Voting VS Spending

[Jason78]

If this happens then you win and I lose.  This result would prove, at least from my perspective, that spending does not elevate treasure.  My belief in the superiority of spending would be effectively falsified. 

This is what happens in real life.   And there's no way your meagre money pot could compete with the lobbying fund of a major corporation.

[trdsf]

Trdsf, for some reason you think the measurement is more important to me than the outcome.   It really isn't.  With voting the outcome of Socrates' trial was his execution.   I'm supposed to support/endorse/condone/accept this outcome simply because it was supported by a majority of the jurors?  No way.

And spending gave us Donald fucking Trump, because the people with the resources knew what they would get out of it: a(nother) massive and undeserved tax cut, so they could control even more resources.  So they got right back a lot (if not all) of what they put in.  For them it wasn't spending, it was a freebie, and fuck the rest of the country.

I assume you're familiar with the Electoral College.  It was put into place to allow the political and financial elites a chance to overrule a popular vote they didn't like, not to validate the popular voteâ€"the original intent was for the electors to meet and deliberate and make a decision for the public, not in representation of.  It is absolutely the "spending" result over the "voting" result.  It has overturned the popular vote four times, and every single one of those four times has been (or is currently) a below-average leader at best.

There's your "outcome".

Here's what you're really saying: voting doesn't always go the way YOU want, therefore you want something else that might.  Well, I'm afraid I have some shocking news for you: you don't decide what the correct outcome is, and you don't get away with cherry-picking a couple bad ones and pretending those are representative of the entire history of democracy.

[Xerographica]

This is what happens in real life.   And there's no way your meagre money pot could compete with the lobbying fund of a major corporation.

In real life you spend your own money purely to promote your favorite beers?  If so, how much money, which beers and where? 

Think about the members of this forum.  The majority drinks the common beers while the minority drinks the uncommon beers.  Well yeah, this isn't a beer forum.  We aren't all going to be beer nuts. 

So do the math.  With voting of course the uncommon beers are going to lose by a mile.  But with spending, even if the uncommon beers still lose, it won't be by a mile.  The margin will be a lot smaller... the race will be a lot closer. 

Naturally we will all want to try the most highly ranked beer that we haven't already tried.  Will we love it?  If so, then we can help improve its ranking by making another donation. 

Let's see if this system works for us.  If it doesn't, then there won't be any point in debating whether it will work for the rest of the world. 

[trdsf]

With voting of course the uncommon beers are going to lose by a mile.  But with spending, even if the uncommon beers still lose, it won't be by a mile.  The margin will be a lot smaller... the race will be a lot closer. 

You don't know that.  That's your unsupported assertion.  And never say "do the math" and then provided NO NUMBERS TO DO THE MATH WITH.

So help me, I will get you you to understand basic statistics if it kills me...

[Xerographica]

Here's what you're really saying: voting doesn't always go the way YOU want, therefore you want something else that might.  Well, I'm afraid I have some shocking news for you: you don't decide what the correct outcome is, and you don't get away with cherry-picking a couple bad ones and pretending those are representative of the entire history of democracy.

Speaking of Brexit: the difference between the UK liberal media’s treatment of the massive vote for abortion rights in Ireland and the massive vote for Brexit in Britain (17.4m votes, the most for anything in British history, as if you needed reminding) is staggering, if also depressingly unsurprising. In their flighty view, Brexit was the work of plebs brainwashed by a bus, while the the repeal of the Eighth was the work of an enlightened people. Brexit is scary and dangerous and therefore we should call it off; the repeal of the Eighth is brilliant and wonderful and therefore we should see it through. Brexit confirmed democracy is a terrible idea; the repeal of the Eighth shows it is a great idea. And on it goes, hypocrisy upon hypocrisy, anti-democratic wailing one minute, pro-democracy weeping the next. They support democracy, not in principle, but only if it gives them what they want. - Brendan O'Neill, Ireland’s referendum shows that some people only like democracy when it gives them what they want

Why do bees take a vote to begin with, though? In 2013, researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Human Development, the London School of Economics, and the University of Sussex used game theory to show that animals’ willingness to behave democratically redounds to their benefit. Compared with decisions handed down by tyrant leaders, democratic decisions are less likely to be flawed. Moreover, when animals have a chance to register their opinion, the gap between the average individual’s preferred outcome and the actual outcome tends to be smaller than it would be if the decision were made by fiat. In this way, animal democracy is stabilizing; few get their way, but most are relatively content. - William Brennan, How to Sway a Baboon Despot

A crowd of voters and a crowd of donors aren't going to be equally wise.  It behooves us to figure out, sooner rather than later, which crowd is wiser. 

[trdsf]

A crowd of voters and a crowd of donors aren't going to be equally wise.  It behooves us to figure out, sooner rather than later, which crowd is wiser.

ASSERTION!  What's your EVIDENCE for thinking that, other than that there are election results you don't like?

[trdsf]

Here it is in pill concentrate form: whether or not voting is the best possible way to measure public will is not relevant.  What is relevant is that I am pretty sure I have demonstrated that it's better than what you propose.

