From: John Conover <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: (election) Where are the Americans?
And, maybe its a systemic game-theoretic phenomena, (a la Arrow's so-called Impossibility Theorem/Condorcet/voting paradox,) where a democratic voting system can yield undemocratic results. What would happen if the majority of constituents voted insincerely-and opted for the "lesser of two evils" instead of voting for the candidate that most closely represented their individual order/ranking of priorities? Maybe, in some sense, kind of a massive prisoner's dilemma, where most opt for a defection strategy, (as opposed to Nash cooperation,) and end up with their least favorable choice. That should give a higher probability of a 50/50 aggregate. But then its always easy to find statistical significance where there isn't any, too. John mason clark writes: > On 14 Nov 2000 07:56:51 GMT, email@example.com wrote: > > >I wonder how it became a toss up? > > An excellent question I've been musing over. Two possible > theories come to mind: (1) a conspiracy of monstrous proportions > and undoubtedly evil intent. > > (2) A two-party system converges to equality because the party > in power is corrupted by power and the weaker party tries harder. > > Perhaps the brief power of Newt Gingrich was an example of > corrupting power, along with the excesses of the Republican > House of Representatives (e.g. the impeachment). > > Related is my wonder about "What Causes Liberals and Conservatives." > There is a genetic theory, and perhaps this leads to equal numbers. > > The equality of the two this time does rather boggle the mind. > It may be a sign of maturity and good health in democracy. > > Toss a coin, folks. It's the American Way. > > Mason > > > > >The odds of 100 million votes coming up almost precisely 50/50, > >(within several hundred votes, in many places, each with hundreds of > >Ks or even Ms of ballots,) is astronomical. > > > >Those kinds of numbers are hard to justify by coincidence, alone, > >(although it's always easy to find statistical significance where > >there isn't any.) > > > > John > > > >mason clark writes: > >> Whatever the fine details of the balloting results, the overall > >> picture is one of an equal division between Gore and Bush. > >> > >> The *American* way to handle this, known to schoolboys > >> and schoolgirls and football referees, is a coin toss. > >> > >> Why not have Chief Justice Rehnquist toss a coin between > >> Gore and Bush, give the ball to the winner, and all good > >> Americans will cheer as the game begins. > >> > >> Toss a coin, Americans. and lighten up: it's a toss-up > >> -- John Conover, firstname.lastname@example.org, http://www.johncon.com/