pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Charlottetown, Virginia  (Read 21355 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« Reply #100 on: August 25, 2017, 15:09 »
0

Use reductio ad absurdum to test your hypothesis:
If a majority is always blindly follow their leader, then that leader will always be re-elected, for life, over and over again. Since this is not happening in real life, the initial hypothesis is wrong.

Not sure how you arrived to this conclusion. Majority is not equal to all which would be required (among many other things) for your suggested reductio ad absurdum test. To me majority is >50%.

Same for me: majority means >50%.
If >50% will always blindly follow their leader, that leader would be re-elected forever because he/she will ask those >50% blind followers to vote for him/her, over and over again. And they will blindly follow his/her request.

Because this is NOT happening in real life, it means that initial assumption is wrong.
Or, in other words, the majority is not always blindly following their leader.


To be honest, I really don't care about voting in USA (or anywhere else for that matter, I can't be bothered to vote). But I do care about math, even if it's very simple. I guess I have to be very detailed to explain my point.

Let's say you have 100 voters in a given country C.

51 of them voted for "leader A" today. 80% of them vote for leader A no matter what. That constitutes 0.8x51~ 41 people who trust leader A unquestionably. We'll call the remaining 10 people swing voters who today voted for leader A.

49 of the total pool of voters voted for "leader B" today. 80% of those who trust leader B unquestionably is 0.8x49~39 people. The remaining 10 people we'll call swing voters who today voted for leader B.

As a result of this election "leader A" won.

Now let's say by tomorrow leader A screwed up somehow, fell out of favor. None of the swing voters in group B were affected, because they did not vote for A. Let's say two swing voters out of group A decided that they now will vote for leader B. The group A is now reduced by 2 people (49 votes remaining), while the group B becomes larger by 2 people (51 votes). If the election is to be held tomorrow, the leader B will win.

To summarize. 80% of all voters vote never change their opinions (41 vote for A, 39 for B). Nonetheless, a small shift in swing votes changed the election outcome. Where do you see a contradiction?

There is no contradiction: the election is meant to elect the leader of the whole country C.

B, the loser, is not a leader. He was only a candidate, with no real power to make decisions for the country C. Therefore not a leader. Those 39 who gave him their vote might never vote for him again, because losers very seldom get a second chance to get elected. So not even his old minority voters are blindly following him, let alone a majority. They might decide to support candidate D, next time around.

Moreover when A becomes the leader of country C, he is the authority figure mentioned in your experiment.
He will obviously not be the leader of country C forever, meaning that his voters (his old majority) will not blindly follow him and elect him forever.



« Last Edit: August 25, 2017, 15:24 by Zero Talent »


niktol

« Reply #101 on: August 25, 2017, 15:23 »
0
I guess we just differ in a definition of a leader which what caused misunderstanding.

« Reply #102 on: August 25, 2017, 15:26 »
0
I guess we just differ in a definition of a leader which what caused misunderstanding.

Meanwhile, I edited my answer above: A is the only authority figure as defined by the Milgram experiment.
B has no authority at all, after the election. He has no power to ask country C to obey him. Only A can do that.
« Last Edit: August 25, 2017, 15:29 by Zero Talent »

« Reply #103 on: August 25, 2017, 15:27 »
0
...

« Reply #104 on: August 26, 2017, 00:23 »
0
I read a very interesting paper about the Milgram experiment many years ago ( I am too lazy to find it) which basically said the results have been totally misrepresented.
It was a series of experiments, not just one and what they showed was that people refused to do something they thought was wrong just because they were told to by an authority figure, but if you could convince them that it was for the greater good (in milgram's case that the results would help further science in a big way) they would do things they would normally find morally abhorrent. 

« Reply #105 on: August 26, 2017, 10:24 »
0
Perhaps voters should have an option to reject people they don't want to lead their country before an election happens?  Trump and Clinton seemed like two of the worst applicants for the job.  It's the same in the UK, May or Corbyn, I couldn't vote for either of them.  I just can't believe that the major parties of two old democracies can't find better leaders.


 

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results