You give no data, no evidence, not anything other than your unsupported assertion that money is a better measure than voting, and even admit up front that your idea doesn't even measure what you claim it measures.

"Just run the experiment anyway" is NOT evidence.  "Well, I think it might work" is NOT evidence.  You need to SHOW WHY THERE'S A REASON for your assertion, not just assert it over and over and over like some magic incantation.

[Xerographica]

Trdsf, how many different things are currently ranked by spending?  Food, computers, houses and numerous other things are currently ranked by spending.  Are you arguing that there's no evidence that spending is better than voting at ranking these things?  If so, is this the first time that you've argued this? 

[Baruch]

Trdsf, how many different things are currently ranked by spending?  Food, computers, houses and numerous other things are currently ranked by spending.  Are you arguing that there's no evidence that spending is better than voting at ranking these things?  If so, is this the first time that you've argued this?

If we actually paid attention to money in elections and between elections ... there is a correlation between price and vote  (of your representative not you).

[Baruch]

Mathematics if social psychology ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEdBgRWkF-I

If it isn't based on psychology and sociology, then it is statistical nonsense ... voting (beauty contest) or purchase (greed).

[trdsf]

Trdsf, how many different things are currently ranked by spending?  Food, computers, houses and numerous other things are currently ranked by spending.  Are you arguing that there's no evidence that spending is better than voting at ranking these things?  If so, is this the first time that you've argued this?

Wrong again.  What you're talking about is having people express preference by the amount they choose to spend, which is permitted to be both variable and personal.  That is not in any way, shape or form the same as purchasing commodities.

I can't go up to the counter at the grocery and say, "You know, this steak is only worth $3 a pound to me" and have them agree that based on my preferences, that's all I should pay.  No one is going to go to a car dealer and say "I love this BMW so much I'm going to give you $100,000 for it instead of the $50,000 you're asking!"

Now, you were asked for evidence to back up your premise, not another irrelevant digression with an attempted ad hominem.  I'm going to emphasize it for you since apparently you can't be bothered to read:

Here it is in pill concentrate form: whether or not voting is the best possible way to measure public will is not relevant.  What is relevant is that I am pretty sure I have demonstrated that it's better than what you propose.

You give no data, no evidence, not anything other than your unsupported assertion that money is a better measure than voting, and even admit up front that your idea doesn't even measure what you claim it measures.

"Just run the experiment anyway" is NOT evidence.  "Well, I think it might work" is NOT evidence.  You need to SHOW WHY THERE'S A REASON for your assertion, not just assert it over and over and over like some magic incantation.

A crowd of voters and a crowd of donors aren't going to be equally wise.  It behooves us to figure out, sooner rather than later, which crowd is wiser. 

ASSERTION!  What's your EVIDENCE for thinking that, other than that there are election results you don't like?

With voting of course the uncommon beers are going to lose by a mile.  But with spending, even if the uncommon beers still lose, it won't be by a mile.  The margin will be a lot smaller... the race will be a lot closer. 

You don't know that.  That's your unsupported assertion.  And never say "do the math" and then provided NO NUMBERS TO DO THE MATH WITH.

So help me, I will get you you to understand basic statistics if it kills me...

[Cavebear]

"Spending is just far more likely to elevate treasure than voting is." - Xerographics

Well that pretty much says you despise voters.  I do too, but I have a different theory ... humans are stupid.  With or without money.

We agree that humans are stupid.  The difference is that we disagree WHICH humans are stupid...

[Cavebear]

In real life you spend your own money purely to promote your favorite beers?  If so, how much money, which beers and where? 

Think about the members of this forum.  The majority drinks the common beers while the minority drinks the uncommon beers.  Well yeah, this isn't a beer forum.  We aren't all going to be beer nuts. 

So do the math.  With voting of course the uncommon beers are going to lose by a mile.  But with spending, even if the uncommon beers still lose, it won't be by a mile.  The margin will be a lot smaller... the race will be a lot closer. 

Naturally we will all want to try the most highly ranked beer that we haven't already tried.  Will we love it?  If so, then we can help improve its ranking by making another donation. 

Let's see if this system works for us.  If it doesn't, then there won't be any point in debating whether it will work for the rest of the world.

Where did this obsession with brand of beer and politics come from?

[Xerographica]

Wrong again.  What you're talking about is having people express preference by the amount they choose to spend, which is permitted to be both variable and personal.  That is not in any way, shape or form the same as purchasing commodities.

I can't go up to the counter at the grocery and say, "You know, this steak is only worth $3 a pound to me" and have them agree that based on my preferences, that's all I should pay.  No one is going to go to a car dealer and say "I love this BMW so much I'm going to give you $100,000 for it instead of the $50,000 you're asking!"

So the only reason you oppose replacing voting with donating is because the amount of money can be variable?  You oppose donating in general?  Have you ever previously argued against donating? 

[Cavebear]

Possibly because the Constitution arranges for voting (by court decisions), and not buying votes (by court decisions).  The decisions previously have been "one person, one vote".  The idea of money as a voting power is rather new and should be eliminated.