Jameson Quinn

ApocalypticaNow @apocalypticanow.bsky.social [ View ] Jul 04, 2024 at 16:38 UTC

This fucking guy voted in the last two elections

voteref.com/voters/MI/vi...

10 replies 58 reposts 264 likes

Jameson Quinn @voter.bsky.social [ View ] Jul 04, 2024 at 15:39 UTC

Anyway: I hope your Independence Day is joyful, but I hope far more that as Americans we all make our voices heard LOUD AND CLEAR this November 5th. No to King Trump. Yes to whoever best opposes him. And today, fuck the New York Times.

0 replies 0 reposts 2 likes

Jameson Quinn @voter.bsky.social [ View ] Jul 04, 2024 at 15:34 UTC

OK — I'll admit, that model isn't as clean as the selfishly-rational-individual one that makes voting a paradox. But my point is, voting makes sense as collective action, not individual action. (Thus: the kinds of voting methods that make the most sense are built on proportional representation.)

1 replies 1 reposts 2 likes

Jameson Quinn @voter.bsky.social [ View ] Jul 04, 2024 at 15:31 UTC

In this model, if you vote for a winning candidate, the chance that your vote was the marginally-pivotal one that puts your candidate over the top is still exactly 1/N where N is the number of voters for that candidate; but the ex ante utility of committing not to break the chain is far higher.

1 replies 0 reposts 1 likes

Jameson Quinn @voter.bsky.social [ View ] Jul 04, 2024 at 15:27 UTC

So if you, standing somewhere in line, suddenly decided not to vote, the votes from people ahead of you would already be cast; but those from people behind you would be left up in the air.

1 replies 0 reposts 0 likes

Jameson Quinn @voter.bsky.social [ View ] Jul 04, 2024 at 15:20 UTC

In this (overly-simplified and unrealistic, but still revealing) model, each voter in that line is voting *because* the person in front of them is; and in turn, they are the *cause* for the person behind them voting.

1 replies 0 reposts 1 likes

Jameson Quinn @voter.bsky.social [ View ] Jul 04, 2024 at 15:16 UTC

Obviously, some people have broader direct influence, but in a large enough group, the average number of people *directly* influenced by a given individual is about 1. With dash of Rawlsian ignorance and of Von Neumann-Morgenstern utility, the simplified model is just a queue, as in the image above.

1 replies 0 reposts 0 likes

Jameson Quinn @voter.bsky.social [ View ] Jul 04, 2024 at 15:10 UTC

You are influenced by others, and you influence them in turn. Your free will, in that case, can be seen as a choice whether to break the chain.

1 replies 2 reposts 3 likes

Jameson Quinn @voter.bsky.social [ View ] Jul 04, 2024 at 15:07 UTC

How does an individual relate to a larger group — a party, or movement, or nation? By being influenced by others, and by influencing others in turn. OK, so if the Downsian paradox of voting is built on the mathematical model of individual rationality, let's build as rigorous a model of movements.

1 replies 1 reposts 2 likes

Jameson Quinn @voter.bsky.social [ View ] Jul 04, 2024 at 15:02 UTC

The "Responses" section of the article begin to chip away at the edges of the paradox: voting may have expressive, altruistic, or other collateral benefits. But to crack this argument at its core, recognize how individual action is part of a collective. (Wake up. New(ish) argument incoming.)

1 replies 0 reposts 3 likes

Jameson Quinn @voter.bsky.social [ View ] Jul 04, 2024 at 14:55 UTC

This is known as the Paradox of Voting, and given the assumptions, the math is unassailable: voting isn't worth it.

But that wikipedia article doesn't just lay out the paradox; it also carries the seeds of its Downs fall.

1 replies 0 reposts 1 likes

Jameson Quinn @voter.bsky.social [ View ] Jul 04, 2024 at 14:47 UTC

...you view yourself as an individual, with no influence from or on any others, and no stake in what happens to them. In that case, "how everyone else will vote" might as well be preordained, if unknown. The chance my vote will swing it is miniscule; the expected value to me, proportionally tiny.

1 replies 0 reposts 2 likes

Jameson Quinn @voter.bsky.social [ View ] Jul 04, 2024 at 14:43 UTC

The main argument is: > “Why does anyone vote?” I ask myself. The answer cannot be that we believe that by doing so, we will influence the outcome of an election. My vote, were it not withheld, would have no such effect. Which... actually makes sense. But only IF...

1 replies 0 reposts 0 likes

Jameson Quinn @voter.bsky.social [ View ] Jul 04, 2024 at 14:40 UTC

("editor of The Lamp, a Catholic literary journal" is just the cherry on top) But my goal here is to deconstruct the logic, not the messenger (and please don't get me started on the venue).

3 replies 0 reposts 2 likes

Jameson Quinn @voter.bsky.social [ View ] Jul 04, 2024 at 14:38 UTC

I don't subscribe, so I've just read the first 6 paragraphs available on Internet Archive. But that's more than enough to get the tone of the piece: self-congratulations, with an undertone of snide trolling. As others have pointed out, you can tell this is a straight cis white guy without checking.

3 replies 0 reposts 7 likes

Jameson Quinn @voter.bsky.social [ View ] Jul 04, 2024 at 14:31 UTC

The <censored> New York Times has chosen this particular 4th of July — less than a week after 6 unelected judges bindingly ruled that monarchy is great after all — to publish an editorial against voting. My first response is RAGE. But OK, let's do this: here's why they're so so wrong:

2 replies 3 reposts 10 likes