Does Your Vote Matter, Statistically? Yes, It Does.

Batman voting slap.pngLetter IIf you do a Google search, ask a friend, or simply exist on Facebook, you’ll find a whole host of voices telling you that – statistically – your individual vote doesn’t matter in the grander scheme.

For instance, this article asserts that your vote making a difference is statistically “very improbable, because for your vote to affect an election, the two candidates have to be within one vote of each other without you. If Trump earns 2,000,000 votes in a given state without your vote and Clinton earns 2,000,002, then it doesn’t matter whether or not you voted. The outcome wouldn’t change.”

Now, there are a few problems with this argument:

1) It assumes that yours is the only vote that doesn’t matter.

Yes, if everybody but you votes, and there is a 2 point margin, then your vote doesn’t matter. True. The issue is that this logic only works if we restrict it to only referring to one specific person. We can say “If everybody votes except Steve Rogers, and the totals are 200 to 202, then Steve’s vote wouldn’t have mattered anyway.”

But, and this is key, it only works if we restrict our field to just one specific person”Steve Rogers.” If we shift the field to refer to a different specific person, say, Barbara Gordon, then we can then say “If everybody votes except Barbara Gordon, and the totals are 200 to 202, then Barbara’s vote wouldn’t have mattered anyway.” BUT, in that case Steve’s vote does matter, because we’ve shifted our field to somebody else.

In order for the argument that Barbara’s vote doesn’t matter to work, Steve’s vote has to matter.

So the logic of this argument from statistics can’t be applied across the board. We can’t say “Regardless of who votes, Barbara’s vote doesn’t matter.” The whole argument rests on the fact that everybody else voted and all of their votes mattered. 

2) It commits equivocation.

 But why does it sound so convincing at a glance? Because of equivocation. Equivocation is a fallacy where one word is used that has multiple meanings without specifying which meaning is being used.

Thus, if we say that Captain Hook is a codfish, it does not then imply that Captain Hook can breath underwater. We have to make a logical distinction between the pejorative term and the literal animal.

In the instance of voting, the term being equivocated is ‘you’. “You” in the English language can be singular or plural, “you specifically” or “you all”/”ya’ll.” 

When we say “If Trump earns 2,000,000 votes in a given state without your vote and Clinton earns 2,000,002, then it doesn’t matter whether or not you voted” the ‘you’ in that sentence can be taken two ways. First, it can refer to ‘you’ in the general, collective sense: “All ya’ll who read this.” Second, it can refer to the specific you reading the article at this very moment: you-and-only-you Steve Rogers or you-and-only-you Barbara Gordon.

It is in this you-and-only-you sense that the argument from statistics works, when ‘you’ refers to one specific individual at a time.

The problem is that when we read it, we tend to confuse these senses in our minds. We say “well it’s clearly true when it refers to me, so it must be true for you too.” And it is true for them too, but only when it’s not true for you. It can only be true for one person at a time.

The logic only holds if our ‘you’ in the scenario is really just one individual person, you-in-particular-and-only-you; it falls apart if our ‘you’ is a corporate you, ie, everybody who might be voting.

3) It results in a literal contradiction in terms.

If we take out the equivocation, the result is a literal contradiction in terms. The argument amounts to saying “it doesn’t matter if any of you vote, because the rest of you will.”  But if the rest of you will then each of those has to matter for the argument to work, which contradicts the initial statement.captain-america-wants-you-to-vote

So yes, your vote does matter. The argument from statistics is a fallacy ridden load of hogwash, because the only way we could say your vote doesn’t matter is if we assume that every vote except yours matters.

Tell the statisticians to go back to logic class and try again.

Statistically, your vote matters. It has also been shown voter turnout also reflects how likely politicians are to work towards policies that enact the will of their constituents (we might address other arguments – such as those based on the setup of the electoral college – at another time).

Caveat: I do agree with the central thesis of the quoted article that you should vote your conscience, however, the reason that you should vote your conscience is not because your vote doesn’t matter anyway, but because it does.

It’s the same logic that these folks use try to use to say your vote doesn’t matter that others use to say that a vote for a third party is a wasted vote. It’s the same equivocation. If you-and-only-you vote for a third party candidate, then of course they have no chance of winning. But that logic cannot be spread to the collective ‘you’; if the collective “ya’ll” vote for a third party candidate then they will necessarily win, because who you vote for does count.

