[graue]

This is possibly the most reasonable and cool-headed analysis of an upcoming election that I have ever read.

I love how he concludes that voting is rational. I'd never thought to multiply the, potentially massive, cost of the candidate I disfavor getting elected, multiply it by the tiny chance my vote makes the difference, and compare the result to the amount of money I make in an hour. He admits his cost figures are fudged, but in principle, it works out.

Since I spotted this on the front page, it seems to have been nuked by mods. Perhaps that's for the better, but I'd be much more interested in discussing politics if everyone could handle it with the restrained style and tone in this article. Interesting link.

[Imbue]

His reasoning is actually quite flawed. Even if you believe there is somehow a black and white $7.7 trillion value difference between candidates, betting on such long odds still isn't rational.

If we assume (using numbers from the article) that a vote costs $20 (an hour of our time), the odds are 1 to 10 million, and the payoff is $7.7 trillion (even though it's the country getting the benefit, not the voter) then the Kelly criterion* implies that it's only rational to vote if your net worth is more than $200 million. Somebody making $20 an hour probably isn't worth $200 million, and so even if voting did have a positive expected value, it's not a rational strategy.

TL,DR: There is more to betting strategy than expected valve, and no rational gambler takes a bet with 1/10 million odds for $20.

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_criterion

[abecedarius]

That calculation assumes your judgement is better than the typical voter's. You should weigh it by P(better)-P(worse). (I'm not necessarily saying people with reason to think they have at-best average judgement should patriotically not vote; but the calculation is.)

(It's also worth considering a la Hofstadter/Yudkowsky that something like your decision process is instantiated in other people like you -- if you decide not to vote, many of them won't either, even with no causal link.)

[graue]

Also not everything is purely economic. If we assume that Candidate A would cost the US $7 trillion while B would be revenue neutral, then A's election would, on paper, be terrible. But how much would it actually make your life as an individual worse in a meaningful way? I suspect that in many cases, the practical impact of a presidential election on an individual's day-to-day life is relatively low. And that probably drives the intuitive notion that voting is irrational. Voting in local elections (mayor, city council, etc.) is probably more rational, both due to bigger impact of your vote and larger policy consequences for you as an individual.

[001sky]

This is possibly the most reasonable and cool-headed analysis of an upcoming election that <I have ever read>.

-- Its astonishing that there is nothing in this regarding the US Debt. eg http://www.kpcb.com/insights/usa-inc-full-report [1]

______________

[1] Summary> http://www.businessinsider.com/mary-meeker-usa-inc-february-...