Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Turnout biases - very large?!

Expand Messages
  • raphfrk
    However, is that an actual bias ? Non-compulsory voting means that people who are indifferent between the candidates don t bother to vote. The net effect
    Message 1 of 6 , Nov 1, 2007
      However, is that an actual bias ? Non-compulsory voting means that
      people who are indifferent between the candidates don't bother to
      vote. The net effect should be to shift the winner from the
      majoritarian winner to the utility winner.

      Ofc, the felon issue is an exception and isn't really a turn-out bias.
    • brokenladdercalendar
      But that bias could be beneficial, from a utilitarian standpoint, because those who actually show up to vote may be more educated than the average voter or
      Message 2 of 6 , Nov 2, 2007
        But that bias could be beneficial, from a utilitarian standpoint,
        because those who actually show up to vote may be more educated than
        the average voter or what have you.

        --- In RangeVoting@yahoogroups.com, "warren_d_smith31" <wds@...> wrote:
        >
        > http://rangevoting.org/TurnoutBias.html
        >
        > Not what I had expected, but it looks like the fact the USA
        > does not have compulsory voting & universal suffrage, causes
        > very large biasing of the vote, almost as large as suffrage for blacks
        > and larger than suffrage for women.
        >
        > This triples my initial guess
        > (still present at
        > http://rangevoting.org/RelImport.html
        > since I have not incorporated this yet).
        >
        > Can anybody see any errors that should be fixed in these?
        >
      • warren_d_smith31
        ... Possibly true. And the web page now incorporates a statement of that form, thanks. (The turnout biases in 2004 favored Bush over Kerry. was that better
        Message 3 of 6 , Nov 3, 2007
          --- In RangeVoting@yahoogroups.com, "brokenladdercalendar"
          <thebrokenladder@...> wrote:
          >
          > But that bias could be beneficial, from a utilitarian standpoint,
          > because those who actually show up to vote may be more educated than
          > the average voter or what have you.

          Possibly true. And the web page now incorporates a statement of
          that form, thanks.

          (The turnout biases in 2004 favored Bush over Kerry.
          was that better from a utilitarian standpoint? ...No comment.)
        • AllAboutVoting
          ... I agree with Clay s statement, but I think that it is important to note that we are at the edge of a slippery slope. Going down that slope for a moment...:
          Message 4 of 6 , Nov 4, 2007
            >>[Warren]it looks like the fact the USA does not have compulsory
            >>voting & universal suffrage, causes very large biasing of
            >>the vote
            >[Clay]But that bias could be beneficial, from a
            >utilitarian standpoint

            I agree with Clay's statement, but I think that it is important to
            note that we are at the edge of a slippery slope.

            Going down that slope for a moment...:

            A. There is an argument that choosing to participate indicates that a
            voter cares and is knowledgeable (=> disfavor mandatory voting)

            B. There is an argument that being able to get over minor voting
            barriers indicates that a voter cares and is knowledgeable (=> favor
            keeping election day as a single inconvenient day [Tuesdays] as
            opposed to having a longer period or weekend voting, favor voter id
            requirements)

            C. There is an argument that having access to excess resources
            indicates that a voter is more vested in the system and has more
            socially useful view (=> favor poll tax, voter tests, property
            requirements)

            'A' is a fine step for me. 'B' is distasteful but I'm willing to
            listen and might be convinced. 'C' is completely unacceptable.

            In my view the utilitarian worldview of what is best for society is
            not enough. There also needs to be a principal-based 'fairness
            doctrine' that allows for participation without raising extraneous
            barriers on the voting. From the principal-based viewpoint some
            reforms are worthwhile even if they have little or negative impact
            from a utilitarian viewpoint. For example, I would support women's
            suffrage even if it turned out to be harmful from a utilitarian viewpoint.

            More attended to our current political situation: I support measures
            to reduce election fraud even when the fraud levels are low enough or
            unbiased enough to not have a major impact on actual results.

            So what is the 'take-away' here?

            When comparing the impact of competing issues [like women's suffrage
            vs election fraud] there are at least three measures:
            1. how influential is an issue?
            2. how beneficially influential is an issue? (utilitarian view)
            3. how strong is the principal of the issue?

            Some ideas for measuring #3:
            * measure how many people are disenfranchised in that they have no
            input into the system
            * measure how many people are disenfranchised in that they have no
            input into the system and they wanted to have input


            -AllAboutVoting
            http://AllAboutVoting.com

            --- In RangeVoting@yahoogroups.com, "brokenladdercalendar"
            <thebrokenladder@...> wrote:
            >
            > But that bias could be beneficial, from a utilitarian standpoint,
            > because those who actually show up to vote may be more educated than
            > the average voter or what have you.
            >
            > --- In RangeVoting@yahoogroups.com, "warren_d_smith31" <wds@> wrote:
            > >
            > > http://rangevoting.org/TurnoutBias.html
            > >
            > > Not what I had expected, but it looks like the fact the USA
            > > does not have compulsory voting & universal suffrage, causes
            > > very large biasing of the vote, almost as large as suffrage for blacks
            > > and larger than suffrage for women.
            > >
            > > This triples my initial guess
            > > (still present at
            > > http://rangevoting.org/RelImport.html
            > > since I have not incorporated this yet).
            > >
            > > Can anybody see any errors that should be fixed in these?
            > >
            >
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.