Wrong. Absolutism is how elections are lost. When elections are lost, rights are lost.
A win for bad principles is no win at all. It's a lose/lose. See it as you may, we will never agree. That's ok.
Wrong. Absolutism is how elections are lost. When elections are lost, rights are lost.
Yea.... Jagaloon....A win for bad principles is no win at all. It's a lose/lose. See it as you may, we will never agree. That's ok.
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.
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.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Govern...crats-Polled-Want-Obama-to-Run-for-Third-Term
There is no way anti-progressivism can overcome the most powerful force in the Universe.
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.
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.
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.
Come back to the table when you understand iterative deletion and the median-voter theorem, or can explain the difference between moral hazard and hungry lions, or why your approach falls under the category of "backward induction."
You just made all that up didn't you?LOL! You think you can half-assedly throw a bunch of irrelevant concepts you obviously poorly understand yourself and expect to frighten me off? :lol: Get real.
Where shall I start?
First of all, the application of "game theory" to elections is, as with basically everything of any actual use, automatically fallacious. Game theory depends on a number of premises which simply do not hold in the real world, such as rational actors (actually, usually "super rational"). Game theory is useful for solving logic riddles of the sort one sees posted to computer science professors' doors, oversimplifying economics, and little else.
- Iterative deletion – big eye roll here. It's a good example of what I said above; its applicability depends wholly on the presumption of strictly dominant strategies. Iteration is irrelevant because I reject on its face the premise that there is an initial dominant strategy. Voting Republican (it doesn't matter which one) or Democrat is value-equivalent, unless your goal is solely to console yourself with a meaningless "win" which is value-indistinguishable from the "loss".
- Moral hazard – there's no shared risk here. I'm not benefitting from your (in your mind) "responsible" vote. I'd still vote LP even if you stayed home (and we lived in the same state), and in your election I'd still not vote at all. (I'd vote LP no matter how many Republicans stayed home, because the Republican party is vile and corrupt.) Moreover, the GOP isn't sufficiently good on guns that your strategy is any more dominant than would be running to the skyward end of the sinking Titanic; you're gonna drown either way.
- Hungry lions – non sequitur. I can only assume this is a reference to something trite you heard in a youtube video. "Hungry lions" is a silly logic riddle, and the solution depends on whether the number of lions is even or odd. How you imagine this relates to voting is beyond me. Perhaps you have fantasies of odd numbers of super rational democrats eating me while I vote against your cretin?
- Backward induction – I would call it "forward planning", but no matter. Your reflexive reference to this without context or justification implies that you believe it to be automatically invalid, which suggests your familiarity with the concept is limited to the backward induction paradox. As it happens, backward induction can be used to "validly" solve some of your useless game theory puzzles, so I'm not sure what your point is.
Now, I get it: you don't agree with me. What you don't seem to understand is that all your desperate appeals to "game theory" are nothing more than appeals to what you imagine to be your superior authority, and do nothing to actually prove the sine qua non of your position: that the GOP is, in fact, a superior choice, and therefore one of its candidates absolutely must win.
Now, I realize that the particular election in question was between two (R)s and a (D). But your arguments are broadly the same as are paraded out every time there's a third party candidate on the ballot, and to the extent that they are unique to this election they depend on game theory, which has no actual utility outside providing academics a means to convince themselves they understand things. My rebuttals would be just as valid from an individual who had a preference as strong for the losing (R) as is mine for an (L), or from someone who didn't care to vote.
:lol::lol::lol:How did I not see this thread until today!?!? Dangit.
Since9, you say the following:
"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."
Do the math you say. Hmmmm… Well Since9, before you failed the math part of this thread did you do any reading or comprehending. Let’s see. Look at post #19. Uh Oh… failed again. I bet the poster of #19 spent seconds researching the fact that a runoff is yet to come. Maybe he decided to poke around in the Louisiana sub forum (for God knows how long) and ran across this thread:
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?121969-Rob-Maness-for-Senator
It’s difficult to find being the first thread in the list and all. It does explain the math involved in Louisiana’s primary/run-off process and the opportunity the voters of this state have for a decent choice for senator. This explanation was availble before the election even.
So, having pointed out that you brought nothing useful to this forum with this thread I direct you to the first line of post #8. Well put Marshaul.
BTW – Since9, despite the fact that you have problem respecting others, and that you’ve made a complete fool of yourself here, I will still read your future posts. Some things you have to say are useful on occasion.