Let 20% wards be swung by one vote, that gives each voter 1 in (5 * amount of voters) chance of affecting a vote cast on the next level, if that’s how US system works?
… elected officials change their behavior based on margins …
Which is an exercise in reinforcing prior beliefs, since margins are obviously insufficient data.
Politicians pay a lot more attention to vote-giving populations...
Are politicians equipped with a device to detect voters and their needs? If not, then it’s lobbying, not voting that matters.
...impact of your reasoning by the population who might follow it.
Population following my reasoning: me.
P.S. Thanks for hinting at other question, which might be of actual use to me.
1 - No. This was an election for members of the town council, so those two 1-ballot-difference votes decided who got two jobs.
2 - I’m not sure what you mean there. A way of measuring the strength of this effect is to see how voting patterns differ between representatives who win by landslides vs representatives who squeak by. The vulnerable representatives act much more cautiously—and for good reason.
3 - Who voted in each election is public information, so the first answer is YES except for the requirement that there be a special device for it which you tacked on. For identifying your needs, there’s exit polling (there is no way to make sure that you get exit-polled), in which you are often asked what the most important issue is for you. For other polling, I suppose you can lie and say you vote regularly when called, but you might consider that unethical.
The simplest form of lobbying is letters to representatives. Again, I suppose you could lie.
4- Follow it, not you. The population of people who face the same situation with the same logical premises and habits. Copies of computations are the same computation.
Perhaps you would find the fraction of people that would need to be voting so that your voting is no longer ‘worth it’. Then you would vote or not with that probability.
Let 20% wards be swung by one vote, that gives each voter 1 in (5 * amount of voters) chance of affecting a vote cast on the next level, if that’s how US system works?
Which is an exercise in reinforcing prior beliefs, since margins are obviously insufficient data.
Are politicians equipped with a device to detect voters and their needs? If not, then it’s lobbying, not voting that matters.
Population following my reasoning: me.
P.S. Thanks for hinting at other question, which might be of actual use to me.
This isn’t a great assumption in general, but it’s a particularly bad assumption if you’re describing your reasoning out loud in public.
1 - No. This was an election for members of the town council, so those two 1-ballot-difference votes decided who got two jobs.
2 - I’m not sure what you mean there. A way of measuring the strength of this effect is to see how voting patterns differ between representatives who win by landslides vs representatives who squeak by. The vulnerable representatives act much more cautiously—and for good reason.
3 - Who voted in each election is public information, so the first answer is YES except for the requirement that there be a special device for it which you tacked on. For identifying your needs, there’s exit polling (there is no way to make sure that you get exit-polled), in which you are often asked what the most important issue is for you. For other polling, I suppose you can lie and say you vote regularly when called, but you might consider that unethical.
The simplest form of lobbying is letters to representatives. Again, I suppose you could lie.
4- Follow it, not you. The population of people who face the same situation with the same logical premises and habits. Copies of computations are the same computation.
Perhaps you would find the fraction of people that would need to be voting so that your voting is no longer ‘worth it’. Then you would vote or not with that probability.