The "Truth" about voting

Copyright Carl Janssen 2018

Refutation of the moral arguments against ever voting

Some anarchists argue in opposition to voting because violence is used to enforce laws fabricated into existence through voting, but this argument is problematic because voting can also be used to prevent laws from being fabricated.

If the elections were not rigged and there was a vote on whether or not to  kill all humans.  I would vote not to kill all humans.  Imagine if the proposition to kill all humans passed by 1 vote because you did not  vote.

Some might argue that you still should not vote because they do not believe in the legitimacy of the voting process and do not believe people have a moral obligation to follow policies just because people voted to enact policies.  The fundamental problem with this argument however is that other people are under undue influence to compromise their moral principles based on the outcome of a vote even if the voting system is illegitimate and is merely a methodology of undue influence.  This means that someone under undue influence to use violence to enforce the outcomes of voting may refrain from violence if  your vote changes the outcome even if you are unable to persuade them of the moral illegitimacy of determining your behaviour in matters of using violence by the outcome of the voting process.

However if you will not get arrested it maybe more effective in some cases to hold up signs saying laws voted into existence are enforced through violence near voting booths than to actually vote, in other situations this may not be the case.  In some cases doing both maybe possible but in other cases doing both maybe problematic.

Although I do not find these arguments against voting to be valid in all cases there maybe some cases where they are valid arguments if for example refraining from voting can influence people to  disbelieve in the voting system.

The theoretical probability of voting making a difference

Your vote can never change a loss to a victory but can only effect tie breakers at best.

It takes a minimum of two votes to change a loss to a victory because it takes a minimum of one vote to change a loss to a stalemate and an additional vote to change a stalemate to a victory.  It may take more than two votes if the difference in votes between the two options was more than one vote.

The probability that your vote will make a difference in an election in which there are only two options other than a stalemate.  Where securing exactly 50% of the votes results in a stalemate and exceeding 50% of the votes or going below 50% of the votes results in the other two options is as follows.


Let  k equal the number of voters excluding you who vote the only way you want out of the two possible choices

And therefore k+1 equals the number of voters including you who vote the only way you want out of those two possible choices if you vote

And let n equal the number of voters excluding you who vote

And therefore n + 1 equals the number of voters including you if you vote

p is the probability that a single random individual out of the other voters would have voted the way you would prefer out of the only two options and is assumed to be an independent probability

However if you do vote the probability that you vote for your preference of the only two choices is assumed to be 100% and not necessarily the value p

 If you vote the probability of creating a stalemate through your single vote is equal to the probability that

k + 1 = (n+1)/2

Which would make

 k = (n-1)/2

And also n = 2k + 1

If k is off from this number by a quantity as small as one vote or even one half a vote (half of a odd number is a fraction) then your vote would not create a stalemate

The probability that refraining from voting would change a stalemate to a loss in your disfavor is equal to the probability that voting would change a loss in your disfavor into a stalemate

If you do vote the probability that voting would change a stalemate into a victory in your favor is equal to the probability that

k = n/2

Which would make n = 2k

If k is off from this number by a quantity as small as one vote or even one half a vote (half of a odd number is a fraction) then your vote would not  change a stalemate into a victory.

The probability that refraining from voting would change a victory into a stalemate is equal to the probability that voting would change a stalemate into a victory

The probability that voting would change a loss into a victory is equal to the probability that

k < (n/2)

And

k+1 > (n+1)/2

For example

If  n = 5 and k = 2

Then

2 < 2.5  = 5/2

But

2 + 1 = 3 which is not greater than 3 = (5+1)/2

If n = 5 and k = 3 then there already is a victory and voting can not change a loss into a victory

So if 5 other people voted your additional vote could never ever change a loss into a victory as you can see if you try all possible natural number values of k

But what if 6 people voted

2 < 3 = 6/2

But

2 + 1 = 3 is not greater than 3 = 6/2

But if n = 6 and k = 3 you can change a stalemate to a victory but not a loss into a victory

And if n = 6 and k = 4 there already is a victory  so you can not change a loss into a victory

To calculate the probability use the method (x = X) at the webpage below for calculating probability as this is a discrete probability function not a continuous function and only uses a single value of x not a range as exceeding the voting requirements by multiple votes will not change the outcome.  Input the two values of  k solved for above and add the probabilities to get the likelihood that your vote can change from a loss to a stalemate or a stalemate to a victory or do not add them and only select the appropriate single value of k if you are only interested in one of those  cases.  The lowercase letter x is equivalent to  k here.  You can also use the formulas in Wikipedia below  remember to calculate the probabilities for the single discrete values which will give a very low value and not to use the probabilities for at least a certain number  or less than a certain number of votes which would give incorrect answers that are highly inflated.

When plugging factorial into the equations.

Keep in mind 100! Is equal to 9.332622e+157 

According to a  Google search I just did which I do not know the accuracy of.  
This means  the numbers in both the numerator and denominator maybe so
large that it is difficult to know if you calculated them correctly even with a
computer due to how they often default to deal with numbers containing
 a smaller number of digits.

The numbers used to calculate how unlikely these probabilities are are so large you may have difficulty calculating them.

https://homepage.divms.uiowa.edu/~mbognar/applets/bin.html


http://web.archive.org/web/20180518125852/https://homepage.divms.uiowa.edu/~mbognar/applets/bin.html

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binomial_distribution

http://web.archive.org/web/20180518130449/https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binomial_distribution

 Probability of being struck by lightning

http://web.archive.org/web/20180518145627/http://www.actualanalysis.com/llp.htm


https://citp.princeton.edu/research/voting/

https://web.archive.org/web/20180802044230/https://citp.princeton.edu/research/voting/

https://web.archive.org/web/20170825144915/https://s3.amazonaws.com/citpsite/publications/ts06full.pdf

https://web.archive.org/web/20170813132353/https://s3.amazonaws.com/citpsite/publications/ts06EVT.pdf

https://attackthesystem.com/2018/07/18/they-interfered-in-our-election-power-elite-crybabies/

https://web.archive.org/web/20180812224225/https://attackthesystem.com/2018/07/18/they-interfered-in-our-election-power-elite-crybabies/

"Man-in-the-Middle" Remote Attack on Diebold Touch-screen Voting Machine by Argonne National Lab

TheBRADBLOG

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DMw2dn6K1oI

https://web.archive.org/web/20180802035639/https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DMw2dn6K1oI

FOX News Exposes Princeton / Diebold Vote-Reversal Story

stopgeorge

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8JESZiLpBLE

https://web.archive.org/web/20180802031218/https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8JESZiLpBLE

Princeton University Exposes Diebold voting machine flaws

Ellie likeswater

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qtARzh4RSW8

https://web.archive.org/web/20180802031127/https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qtARzh4RSW8

Electronic Voting Machine hacked by Computer Scientists (AccuVote-TS)

Shugah Works

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rYnUksWt5HQ

http://web.archive.org/web/20161224081652/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYnUksWt5HQ&app=desktop

http://web.archive.org/web/20180802041824/https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rYnUksWt5HQ

A Hacker Shows Us How Easy it is To Manipulate Voting Machines

FUSION

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hvOKWeW_Fog

https://web.archive.org/web/20180802042919/https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hvOKWeW_Fog

(why I) Don't Vote

The Distributist

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xqCMJhDCdMs

https://web.archive.org/web/20181119071755/https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xqCMJhDCdMs

The Media's Presidential Election Night Hoax - 1 of 4

vaticancatholic.com

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nflPhNdhSXY&list=PLE4B7F2C0CA48B936&index=2&t=0s

http://web.archive.org/web/20200502054552/https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nflPhNdhSXY&list=PLE4B7F2C0CA48B936&index=2&t=0s

This Hoax Affects Everyone

vaticancatholic.com

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OynCgwmD-HM

http://web.archive.org/web/20200502055108/https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OynCgwmD-HM

The intellectual dangers of religious group labels

Copyright Carl Janssen 2018 May 18

Even if someone was 99.99999999999% sure the Quran was inspired by God it could be dangerous to think about it the Quran is true or False after a public conversion to Islam because even if the Quran does not teach to execute people who renounce Islam a large enough percentage of people who label themselves as Muslims execute people who convert to Islam via saying a prayer in front of witnesses and then later change their mind, hence that set of people who label themselves as Muslims make intellectual sincerity in studying the Quran difficult even if the Quran were true.  Churches have had similar practices hundreds of years ago but rarely do anymore in developing countries.  This practice also occurred in which individuals who labeled themselves as Hindus would execute other Hindus who converted to what they considered to be Christianity.

The speed of light through a perfect vacuum is unknown

Scientists have not actually found perfect vacuums so the speed of light through a perfect vacuum is unknown and light has not been observed traveling through a perfect vacuum.

Copyright Carl Janssen 2018 May 15

Fractal Solar Panels

Copyright Carl Janssen 2018 May 14

I was thinking about if we had no roads and used helicopter landing pads if that could be done without fuel such as gasoline or whatever helicopters use that is similar to how cars use gasoline.  I then thought maybe an electric helicopter but solar power might not work on a cloudy day leading to a fall from a very high height that is much more dangerous than a solar powered car running out of fuel of course they could be electrically charged on the ground and receive additional energy through solar power.

But the weight of the solar panels might be too heavy to produce enough electricity to enable the vehicle with solar panels to fly.  Then I thought the human body has a lot of parts with a very high surface area to volume ratio and fractals allegedly can have a unlimited surface area for a finite volume.  Changing the shape of solar panels might enable solar panels to get more power or energy from sunlight per volume and hence more power per weight or mass given a constant density.  I thought particularly about pine tree leaves because unlike human internal organs that work by diffusion of liquids the light tends to come in from a particular direction so creating extra surface area has limitations if some parts of the solar panel block other parts from receiving light in a way that is different then the way water diffuses thus requiring a different shape and being closer to cross sectional area than surface area mathematically but not necessarily exactly either one but probably a quantity in between those two types of areas based on the angle light hits the object being unable to use the extra portions of the surface area that are blocked by other parts of the panels but also having a higher area hit by light than the cross sectional area of a simpler shape of the same volume.

I then googled fractal solar panels to see if someone already came up with this idea so people would not say I stole it from a previous person's idea even though I came up with it on my own and found out other people had this idea before me.  And someone else already came up with a similar idea.

https://www.zmescience.com/research/tiny-tree-fractal-silver-solar-cells-043934/

 http://web.archive.org/web/20180514195748/https://www.zmescience.com/research/tiny-tree-fractal-silver-solar-cells-043934/

Self imposed judgement through taxation

Taxation is slander libel fraud theft kidnapping slavery murder and greed which is idolatry, it is the love of money and the root of some of all sorts of evil.  Taxation is backbiting and gossip and judging a verdict with crooked scales, taxation is terrorism and the fear of man which is a stumbling block and a snare, taxation is heaping up bad karma for the day of retribution.  Look the blood of the wage slaves you employed is crying up against you and the property you have stolen is corrupted and corroded for the day of wraith.  He who lives by threat of the sword collecting false debts shall die by his violent way of life as he destroys the whole earth before him and has no where left to live he has not destroyed through corruption. 

Without roads

Without roads who will destroy the native plant life and people's houses that were there before the roads were built.

Without roads how will we create work incentive to go to work to pay taxes to build roads?

Without roads who will create jobs for police to give traffic tickets and paramedics and car repairmen to help people in car accidents?  And most importantly jobs for morticians!

Without roads how will we subsidize environmentalist jobs by destroying the environment to create roads?

What about emergencies?  Helicopter landing pads and fleets of helicopters and drones would destroy less land then roads to build the infrastructure and cost the community a hospital and post office serves less resources than building and maintaining a massive amount of roads surface area.  But at what cost?  A loss in man hours of work.

How do you enjoy your miserable job?

Copyright Carl Janssen 2018 May 9

Wage slavery island.

Imagine an island with 100 married couples without children totalling 100 men and 100 women.

They agree to make a map of the island in which they draw 200 imaginary sections, one section for each person and two sections for each married couple.

They then create objects out of trees and call these objects tokens.

They then have children and send them to school where they teach them how to learn the knowledge they need to have jobs in the real world in order to get tokens.

Once the children reach a certain age they say now that you are done with school, you need to work hard and earn a living I can no longer let you stay here for free.

All the original 100 married couples end up renting land to the other couples children in exchange for these tokens.  When the children ask how come you do not have to work to pay rent they say I already worked hard to own the land but it you purchase my land for a hundred thousand tokens you will not have to pay rent if you save up and work hard like I did.  But all the tokens left on the island are up to less than a hundred thousand tokens yet there were too many for the children to count to know that.

So the parents relax while the children do all the work but are made to feel guilty for a lack of work ethic.

But the parents never had to earn the tokens they just created them and they never worked to earn the land they just claimed it belonged to them before the children were born.

Copyright Carl Janssen 2018 May 4

A stock market crash is often good for buyers

Copyright Carl Janssen 2018 February 6

If the price of a share of stock decreases but the price per earning for a share of stock increases that means the stock has a cheaper price and a buyer will make more money per time while the stock is the new price per earning than when It was the old price per earning it the number of shares in the corporation did not change.

It the price per share gets divided by X but the price per earning for each share gets multiplied by X that means that those who neither by not sell stocks will make the same amount of money per time off the shares they already own as long as the new price per earning for each share remains X times the old price per earning for each share and the new price per share remains equal to the old price per share divided by X if the number of shares in the corporation does not change

Earnings = Price * Price per Earnings

New Earnings = (Old Price/X)*(Old Price per earning*X) = Old Earnings

The reason this is worded so complicated  is because I am talking about the earnings in a instantaneously moment in time since these quantities fluctuate

By price per earning for each share I do not mean the P/E ratio divided by the number of shares but simply the P/E ratio of it is calculated as follows

The price-to-earnings ratio, or P/E is the ratio of the market price of a company’s stock to its earnings per share (EPS):

P/E Ratio =	Market Value per Share
	Earnings per Share (EPS)

https://www.investopedia.com/university/peratio/peratio1.asp#ixzz56O4HqvZr
Accessed 2018 February 6

Additionally if the price price per share decreases them someone purchases a share and then the price per share increases again later and that person sells a share they would make money not considering the fee common people generally pay a third party for being allowed to make each transaction this is if the number of shares in the corporation does not change during this time period.

However people who intend to sell maybe unhappy with this situation

By earnings I mean money made per time at that instantaneous moment for someone owning stock in that company of any number of shares which would be directly proportional to the number of shares they own.

This might not be the exact same definition as what other people mean by the definition of earnings or the other words I have used in this article

This is not investment advice

This is not considering taxes

A government regulated maximum wage would increase employment

A government regulated maximum wage would increase employment man hours

Contrary to the popular narrative job creation is evil

Copyright Carl Janssen 2018 January 22

Some of my new post locations

I failed to sign the new agreements with ad sense in time and also let my blog be temporarily hidden for to 
long and and can not seem to fix a technical problem so I am transferring my articles to another site.  I also wrote more than 200 articles elsewhere some many years ago which I will hopefully transfer here.  If anyone knows how to switch ad sense accounts and or reactivate an old as sense account let me know.  For this blog site a specific pair of identification numbers is listed and I can not select switch ad sense accounts and I can not log into my old as sense account using my gmail email they say it does not exist.

I am going to correct old posts and after correcting typos I will try to show the original version as posted on my old account with the date it lists as posted and the edited version above with the most recent dates.

MiscellaneousPostTransfers.blogspot.com

Some of my most controversial material I will transfer to

AgsinstReligiousRacialSupremacism.blogspot.com

I am also writing a new book at
OffensiveTheology.blogspot.com

religious labels verses religious practice another section of undermining authority book introduction

Copyright 2017 December 13

This is going to be another section of a book I am writing probably in the introduction

It is not important to me what religion someone labels themselves as but what religion they think and practice.  I am not writing this book to convert someone to a new religious label.

 I am going to make a case that if there is what some people commonly call a heaven and a hell ones admittance to heaven and hell might not determined by what religion one labels themselves as but what religion one thinks and practices not however as salvation based on what set of good deeds someone did or even what knowledge they have but their underlying attitude toward sentient individuals.

I will also make a case that interfaith marriage is not necessarily morally wrong if by interfaith one means two different individuals marrying who label the name of the religion they practice with different labels.

Additionally I will make the case that changing what religion other individuals labels themselves as should not be the primary goal of sharing one's faith.  The primary goal should be providing information that may provide opportunity for someone's underlying attitude or attitudes toward other sentient individuals to improve more easily if they should so choose.  This improvement in attitude may result in learning how to practically make decisions that are more loving based on an objective standard of love that is relativistic based on each individuals perspective including the perspective of God if such a being exists or each god if many gods exist.

I will make the case that a god may exist who communicated with individuals called prophets and that the words that this God communicated to prophets maybe found in a transmitted copied and recopied form in a book frequently called the Bible as well as possibly other books.  However I will not use the Bible alone to make this case, nor will I claim the copying process that led up to today's bible is perfect nor will i claim a canonical set of books, but I will make claim of a process taught that each individual can use to make a reasonable evaluation of alleged prophecy from God that maybe used to evaluate some writings claimed to contain prophetic words.

In light of this sense I will try to make a case based on the Bible to justify many of the points I make throughout this book but it will not be an absolute definitive proof by which a individual of finite knowledge can know the truthfulness or falsity of my claims with 100% certainty.

This book will look at things primarily through a Christian worldview, an agnostic worldview and a national anarchist worldview although not as the one and only worldview labeled as each of these religions.  For two different claims can labeled as dogmatic tenets of the Christian faith by two different individuals labeling themselves as Christian maybe contradictory.  And one tenet of one person's Christianity may actually agree with a tenet of another person's Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Statism, Anarchism or yes even Atheism.