This is what happens when our schools don’t have mandatory logic classes.

Don’t just trust me, trust Captain America. He wouldn’t tell you to vote if your vote didn’t matter.

Advertisements

FATQ: Is there any biblical justification for exploring space?

space shuttle.png

Letter IIn recent news, Congress has passed a bill (S.3346) which is being hailed as “a solid commitment” towards the goal of having a manned mission to mars within the next 25 years. The bipartisan bill authorized a budget increase for NASA, taking their total budget up to “$19.5 billion.”

This raises the question in many minds: Is there any biblical justification in exploring space and more importantly, spending such large amounts of money to do so? It seems to be an important question, after-all, we don’t want to support something if it amounts to a violation of God’s law.

TARDIS small icon

Continue reading

Free Book From Ligonier

RCSproul What is Reformed Theology.png

Letter IIf you’re a sucker for free books (and a fan of R.C. Sproul), it might be worth your time to check out Ligonier’s book offer, a free gift when you sign up to their mailing list.

The book offers a solid synopsis of Reformed theology, and for the price of $0 with free shipping the price can’t be beaten.

Starbucks Releases New Red Cup – Social Media Floods With People Not Being Offended; or, “Scientists Discover First Case of Causeless Effect in Media?”

 

img_20151109100758_84823e93
BREAKING NEWS: Starbucks announced new design of traditional Christmas cups, social media everywhere flooded with people proudly announcing they were not offended by the change.

If you’ve found yourself on Facebook, Twitter, or the internet today, you’ve likely noticed a dramatic influx of people randomly claiming that they’re not offended by the new Starbucks cup design and that you shouldn’t be either. You may find this puzzling because search as you might, you can’t actually find anybody who was ever offended by the move.

Where did this surge come from? “Maybe,” you think, “we’ve actually reached the point where we’re so used to being offended that our first reaction to any new development in the world is rejoice in the fact that it didn’t offend us.”

It’s as if you’ve woken up in a rather lame episode of the Twilight Zone where everyone around you is claiming that Christians are declaring this move a “war on Christmas,” and yet said Christians are nowhere to be found. Did the rapture come? Did all of these Christians foam at the removal of a reindeer decal as a war on Christmas, and then suddenly disappear, leaving the liberal left to attack the mere memory of them? Perhaps they foamed themselves out of existence; an apt end for those who would criticize mermaid goddess of venti non-fat extra-dry cappuccinos.

But still the question remains, who are all these people reacting against? The media has been reporting on the newest hashtag trend of #merrychristmasstarbucks, a supposed passive-aggressive and counter-intuitive rebellion by said Christians against their coffee overlords. And yet you find that if you actually browse this hashtag that the only people using it are either other media sites reporting about how it’s trending or users self-righteously tweeting about how they aren’t amongst the offended.

So who is Offended-Patient-Zero? Is there one, or have we progressed so far along the road of political correctness that we’ve actually developed the power to become offended at people getting offended before those people even knew they were supposed to be offended? Scientists* are asking whether this might be the first case of a causeless effect in humans.

josh-feuersteinSaid scientists may have reached their conclusions preemptively, however. Slightly more digging reveals that this entire fiasco actually seems to have been triggered by King of Queens star Kevin James lookalike Joshua Feuerstein (pictured right), who challenged Christians everywhere to rebel against the new cup by buying it. Propaganda networks nationwide – knowing that a ‘war on Christmas’ story always brings high amounts of traffic – ran with idea and constructed a story about Christians everywhere taking offence at the new design.

The scientists were dismayed at these latest findings, and were forced to conclude that the entire controversy was invented by the media to generate traffic for their outlets and to rally support for the coffee giant. Thus instead of being a groundbreaking – or even slightly interesting – discovery in the quantum realm of causeless effects, the researchers were forced to add this story to the ever growing pile of media fabrications.

The researchers have now turned their attention to studying the means by which the media is able to mold reality through the use of myth and will continue reporting in on their progress.

*I attended Space Camp as a child and won my 6th Grade Science Fair.