Philosophy Now Forum

bobevenson wrote: Please, people vote twice, dead people vote and there are human errors of all kinds.

Your system sounds truly fucked.

bobevenson wrote:

Gary Childress wrote:

bobevenson wrote: Gary, I do notice your snotty view of "for-profit" institutions as supposedly compared to "non-profit" institutions like the government, which, of course, has never contributed anything to mankind except war and violence.

Snotty"? I thought I was being conciliatory. I could have answered worse but chose to be more agreeable. Learn to count your blessings, Bob.

Please, you make a snotty comment and then deny it was snotty. I'd have more respect for you if you simply defended your argument.

Apologies if you took it as "snotty". (Not sure what else to say.) As I stated I could have responded in any number of ways. Consider yourself lucky I chose civility.

Gary Childress wrote:

bobevenson wrote:

Gary Childress wrote: Snotty"? I thought I was being conciliatory. I could have answered worse but chose to be more agreeable. Learn to count your blessings, Bob.

Please, you make a snotty comment and then deny it was snotty. I'd have more respect for you if you simply defended your argument.

As I stated, I could have responded in any number of ways. Consider yourself lucky I chose civility.

See, that pretty well establishes your lack of respect for free-market capitalism and your love affair with totalitarian socialism.

bobevenson wrote:

Gary Childress wrote:

bobevenson wrote: Please, you make a snotty comment and then deny it was snotty. I'd have more respect for you if you simply defended your argument.

As I stated, I could have responded in any number of ways. Consider yourself lucky I chose civility.

See, that pretty well establishes your lack of respect for free-market capitalism and your love affair with totalitarian socialism.

This coming from someone who apparently wants to potentially take away my right to vote and have a say in governance by resorting to "sampling"? Or am I misunderstanding what you are saying concerning the A.C. Nielsen Company?

bobevenson wrote:You, my friend, obviously know nothing about market research in general or the A. C. Nielsen Company in particular. If multimillion-dollar companies rely on sampling to make billion-dollar decisions, it would obviously make sense for political elections to be handled the same way, with far greater accuracy and at far less cost to the taxpayer.

Oh, you mean I could save tax money if I forfeit my right to vote? Oh hell, let's do it. Money is all that matters in the world. I'll be happy to throw away my rights for a buck.

bobevenson wrote:First of all, Gary, your so-called vote isn't going to change the result of any election, so don't worry about it. Secondly, only a sophisticated sampling technique will get the results of the entire population, not just the ones stupid enough to go out and vote.

Only it's not sampling when you get the results of the entire population.

PhilX

bobevenson wrote:Unfortunately, the way elections are handled today, you don't get the results of the entire population, only those people dumb enough to vote. In other words, the winning candidates are selected by dopes.

If you call that "selection", true, except the "unfortunately" part. It's simply that way. We don't say that we unfortunately don't have a third eye, that unfortunately 2+2!=5.

bobevenson wrote:Hmmmm, I'm assuming you're one of the people who vote, right?

WHo gives a fuck what you assume.

bobevenson wrote:First of all, Gary, your so-called vote isn't going to change the result of any election, so don't worry about it. Secondly, only a sophisticated sampling technique will get the results of the entire population, not just the people stupid enough to go out and vote.

Voting is stupid? How would you choose leaders then? Just wait for a military dictator to arise? Or what exactly do you mean by "sampling"? Do you mean polling a relatively small random sample of the entire electorate but NOT the entire electorate? Or are you talking about A.C. Nielsen actively going around the countryside soliciting everyone to coax an opinion out of them? What? If it’s the first scenario (choosing a relatively small random sample) then surely you must be joking. What would happen in close elections where people might question the objectivity of the sample chosen?