Sunday, May 29, 2011
Sunday, May 22, 2011
[jules' pics] A post for my sister-in-law, Helen.
The only place to get breakfast in desolate Green River makes no promise to be open.
--
Posted By jules to jules' pics at 5/23/2011 04:18:00 AM
Saturday, May 21, 2011
[jules' pics] 5/21/2011 01:57:00 PM
Help! Help! Alien Invasion!
...no longer surprised that so many people have been abducted by aliens. Luckily we got away before we were captured. I think.
--
Posted By jules to jules' pics at 5/21/2011 01:57:00 PM
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
[jules' pics] 5/18/2011 01:06:00 PM
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
[jules' pics] 5/17/2011 12:57:00 PM
Another puzzle for the reader. On travels again. Where this time?
--
Posted By jules to jules' pics at 5/17/2011 12:57:00 PM
Thursday, May 12, 2011
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
[jules' pics] Shinryoku - new green
This is our titchy maple tree which, as it sits in a windy spot, gets very tattered and never manages the red dazzling autumn thing. Quite nice at present though.
--
Posted By jules to jules' pics at 5/10/2011 12:36:00 PM
Friday, May 06, 2011
[jules' pics] Botan - Peony
Hachimangu botan garden, Kamakura - I don't know how it is done, but the massive blooms in this garden continue from February all the way through to the normal peony season in May. It costs 500¥ to visit so I suppose the flowers must get a lot of TLC.
--
Posted By jules to jules' pics at 5/06/2011 03:13:00 PM
Thursday, May 05, 2011
[jules' pics] Two seasons in one day
At home the sakura (cherry blossom) season is long over, replaced by tsutsuji (azalea), fuji (wisteria) and of course shinryoku (livid green), but up even tiny Hinode, we were able to walk back in time.
Three quarters of the way up the leaves were just starting to open.
And at the summit we were back in full blown cherry blossom season.
--
Posted By jules to jules' pics at 5/05/2011 01:49:00 PM
Three quarters of the way up the leaves were just starting to open.
And at the summit we were back in full blown cherry blossom season.
--
Posted By jules to jules' pics at 5/05/2011 01:49:00 PM
"Making your vote count" and "wasted votes"
These phrases are commonly heard, but infrequently explained in a coherent and meaningful manner. It is very unlikely that a single person's vote will ever really make a difference in a large election, and of course this is entirely appropriate for a democracy where we all (supposedly) share equally in voting power.
However, people still vote, and other people try to work out whether it is rational or not (see Andrew Gelman's blog for lots on this, search for the text "rational to vote").
One point that I don't think I've seen made, is that people might reasonably think their vote "counted" if it either increased or decreased the winning margin. The margin of victory should affect the behaviour of the electee, as they will be more willing to take a hard-line position and alienate (some) voters in a safer seat, and more eager to please those on the fringes in a marginal one. Any change in the number of people voting for either the 1st or 2nd placed candidate will alter the winning margin, so the (a priori) marginal value of each of these voters is non-zero.
Conversely, a vote placed for the 3rd or lower party really is worthless, as the marginal effect of more or fewer votes here is zero, at least until they overtake the 2nd party. The winner might even prefer to see a strong 3rd place candidate, in the hope that they could threaten to cannibalise the support for the 2nd place.
Maybe this is one reason why I think that AV would be beneficial, as it guarantees that a majority - and in practice usually a large majority - of the electorate will get to see their vote "count" in this manner. In simple majority voting (first past the post is such a stupid name I can't bring myself to use it) it is still likely that a clear majority of voters will see their votes count (I expect this usually happens in all seats), but in practice it will often not be such a large majority, and in many cases this will only happen if people are willing to vote tactically (and know who to vote tactically for, which isn't necessarily obvious a priori).
However, people still vote, and other people try to work out whether it is rational or not (see Andrew Gelman's blog for lots on this, search for the text "rational to vote").
One point that I don't think I've seen made, is that people might reasonably think their vote "counted" if it either increased or decreased the winning margin. The margin of victory should affect the behaviour of the electee, as they will be more willing to take a hard-line position and alienate (some) voters in a safer seat, and more eager to please those on the fringes in a marginal one. Any change in the number of people voting for either the 1st or 2nd placed candidate will alter the winning margin, so the (a priori) marginal value of each of these voters is non-zero.
Conversely, a vote placed for the 3rd or lower party really is worthless, as the marginal effect of more or fewer votes here is zero, at least until they overtake the 2nd party. The winner might even prefer to see a strong 3rd place candidate, in the hope that they could threaten to cannibalise the support for the 2nd place.
Maybe this is one reason why I think that AV would be beneficial, as it guarantees that a majority - and in practice usually a large majority - of the electorate will get to see their vote "count" in this manner. In simple majority voting (first past the post is such a stupid name I can't bring myself to use it) it is still likely that a clear majority of voters will see their votes count (I expect this usually happens in all seats), but in practice it will often not be such a large majority, and in many cases this will only happen if people are willing to vote tactically (and know who to vote tactically for, which isn't necessarily obvious a priori).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)