From: edp@math.zk3.dec.com (Eric Postpischil)
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa
Subject: Re: Voting Analysis
Date: 13 Nov 92 14:14:50 GMT
Reply-To: edp@math.zk3.dec.com (Eric Postpischil)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation

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.  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.)

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.

>It is empirical.  Gather together  20,000 to 70,000 people who are all
>talking simulateously (a baseball game might be a good source for this),
>and then say "Fire" in a normal speaking voice, directed at no one in
>particular, and without first trying to attract anyone's attention.  See
>how many people get your message.

The audible frequencies are a limited bandwidth.  Your empirical example
merely proves that no message is likely to be sent in the situation you
give.  Even with that example, it doesn't prove that NO message is sent,
since it is possible that somebody would notice.  But even if that is
denied, your example is inconclusive since it does not prove messages
are not sent in other situations.  It is in fact possible to extract
messages from noisy environments; this is done all the time by radio and
television receivers -- and by pollsters.

>> The politicians and the press are not the only people who participate in
>> and affect government and society.
>
>True; however, if there is any message to be delivered by a vote or
>non-vote, they would be the parties who receive the message.

That is not true.  I am personally acquainted with other citizens who
are interested in these matters and who are listening.  Using your
example, they are standing in the baseball stadium looking around for
people saying "fire".  By analogy to your example, the people might be
saying "fire" in a normal speaking voice, directed at no one in
particular, and without first trying to attract anyone's attention.  But
the listeners are already at attention; they are seeking those persons
and they can receive the message.


                                -- edp (Eric Postpischil)
                                "Always mount a scratch monkey."
                                edp@rusure.enet.dec.com
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa