One of the questions on the application form caused enormous confusion:
If you are American, SSC endorses voting in this presidential election. Andrew Gelman, Nate Silver, and Aaron Edlin calculate the chance that a single vote will determine the election ie break a tie in a state that breaks an Electoral College tie.
It ranges from about one in ten million if you live in a swing state to one in a billion if you live in a very safe state. The average American has a one in sixty million chance of determining the election results. The paper was from the election, which was a pro-Obama landslide; since this election is closer the chance of determining it may be even higher.
But Presidents do shift budgetary priorities a lot. Neither of these are pure costs — Obamacare buys us more health care, and military presence in Iraq buys us [mumble] — but if you think these are less or more efficient ways to spend money than other possible uses, then they represent ways that having one President might be better than another.
In order to add signal rather than noise to the election results, we have to be better than the average voter.
I recommend the Outside View — looking for measurable indicators correlated with ability to make good choices. IQ might be another.
Suppose you live in a swing state. If you value the amount of time it takes to vote at less than that, voting is conceivably a good use of your time. SSC endorses voting for Hillary Clinton if you live in a swing state.
If you live in a safe state, I endorse voting for Clinton, Johnson, or if you insist Stein.
If you want, you can use a vote-swapping site to make this easier or more impactful. I think Donald Trump would be a bad president. Partly this is because of his policies, insofar as he has them.
But the latest news says: This is going to be close. And since the lesson of Brexit is that polls underestimate support for politically incorrect choicesthis is going to be really close.
But if some of my blogging on conservative issues has given me any political capital with potential Trump voters, then I this is where I want to spend it. So here are some reasons why I would be afraid to have Trump as president even if I agreed with him about the issues.Over 20, former POWs returned to Australia at the end of the second world war.
Archival research sheds light on those who struggled to readjust to life here - and the impact on their wives. By Jane Winters, Institute of Historical Research. Before the Conquest the kings of England enjoyed the right to hunt freely on their own lands, but in this they did not differ significantly from any other landowner.
1 It was not a function of kingship, rather the prerogative of the landed. This changed with the arrival of William the Conqueror. The United Kingdom does not have a codified feelthefish.comr, a number of texts are considered to be constitutional, such that the "constitution of the United Kingdom" or "British constitution" may refer to a number of historical and momentous laws and principles that make up the country's body feelthefish.com the term "UK constitution" is sometimes said to refer to an "unwritten" or.
David Hume (—) “Hume is our Politics, Hume is our Trade, Hume is our Philosophy, Hume is our Religion.” This statement by nineteenth century philosopher James Hutchison Stirling reflects the unique position in intellectual thought held by Scottish philosopher David Hume.
Part of Hume’s fame and importance owes to his boldly skeptical approach to a range of philosophical subjects. This essay has deliberately set itself the task of saying what the prerogative is and the word ‘define’ has been purposefully avoided in view of the fact that the royal prerogative is notoriously hard to describe in precise terms.
The thunder-and-lightning example seems like a bad comparison for this kind of situation, in that the false claim is (1) easily observable to be untrue, and (2) utterly useless to the society that propagates it.