While the “Don’t vote” article argues that any one vote doesn’t matter, I initially would have argued that each vote would count towards the growing margin between the candidates. In the “Do the math, vote!” article, it brought up another good point, that many would think it as their duty as a citizen. I also found it really interesting, when following the math, that it was more likely to make an influence on the election than it was to win a Powerball. I have heard of the debate against the electoral college, but only just, and I was wondering how big of an effect it has.
To be honest, all of the proofs of the following article, were highly confusing to me. What I did get was that with our two social choice options (dictatorship and convention), the voting with many individuals in convention is paradoxical in that either option can be preferred over one another as a variance of individual preferences. What also interested me, was purchasing power, and that when the distribution of income and tastes is at its optimum, it winds up determining what happens. I apologize if I misunderstood something; I got sick over the weekend...
I thought it was rather amusing that our last webpage recommended that individuals should not participate in voting systems that are based on rank-ordering. I would have to agree, since this voting system gives results that are highly confusing as we saw in the original article, that the majority of three individuals with completely differing option would give an inaccurate assessment of the individual’s preferences.
Joelle, in your first paragraph you mention the individualistic mindset of many Americans. We, in comparison to many other cultures, place a higher importance and influence on the role of an individual. Many Americans define themselves on what they've done, how they are performing, and how others feel about them. Though this part may seem strange, many other group minded cultures define themselves on how their role fits into the group mentality, and how well the group is performing with them in that role.
ReplyDeleteSo if this is the case, Arrow's conclusions seem to rule out our (America's) ability to fairly vote given the system we have now. But is it the duty of those appointed in positions of leadership to appeal to the individual or appeal to the masses? When an 18 year old is given the right to vote, is it to hold the elected officials accountable to this 18 year old?
My answer would be no. An 18 year old is given the right to vote in order to hold elected officials accountable to the younger masses. Woman's suffrage made the elected responsible to women's rights and opinions, not to one particular woman. I do not define my vote on my ability to make a difference in the upcoming election, but the ability of my group to have its voice heard (whether it is defined via economic status, age, geographic location, etc.).
Jason, I thought your last two paragraphs were very interesting. We don't really think like that when it comes to voting. People (mostly Americans) always think about what the officials can do for us, rather than we trying to hold them accountable for the sake of everyone else. It's funny how greedy (or individualistic mindset) people are in this country. As a lot of these articles went over my head with their proofs and their statements on what should be satisfied, I did think it was interesting how many of the points talked about voting for the candidate that will uphold his duties the best and be the social optimum point, rather than what this candidate could do for me and my future (most people's thinking now days)!
ReplyDelete