Math for utter morons. Utter morons check in.

[enki23]

i'm no mathematician, so i'll keep it simple. simple is good when you're an utter moron. and believe me, only the utter, can't-tell-ass-from-elbow idiots* need to read further. really.
(*for the purposes of this lesson; "moron," "idiot," "dumbass," "borderline IQ babies," and "syphilitic hannityite glue sniffers" will used interchangeably.)

imagine three small piles of stones:
pile one: 45 stones
pile two: 45 stones
pile three: 10 stones

the first two piles represent democratic votes and republican votes respectively. the third pile represents votes for other candidates. now take one stone from pile one, and place it in pile two. the new totals are:
pile one: 44 stones
pile two: 46 stones
pile three: 10 stones

notice that the totals have changed. (that's a hint). when one stone is moved from the first--democratic vote--pile and added to the second--republican vote--pile, the difference between the piles increases by two. that means the second pile is bigger than the first. by two stones. you can count aloud if you need to. and no, you don't have enough fingers.

now back to our original scenario:
pile one: 45 stones
pile two: 45 stones
pile three: 10 stones

take one stone from the first pile and move it to the third pile. now the totals will be:
pile one: 44 stones
pile two: 45 stones
pile three: 11 stones

see the difference yet? here's a hint: this only changes the difference between the first two piles by one stone. count them if you need to. take your time. you should, if you counted correctly, end up with the same answer. (i'd suggest using real stones, though buttons, ballots, or other easily manipulated objects will do as well). notice that this means moving the stone to the third pile is *not* the same as moving it to the second pile. in fact, notice that it has *half* the effect on the final totals. while the second scenario is not insignificant, it is obviously (to a non-moron) NOT equal in outcome.

any non morons still reading by this point should be completely bored and/or insulted. your fault. i *did* warn you.

the object of this lesson? next time you feel the urge to say "a vote for <foo> is a vote for <bar>, just say no. just don't do it. think "what would jesus do". whatever it takes. it's wrong, it's misleading, and most non-morons are tired of reading it.

really.

[Julien Sorel]

1. Nice.

Unfortunately for what I suspect your purpose is, your example illustrates another point:

votes stolen from the other side (rocks), or votes that you prevent the other guys from stealing from you, are more important than neutral votes (rocks). It's why the centrist strategy is important, and why the fringe groups, well, stay on the fringes. Zero-sum games are played the most vicious, because the stakes are the highest.

Republican vs Democrat is a zero-sum game; Democrat vs Green is not. Guess which battle it pays the Democrats to focus on winning?

[enki23]

7. depends on the relative number of potential votes

if there are at least half as many centrist votes up for grabs, yes. but "up for grabs" is a tough thing to define. what if it's easier to get a green to change their mind than an independent? what if it's easier to appeal to new voters on the borders than in the center?

that, and the center doesn't define itself. they tend to believe whoever can yell "i'm moderate" with the biggest bullhorn. unfortunately, big money buys the biggest bullhorn.

but yes, the center (all else being equal) is unduly favored by our system. sad, but true. but sad. and doesn't mean the fringes can't set agenda. look to the republicans for that one. hypocrisy doesn't matter. words and deeds don't have to balance out. the center is stupid. tell them what they want to hear, and ignore them until shortly before the next election. that seems to be the real road to success.

[Julien Sorel]

9. In actual fact, since political opinion

is distributed more or less normally, not only are center votes more important, they are more numerous. It's simply a losing proposition.

[TruthIsAll]

2. HMMM....

Pile 1 = Gore =45
Pile 2 = Bush =45
Pile 3 = Nader =10

Better recount, the diff between Gore and Bush is less < .1%

Pile 1 = Gore =44
Pile 2 = Bush =45
Pile 3 = Nader =11

No recount necesary, the diff between Gore and Bush is > .1%

[John_H]

3. Thanks for proving the point to both kinds of morons

The ones who apparently can't tell the difference between less and more, and the ones contemplating a vote for nader.

[CarlBallard]

4. But we lose in either event

"the object of this lesson? next time you feel the urge to say "a vote for <foo> is a vote for <bar>, just say no." But the result of your little rock moving fun is another 4 years of Bush. Maybe we should concentrate on making the first pile bigger.

Of course nobody thinks they are the same process. But since the results are the same, (Bush winning, not any specific rock formation) the gramarical shorthand is correct.

Also notice how I didn't call you a literary moron, despite not being able to piece that together or your inability to use capitalization correctly.

[OrdinaryTa]

5. Don't Nominate Kerry or Gephardt

I'm a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat, practically a yellow dog Democrat. However, when it comes to warmongers, I can't vote for them. I will feel very bad if the Democrats nominate a warmonger, but he or she will not get my vote. Gephardt and Kerry and Clinton and Lieberman made themselves ineligible when they voted to give madman George Bush a free hand to do whatever he wanted in Iraq.

I'm a true Democrat, but I have my limits. If the party chooses to nominate a warmonger, that's way over the line. I couldn't vote for Hubert Humphrey either.

[JVS]

6. Good point.

But one might also say that real elections don't let you move stones from one pile to another. The stone is in your hand until you choose to put it into a pile. You can put it in pile 1, pile 2, pile 3, pile 4 etc. or you can even throw it into a lake, but only putting it into pile 1 can make pile 1 larger.

[comsymp]

8. Question

Did The Lord God Almighty decree that any particular pile was entitled, thru Divine Authority, to a certain number of its stones or could they, theoretically, be shifted around at will?

[jwcomer]

10. The examples are correct but the conclusion are not

As a mathematician I have to point out that the conclussions for this topic are mostly wrong. What has really been shown is that in the case of a Democrat voting Independent, the Republicans are in fact 1 vote ahead of where they would have otherwise been. Therefore "a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush." Similarly if an independent votes for a Republican candidate then the Republicans are 1 vote ahead; so "a vote for Bush is a vote for Bush." However in the case of a Democrat voting for a Republican things change and now the Republicans are 2 votes ahead. In which case the phrase should be "a vote for Bush is two votes for Bush."

[Old and In the Way]

11. I like your explanation better.

But, even simpler, just vote for the Democrat...unless you are a real moron.