tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post4876707299429608932..comments2024-03-10T10:40:32.319-07:00Comments on Pyromaniacs: Math and ElectionsPhil Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comBlogger66125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-3438489752474725832012-08-31T12:59:54.585-07:002012-08-31T12:59:54.585-07:00Bill O'Neill:
The question of how this main-s...Bill O'Neill:<br /><br />The question of how this main-streams Mormonism is an interesting question which I hope to address in a future post.<br /><br />To the rest:<br /><br />I am AFK for the weekend, and therefore can't monitor the meta. I am shuttin' 'er down.FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-71044050413007650892012-08-31T12:15:54.479-07:002012-08-31T12:15:54.479-07:00Loving this post and comment string. I'm more ...Loving this post and comment string. I'm more comfortable with math now than before as a basis for helping me to see thank I must repent of sleeping through the primary (where I could have done something with my point of view.) <br /><br />My massive struggle is the deleterious impact Mormonism will have on an already pathetic evangelicalism in American Christiandom. Obama and his universalism is likewise harmful but a wink and a nod to anything remotely Christian. The Glenn Beck factor is, after reading this, a primary election matter. <br /><br />Regardless, the church has the opportunity to step up in either circumstance. And SCOTUS is the most important _political_ matter in November.Bill O'Neillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02171442755000659771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-59495907419843096622012-08-31T12:13:36.783-07:002012-08-31T12:13:36.783-07:00Touche, Frank. I see it there right at the end of ...Touche, Frank. I see it there right at the end of the article, in the sense I meant election! <br />Nash Equilibriumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06528684112014026512noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-28156743231492949832012-08-31T12:10:53.908-07:002012-08-31T12:10:53.908-07:00Brian:
You really see no value in Romney turning ...Brian:<br /><br />You really see no value in Romney turning the budget of both the Olympics and Massachusetts around from red to black?<br /><br />You really don't see any value in a fellow who issued 800 vetoes of spending appropriations to a democratic legislature in MA?<br /><br />No value in a guy who has proven himself as a leader in the private sector?<br /><br />Really? None?<br /><br />Who would you rather see in his place?FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-26268194474807710042012-08-31T12:00:13.084-07:002012-08-31T12:00:13.084-07:00Nash:
I think I did write a post on "Math an...Nash:<br /><br />I think I did write a post on "<a href="http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2010/11/election-results.html" rel="nofollow">Math and Election</a>".<br /><br />Just sayin'.FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-90451567740872449442012-08-31T11:55:13.425-07:002012-08-31T11:55:13.425-07:00Since the math shows that Libertarians represent s...Since the math shows that Libertarians represent such a small number, when BLUE wins this election are you going to blame it on those who supported there own party or on the fact that the Republicans put forward the very worst possible candidate that they could find (basically a democrat in republican clothes). Bottom line, I see no difference between the two candidate's RECORDS (not their rhetoric, since Mitt is only scratching evangelical ears). This election is not even the "lesser of two evils", it's more like Evil in RED tie or Evil in a BLUE one. No matter which way you do that math, we lose. Brianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15330526032600541411noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-59692680693602304702012-08-31T11:50:36.365-07:002012-08-31T11:50:36.365-07:00Joel:
Troll.Joel:<br /><br />Troll.FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-42545473079992897242012-08-31T11:49:01.251-07:002012-08-31T11:49:01.251-07:00| Please let me know if I have this right.
You s...| Please let me know if I have this right. <br /><br />You seem like an honest fellow, Bill. Shoot.<br /><br />| There are many factors that go into <br />| deciding whom to vote for this election to <br />| include abortion, homosexual marriage, the <br />| economy, possible SCOTUS nominees, <br />| etc.<br /><br />We agree. So far, so good.<br /><br />| The factor that seems to trump all <br />| others is math, i.e. electability (aka what the <br />| polls say).<br /><br />I think perhaps, you didn’t read my post, Bill. You cannot find the word “electability” in my post. It is not implied. What is overtly stated is that if the voting goes the way it will naturally go, it’s possible for a RED-side candidate to win in a 2-man race; it is not MATHEMATICALLY possible for a BLUE-side candidate to win in a 3-man race – unless the unthinkable happens, like a mass defection from the center-left.<br /><br />Since your hypothetical candidate is not going to be centrist (see: your list of issues), how likely is that, really? <br /><br />Knowing this – and this is easily known; my nephew in 1st grade can do this math – how exactly is voting 3rd party actually causing the worst candidate to lose?<br /><br />| While a third party candidate <br />| may score extremely high on what you think <br />| a biblical leader might look like, ...<br /><br />Aha! First: you have no idea what I think “a biblical leader” might look like (I’ll wager; I’ll wait until you read my post on that). Second: I’ll bet your definition of a “biblical leader” is mistaken. Third: I’ll bet your first choice from the humans living today is not everything you are here cracking him up to be. But: you might surprise me. <br /><br />| ... don’t waste <br />| your vote by voting your conscience <br />| because he/she can’t win.<br /><br />OH! So close! See: in your view of this, you see casting your vote for a perfect candidate as being the extent of your moral obligation. That is: if we have choices A, B and C, and “C” is the best man for the job, “B” is bad, and “A” is worst, and you vote for “C”, you have won this round of putting your faith to work.<br /><br />It’s actually a pretty funny view of the thing, the more I mull it over. See: if we changed this thing just a little and said, “if we have choices ‘murder my own child and his friend’, ‘save one of them from drowning since I am the only hope for one of them,’ and ‘Give a lecture on water safety so that no one ever drowns again,’ and you choose for ‘C’,” we see right away how utterly incoherent the act of conscience argument is. There is no question: “C” is the most utterly-innocuous activity you can participate in. It is utterly worth-while both in motive and in implemention. The problem? It ignores the problems expressed in “A” and “B”. It is big-picture thinking gone complete haywire, not only missing the trees, and the forest, but the continent they are all residing on.<br /><br />| Could this be <br />| construed as asking people to modify their <br />| convictions (so at least things go slightly <br />| less south than if you really did vote your <br />| convictions)?<br /><br />Nope. It means making a choice like any adult will make any other choice. If my choices are “murder my family in a car wreck,” “budget and save so that I can make repairs in the correct interval,” or “I must buy a new car when this one any needs repairs,” of course the last one gets you shiny-clean and new, but it is both unrealistic and unsustainable. You choose the reasonable, attainable alternative to negligent harm.<br /><br />It means selecting from the attainable and sustainable options. It also means acting like any decent manager or engineer acts: setting goals which sustain continuous improvement.<br /><br />| BTW, don’t trot out the <br />| “pastor in chief” canard please.<br /><br />I’m not the one trotting out the “Biblical Leader” card. I haven’t even mentioned such a thing yet. But oddly: you did.<br /><br />| Lastly, is <br />| there ever a reason to vote third party?<br /><br />Since you asked it that way: No.<br /><br />Think about a better way to ask that question – like: “What would a third party need to become a viable alternative to the two major parties?”<br />FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-53149439493660951692012-08-31T11:38:47.759-07:002012-08-31T11:38:47.759-07:00Jeremiah
True, and your cat wouldn't eat dogs,...Jeremiah<br />True, and your cat wouldn't eat dogs, either, which would be another plus vs. the current one.<br /><br />Now I want to see Frank write an article on Math and Election Nash Equilibriumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06528684112014026512noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-34759296428698368132012-08-31T11:36:35.682-07:002012-08-31T11:36:35.682-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Nash Equilibriumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06528684112014026512noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-81980891873032814242012-08-31T11:22:43.255-07:002012-08-31T11:22:43.255-07:00I mean 'the current one.'*I mean 'the current one.'*Jeremiah Greenwellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08299973303636654588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-57467444189940872262012-08-31T11:21:35.925-07:002012-08-31T11:21:35.925-07:00Don’t take this the wrong way, Frank, but this thr...Don’t take this the wrong way, Frank, but this thread demonstrates the difficulty of discussing politics from the position of biblical ethics. I don’t mean it’s impossible, and I don’t assume it’s a bad thing, but it’s difficult. <br /><br />The reason is that we have to translate from biblical situations to our own, and there is no direct correspondence. In the days of the New Testament, for instance, there were only two types of people in the world: Caesar and everybody else. The Bible has a lot to say about how Caesar ought to rule. (Be just and righteous, uphold good and suppress evil.) It also has a lot to say to everybody else about how they ought to live under that rule. (Submit to those in authority over you, right up to the point where they require you to obey man rather than God. At that point, refuse.)<br /><br />Now, we can translate that into our world to a certain extent. It means, if you are a judge hearing a case, that you must never create or uphold a precedent which legitimizes the murder of children. It means, as a subject to the governing authorities, that you should respect the worst of judges, but that you must never yourself perform or contract for an abortion. <br /><br />However, what the Bible does <i>not</i> anticipate (I didn’t say God didn’t see it coming; look up <a href="http://www.thefreedictionary.com/anticipate" rel="nofollow">“anticipate”</a> - third definition)<br />was a circumstance in which everyone else would <i>collectively</i> determine who gets to be Caesar. In that circumstance, we all share a tiny sliver of Caesar’s authority - so tiny that we are all more everybody else than we are Caesar. Nevertheless, we cannot ignore that sliver; we must think in terms of using our vote to uphold good and suppress evil. <br /><br />The heart of this debate is that it isn’t always easy figuring out how that responsibility works out in an ever-changing modern political climate. <br /><br />Understand, though, Frank didn’t address this post <i>to</i> Mitt Romney, or to Justice Roberts, for that matter. He addressed it to a bunch of everybody elses who happen to hold tiny slivers of Caesarial power. If Frank had said to someone entrusted with our authority, “It’s OK with me (and with God) that you’re in favor of murdering one out of every two-hundred ‘unwanted’ babies,” then I would be the first to pillory him for that statement.<br /><br />It isn’t what he said. He said, in essence, “Understand what your sliver is good for. If you try to use it in concert with a few dozen of your close, jaded friends, then you throw it away, and you fail, because evil prevails. On the other hand, if you use your sliver together with several million other sliver-holding everybodies, you just might suppress evil <i>to some extent.</i><br /><br />That strikes me as a pretty careful application of biblical ethics to the circumstances in which we <i>actually</i> find ourselves. Remember, when Clint said last night “You own this country,” he didn’t mean “you” - singular. He meant you along with 250 million other guys, and you’ve all got the same miniscule atom of power.<br /><br />At the same time, this demonstrates pretty well why I believe politics fall under Christian Liberty. Frank’s right, I’m sure of that, but if someone is going to get it wrong, I won’t view him as an evil man because of it. There is freedom to interpret these things differently.<br />Tom Chantryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02485908616177111150noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-7485311816586769382012-08-31T11:14:01.485-07:002012-08-31T11:14:01.485-07:00"What if Romney is not enough to turn back th..."What if Romney is not enough to turn back the tide but only to diminish it? What if what is required, not just desired, is a strong conservative government?"<br /><br />Uhm, Joel, I have biblically solid news for you; no one will ever completely turn the tide for America. There's only one army and one nation that will stand in that day, I don't see the great old US of A anywhere in scripture as it.<br /><br />Stop looking for salvation in politics; it's not there to save you or the world, it is only there to diminish and restrain evil. You can have your day trying to establish a messiah for the nation, I'm just looking for someone who actually hopes to have a chance of improving things, even if only slightly.<br /><br />...And my cat would be a better president than him.Jeremiah Greenwellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08299973303636654588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-32968845801219421162012-08-31T10:24:57.034-07:002012-08-31T10:24:57.034-07:00Joel - that depends on the circumstances, if you c...Joel - that depends on the circumstances, if you catch my drift. Nice try though.Nash Equilibriumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06528684112014026512noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-31159215901313126622012-08-31T10:23:45.726-07:002012-08-31T10:23:45.726-07:00Bill
I don't think anyone here is modifying t...Bill<br /><br />I don't think anyone here is modifying their convictions, they are modifying their actions to bring about directional change, not absolute change (which is unachievable). <br /><br />Your "lesser of three evils" candidate already had their chance to win, and lost, because this country has a two-party system and they didn't secure the endorsement of either of those parties. In other words, face reality. Math is real, as Frank emphasized.<br /><br />Your choice (and everyone else's) is between whether to be an ideologue who has no (positive) influence on the outcome, or to be effective.<br /><br />Like most of us, I know lots of third party voters. I'm not saying this is true of you or of all but for the most part they are what one would call cranks, the same people who believe that the government staged 9/11, that we did the moon landing in a Hollywood studio, that childhood vaccinations cause autism, and so on. Looking at the judgement of such people has never given me a warm feeling about the wisdom of third party voting. But that's strictly a confirming factor in my mind, not the meat of the argument against it.Nash Equilibriumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06528684112014026512noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-25713805985627515152012-08-31T10:15:53.897-07:002012-08-31T10:15:53.897-07:00Nash-
Who is looking at things black and white now...Nash-<br />Who is looking at things black and white now?joelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05811833690725966814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-9133858553561347902012-08-31T10:08:29.015-07:002012-08-31T10:08:29.015-07:00Joel
The first step toward getting further from th...Joel<br />The first step toward getting further from the cliff is to stop driving toward it quite so fast. Then afterward, you can worry about stopping, turning around, and finally driving in the other direction. Right now we are driving at breakneck speed toward the cliff. Do you want to start the slowing down process, or do you want to put the person back in the driver's seat who has had the pedal to the metal for four years?Nash Equilibriumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06528684112014026512noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-29605514270727856272012-08-31T09:55:06.655-07:002012-08-31T09:55:06.655-07:00Down deep at the bottom of my pessimistic, black a...Down deep at the bottom of my pessimistic, black and white and somewhat twisted view of reality is I believe a legitimate concern. As Frank pointed out things are worse now than they ever before have been. Worse enough in fact that they might alter Frank's otherwise sound arguments and logic. What if Romney is not enough to turn back the tide but only to diminish it. What if what is required, not just desired, is a strong conservative government. I think that many people, myself included, have been doing our best to reform the Republican party from within for a long time and it doesn't, in my pessimistic view, seem to be moving in the right direction. This is the only reason I am toying with the idea of something I have never done before. I am toying with the idea of for the first time in my life not voting for the most electable (best we can get) nominee. It seems that I am faced with two options: voting for Romney knowing that he will only slightly decrease the speed with which we are headed for the cliff, or try and shoot for a more radical reform that is almost certainly doomed to failure. joelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05811833690725966814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-31360139447409422542012-08-31T09:43:19.925-07:002012-08-31T09:43:19.925-07:00Please let me know if I have this right. There ar...Please let me know if I have this right. There are many factors that go into deciding whom to vote for this election to include abortion, homosexual marriage, the economy, possible SCOTUS nominees, etc. The factor that seems to trump all others is math, i.e. electability (aka what the polls say). While a third party candidate may score extremely high on what you think a biblical leader might look like, don’t waste your vote by voting your conscience because he/she can’t win. Could this be construed as asking people to modify their convictions (so at least things go slightly less south than if you really did vote your convictions)? BTW, don’t trot out the “pastor in chief” canard please. Lastly, is there ever a reason to vote third party?Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10148051372220453729noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-34617983497212390932012-08-31T09:16:44.373-07:002012-08-31T09:16:44.373-07:00Joel - political parties are marketing organizatio...Joel - political parties are marketing organizations that evolve as the populace evolves. You seem to think that unless they dissolve themselves, they cannot change. Perhaps your black and white way of viewing things in general explains some of this perspective, but if you consider that the Democratic party 150 years ago was the party of Jim Crow and slavery, maybe you'll start to see that your view of the world doesn't reflect reality.<br /><br />Yes, the Republican party would change into a truly conservative party if what you would define as "truly conservative" could garner enough votes. That's why the GOP nominee was the liberally-prone McCain four years ago, and why the more conservatively prone Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney are marketable enough this time to get the nomination.<br /><br />I'm a libertarian for the most part (not on abortion, though) but I vote for the lesser of two evils, rather than the lesser of three evils (as you apparently do), in order to effect change in the direction that I want, even if it isn't as far as I want the change to go. It's still directionally more correct than BO's direction.Nash Equilibriumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06528684112014026512noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-42748106733650055012012-08-31T09:07:06.766-07:002012-08-31T09:07:06.766-07:00Frank - it's a good sign. The goodness of God ...Frank - it's a good sign. The goodness of God leaves nothing to dispute!Nash Equilibriumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06528684112014026512noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-67445086769108223382012-08-31T09:05:00.117-07:002012-08-31T09:05:00.117-07:00The sad ugliness of pessimism Frank is that people...The sad ugliness of pessimism Frank is that people don't want to recover from it. It can be as addictive as any other drug of which I am aware.joelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05811833690725966814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-60639359618268104912012-08-31T08:50:31.314-07:002012-08-31T08:50:31.314-07:00Just to say it out loud:
Goodness of God? No com...Just to say it out loud:<br /><br />Goodness of God? No comments<br /><br />Vote in the election you are dealt? COMMENTS!FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-76460840935356168372012-08-31T08:45:20.073-07:002012-08-31T08:45:20.073-07:00Joel:
It's too bad what you want is permanent...Joel:<br /><br />It's too bad what you want is permanently able to be achieved -- by your own admission. What will you do now besides call the rest of us names in order to feel better about your pessimism?FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-21288443459922244912012-08-31T08:42:57.945-07:002012-08-31T08:42:57.945-07:00OFelix:
You ignore my "so what" #1 -- a...OFelix:<br /><br />You ignore my "so what" #1 -- and I don't blame you because, frankly, more than 50% of Americans ignore #1. The first "so what" in my post is that you have to participate with gusto in the primary process -- which means you have to belong to a political party and not just duck your head in the morally-warm sand of independence. It means to participate, and you risk losing the argument for the sake of improving the argument -- and then finally winning some of your objectives.<br /><br />You know: 4 years ago, Paul Ryan was utterly untenable as anything but what he was -- because of the cultural environment we were in. But now he's a stellar VP candidate who can offer real reform -- and he's hard-core pro life. That happened because people in the RED party got serious about being in the RED party and participating in the process. The other side of that coin is that there is also a limit to the influence that wing of the party is going to get to influence -- because they are not a majority, and they are also not ever going to be a unanimous voting block.<br /><br />My advice is actually: vote according to the math this fall to get what you really would prefer, and then <i>join the system rather than merely howling at it</i>.FX Turkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16798420127955373559noreply@blogger.com