I do think even if you change the outcome of all people using quantum random number generators, this is quite unlikely to flip the outcome of an election. It’s just not that many people, and election margins are quite large. There are butterfly effects here, but I think the prior on the people who use quantum random number generators explaining a lot of the variance of election outcomes seems quite unlikely to me, even if you can correlate their actions somehow.
among other ways to have an effect, it just has to change the economic fortunes of enough people for their policy preferences to change, which depends on how the overall system’s dynamics respond to the randomness. if it’s overall mostly a sink towards a particular outcome, then you might be right, but it seems to me that chaos has a pretty significant impact in which natural disasters happen, which ought to have a significant impact on economic fortunes.
I do think even if you change the outcome of all people using quantum random number generators, this is quite unlikely to flip the outcome of an election. It’s just not that many people, and election margins are quite large. There are butterfly effects here, but I think the prior on the people who use quantum random number generators explaining a lot of the variance of election outcomes seems quite unlikely to me, even if you can correlate their actions somehow.
edit: this is a reply to the wrong thread.
among other ways to have an effect, it just has to change the economic fortunes of enough people for their policy preferences to change, which depends on how the overall system’s dynamics respond to the randomness. if it’s overall mostly a sink towards a particular outcome, then you might be right, but it seems to me that chaos has a pretty significant impact in which natural disasters happen, which ought to have a significant impact on economic fortunes.