From: mike_steiner@qm.claris.com (Mike Steiner)
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
Subject: Re: Voting Analysis
Date: 16 Nov 92 20:06:43 GMT
Followup-To: rec.org.mensa

In article <1992Nov13.141450.6338@nntpd.lkg.dec.com>, edp@math.zk3.dec.com
(Eric Postpischil) wrote:
> 
> In article <mike_steiner-121192113318@192.35.50.131>,
> mike_steiner@qm.claris.com (Mike Steiner) writes:
> 
> >I don't save any of these messages, so I have to go by memory alone.  If I
> >recall your counter-example, it relied upon other methods of communication
> >to explain the reason for not voting.  I acknowledged that situation in my
> >first message on this topic--before you ever brought it up.
> 
> Some back-articles should be available from your news server. 

Nope; it doesn't keep them for very long.


> It is not
> necessary for their to be communication between most people who object
> to voting and the recipients of the message.  An example I gave was of a
> person speaking to some libertarians.  As it turned out, the person had
> refused to vote because they were fed up with the system and/or
> available candidates.  The libertarians had believed that such people
> existed.  During conversation between these two people, those facts were
> confirmed.  (Note that the message had been sent and received _prior_ to
> the conversation; the conversation served as confirmation.)

The fact that they believed that such people existed doesn't show that
there was any message sent or received.  I believe that Martians have
infiltrated us.  If, tomorrow, someone confirms my belief, that doesn't
mean that I had received a message before that point.  Further, the
person's conversation proves that there is one person like that; it doesn't
say anything either way about the existence of other people's beliefs.

> Simply by sampling a number of people who do not vote, one can gauge
> what portion of all those people who do not vote are doing so because of
> similar objections.  Thus, if somebody knows, say from a
> demographically-selected sample, that x% of those who do not vote are
> doing so because of objections to the system or candidates, then they
> can take the total number of people who did not vote, multiply it by x%,
> and come up with a good approximation of the total number of objecting
> non-voters.  By choosing not to vote, each non-voter contributes to that
> total -- it is a number that is sent by non-voters and can be received
> by other people.  A message is sent.

Yes, the message is sent in the sampling.  Absent the sampling, there is no
message.  The point is that not-voting, *in and of itself* does not give
any message.  Every example you have given has relied upon another method
of communication to send the message.

This is getting pointless.  You say one thing, but your examples do not
support what you say, and no one has said anything new on the subject in
weeks.  Let's drop it and move on to something more productive.

+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Now that I have a reader that can do .sigs, I can't think of a witty |
|one to put here, so I won't.  All normal disclaimers apply.          |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa