[ExI] Trump's lies
atymes at gmail.com
Thu Aug 25 01:57:19 UTC 2016
On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 1:34 PM, John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 4:07 PM, Adrian Tymes <atymes at gmail.com> wrote:
>> It is, in fact, rationally possible to not want Trump in office and at
>> the same time vote for Johnson. This is especially the case in non-swing
> So a rational Johnson voter is quite literally staking his life on the
> validity of polls that are usually pretty good but not always.
That is not the only factor, and you insult us by continuing to claim that
it is after the others have been repeatedly pointed out to you. Among the
* Historical outcomes of state votes.
* The number of polls all saying the same thing.
* The margin of error: two-sigma error is much less than half as likely as
one-sigma, and the margin in many states is over two-sigma.
* The likelihood of enough voters changing to even make the state remotely
competitive, let alone actually change who the electors go for.
All these add (multiply, really) up to a far lesser chance of the vote for
Johnson not changing the non-battleground states than, say, your odds of
getting in an automobile accident, even multiplying by the far larger
damage a Trump presidency would incur.
(Your typical style so far would be to snip around that final comma, and go
ballistic about how a Trump presidency is far worse than an automobile
accident. I only expect you to not do that because I am explicitly calling
you out on such unproductive tactics: I have already acknowledged the point
you would go ballistic about, so going into hysterics about it only turns
people away from listening to you and thereby makes a Trump presidency ever
so slightly incrementally more likely.)
Which is to say: when you actually calculate the odds, no, for most voters
there is practically no chance of changing their state's electors,
certainly not with their own vote. Not "small but considering the damage
Trump would do a Clinton vote is mandated", but "so small that even
considering the damage Trump would do does not mandate a Clinton vote".
Now, battleground states where individual votes might make a difference?
Sure, vote for Clinton there. The majority of American voters do not live
in such states.
Besides, if you really want to make a difference, getting a job with the
vote counting machine people so as to have a remote chance of "correcting"
the vote, or finding out how to hack the vote counting machines remotely
and preparing to actually do so, has a far greater chance of changing at
least one elector. (Texas may be a tempting target, but solid-red states
such as Wyoming or Oklahoma may be easier, and every elector helps.
Louisiana might be one of the easiest targets.)
Which brings up the question: why are you asking us to do something, when
you yourself are not being as effective as you can on what you claim is the
most urgent issue?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat