{"items": [{"author": "Danni", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/373187632756806?comment_id=373271779415058", "anchor": "fb-373271779415058", "service": "fb", "text": "i think there's a missing ethical component to the question you've posed! if you've made an agreement with this other person, that neither of you will vote, based on the supposition that your votes cancel each other out anyway...but then you break that agreement and go vote anyway, is that not an ethical violation?", "timestamp": "1350869278"}, {"author": "Todd", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/112947709146257842066", "anchor": "gp-1350874738422", "service": "gp", "text": "The only real difference I see between this and the actual prisoner's dilemma is that in most cases, you're basically scaling the utilities in question by some small fraction.\n
\n
\nPurple Party all the way.", "timestamp": 1350874738}, {"author": "Julia", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/102487727783123805341", "anchor": "gp-1350876454336", "service": "gp", "text": "I actually kind of like voting.", "timestamp": 1350876454}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/373187632756806?comment_id=373399452735624", "anchor": "fb-373399452735624", "service": "fb", "text": "@Oliver: \"is that not an ethical violation?\"
Yup. Though it's the same ethical violation as in the original formulation.", "timestamp": "1350908358"}, {"author": "Darren", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/373187632756806?comment_id=373415642734005", "anchor": "fb-373415642734005", "service": "fb", "text": "Regardless of the ethics of the dilemma, I think you're ignoring the ethics of voting--to participate in government and have your perspective and ideas represented. It's not just about winning.", "timestamp": "1350912455"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/373187632756806?comment_id=373476042727965", "anchor": "fb-373476042727965", "service": "fb", "text": "@Darren: \"participate in government and have your perspective and ideas represented\"
Are my ideas as a member of the Pink party any less represented if me and a member of the Purple party agree to stay home?", "timestamp": "1350924470"}, {"author": "Darren", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/373187632756806?comment_id=373488419393394", "anchor": "fb-373488419393394", "service": "fb", "text": "Yes, Jeff, because voting is essentially a survey of people's political ideas. Even if the percentage result is the same, by staying at home, you're removing yourself from the sample size and reducing the accuracy of the survey.
I think we're arguing two different things: practice and principle. I personally would still vote even if I knew that my choice would be neutralized by another voter, because I believe in the principle of the thing.", "timestamp": "1350927342"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/373187632756806?comment_id=373519676056935", "anchor": "fb-373519676056935", "service": "fb", "text": "@Darren: \"you're removing yourself from the sample size and reducing the accuracy of the survey\"
I don't think the accuracy changes. It is a survey to answer the question \"which candidate is preferred by the most people\". When we talk about it's \"accuracy\" we mean the fraction of the time the winner of the election is actually the person preferred by the most people. If you and the Purple-supporter both vote or both don't vote the survey comes up with the same answer and so is equally accurate.
\"I think we're arguing two different things: practice and principle\"
I'm trying to understand the principle. Is it just \"voting is good\"?", "timestamp": "1350934497"}]}