thinking at all, and for their folly, the get to see gun-hating Landrieu in office instead of either Republican.

As for the list of options above, 2 and 3 work. 1 and 4 do not. They never have. Option 1, well... You've seen the results of Option 1. As for Option 4, just ask yourself what's preferable? Half-bad? Or full-bad? By not voting for half-bad, you removed your vote of opposition to full-bad. In effect, you're saying you'd rather sit on the couch and be served full-bad because you were lazy, instead of working towards something only half as bad. I'm sorry, but that's as stupid as letting your roof rot because you're too lazy to reshingle it.

How people trick themselves (or allow others to trick them) into believing otherwise is unfathomable.

This subset of Gaming Theory should be required reading all grades from middle school on.

If I have heard correctly, Landrieu trails by double digits to Cassidy in the runoff in December. They winner for LA has to get a majority of the vote; Landrieu/Cassidy came up short. Now there will be a runoff. IIRC, the Democratic party has already pulled the runoff ads for Landrieu.

As to voting....it boils down to this fact, most voters are only educated by a candidate for a brief 15/30 second media spot...meaning many voters vote by what the candidate will/has done that draws their favor; usually one issue. So, are games played...no question. Is it something new....nope, politics have been around as long as working women. Politicians know how to get to the masses...because that's what it's about.

How to resolve it? Not sure it can 'actually' be done..it can be done in theoretically.

since9 · Nov 11, 2014

Redbaron007 said:
If I have heard correctly, Landrieu trails by double digits to Cassidy in the runoff in December. They winner for LA has to get a majority of the vote; Landrieu/Cassidy came up short. Now there will be a runoff. IIRC, the Democratic party has already pulled the runoff ads for Landrieu.

That's encouraging!

As to voting....it boils down to this fact, most voters are only educated by a candidate for a brief 15/30 second media spot...meaning many voters vote by what the candidate will/has done that draws their favor; usually one issue. So, are games played...no question. Is it something new....nope, politics have been around as long as working women. Politicians know how to get to the masses...because that's what it's about.

How to resolve it? Not sure it can 'actually' be done..it can be done in theoretically.

I think so. The mayor's race here in Colorado Springs was tight, and Bach lost, but the vote was close enough for a runoff. That gave us time enough to focus on the deceptions of the other party and counter them in the message forums, replies in news feeds, in editorials, and other media. In the runoff, Bach won.

The discrepancy was resolved by simple, straightforward education. We only educated a small percentage, but that was enough to turn the tide.

since9 · Nov 11, 2014

The Truth said:
Right, by using counter-intuitive voting tactics like voting for the lesser of two evils, or voting for who you think will win instead of the candidate with the best principles. Compromise is how rights are lost.

Wrong. Absolutism is how elections are lost. When elections are lost, rights are lost.

Primus · Nov 11, 2014

since9 said:
Wrong. Absolutism is how elections are lost. When elections are lost, rights are lost.

Bam....

Voting Strategy 101

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Legendary Warrior

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member