CronoDAS comments on Rationality Quotes September 2012 - Less Wrong

7 Post author: Jayson_Virissimo 03 September 2012 05:18AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (1088)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: CronoDAS 06 September 2012 08:17:49PM 2 points [-]

I'd also note that issues like abolition and universal suffrage are qualitatively distinct from the issue of a minimum guaranteed income (what the quote addresses). Even the poorest of societies can avoid holding slaves or placing women or men in legally inferior roles.

Elections can take quite a bit of resources to run when you have a large voting population...

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 06 September 2012 10:58:35PM 1 point [-]

No, politicians can afford to spend lots of money on them. The actual mechanism of elections have never, so far as I know, been all that expensive pre-computation.

Comment author: Randaly 07 September 2012 10:13:47AM *  4 points [-]

IAWYC, but the claims that most of the economic costs of elections are in political spending, and most of the costs of actually running elections are in voting machines are both probably wrong. (Public data is terrible, so I'm crudely extrapolating all of this from local to national levels.)

The opportunity costs of voting alone dwarf spending on election campaigns. Assuming that all states have the same share of GDP, that people who don't a full-state holiday to vote take an hour off to vote, that people work 260 days a year and 8 hours a day, and that nobody in the holiday states do work, then we get:

Political spending: 5.3 billion USD Opportunity costs of elections: 15 trillion USD (US GDP) * (9/50 (states with voting holidays) * 1/260 (percentage of work-time lost) + 41/50 (states without holidays) * 1/60 * 1/8 (percentage of work-time lost)) ≈ 16 billion USD

Extrapolating from New York City figures, election machines cost ~1.9 billion nationwide. (50 million for a population ~38 times smaller than the total US population.) and extrapolating Oakland County's 650,000 USD cost across the US's 3143 counties, direct costs are just over 2 billion USD. (This is for a single election; however, some states have had as many as 5 elections in a single year. The cost of the voting machines can be amortized over multiple elections in multiple years.)

(If you add together the opportunity costs for holding one general and one non-general election a year (no state holidays; around ~7 billion USD), plus the costs of actually running them, plus half the cost of the campaign money, the total cost/election seems to be around 30 billion USD, or ~0.002% of the US's GDP.)

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 07 September 2012 10:26:33AM 2 points [-]

Correction accepted. Still seems like something a poor society could afford, though, since labor and opportunity would also cost less. I understand that lots of poor societies do.

Comment author: [deleted] 07 September 2012 08:12:44AM *  2 points [-]

The actual mechanism of elections have never, so far as I know, been all that expensive pre-computation.

What? If anything I'd assume them to be more expensive before computers were introduced. In Italy where they are still paper based they have to hire people to count the ballots (and they have to pay them a lot, given that they select people at random and you're not allowed to refuse unless you are ill or something).

Comment author: DanArmak 07 September 2012 12:26:41PM *  5 points [-]

they have to pay them a lot, given that they select people at random and you're not allowed to refuse unless you are ill or something

Why so? Usually when people can't refuse to do a job, they're paid little, not a lot.

Comment author: RomanDavis 07 September 2012 12:46:06PM 2 points [-]

Like jury duty. Yeah. Why would it be different in Greece?

Comment author: ArisKatsaris 07 September 2012 08:38:56AM 4 points [-]

http://aceproject.org/ace-en/focus/core/crb/crb03

"Low electoral costs, approximately $1 to $3 per elector, tend to manifest in countries with longer electoral experience"

. In Italy where they are still paper based they have to hire people to count the ballots (and they have to pay them a lot, given that they select people at random and you're not allowed to refuse unless you are ill or something

That's a somewhat confusing comment. If they're effectively conscripted (them not being allowed to refuse), not really "hired" -- that would imply they don't need to be paid a lot...

Comment author: [deleted] 07 September 2012 10:13:35PM 1 point [-]

approximately $1 to $3 per elector

Is that that little? I think many fewer people would vote if they had to pay $3 out of their own pocket in order to do so.

If they're effectively conscripted (them not being allowed to refuse), not really "hired" -- that would imply they don't need to be paid a lot...

A law compelling people to do stuff would be very unpopular, unless they get adequate compensation. Not paying them much would just mean they would feign illness or something. (If they didn't select people by lot, the people doing that would be the ones applying for that job, who would presumably like it more than the rest of the population and hence be willing to do that for less.)

Comment author: ArisKatsaris 07 September 2012 10:26:12PM 0 points [-]

I think many fewer people would vote if they had to pay $3 out of their own pocket in order to do so.

Well perhaps fewer people would vote if they had to pay a single cent out of their own pocket -- would that mean that 0.01$ isn't little either?

A law compelling people to do stuff would be very unpopular, unless they get adequate compensation.

How much are these Italian ballot-counters being paid? Can we quantify this?

Comment author: [deleted] 07 September 2012 10:31:05PM 0 points [-]

IIRC, something like €150 per election. I'll look for the actual figure.

Comment author: Tripitaka 07 September 2012 08:53:52AM *  6 points [-]

According to Wikipedia, the 2005 elections in germany did cost 63 million euros, with a population of 81 million people. 0,78 eurocent per person or the 0,00000281st part of the GDP. Does not seem much, in the grander scheme of things. And since the german constitutional court prohibited the use of most types of voting machines, that figure does include the cost to the helpers; 13 million, again, not a prohibitive expenditure.

Comment author: Peterdjones 07 September 2012 01:07:23PM 1 point [-]

In the UK, the counters are volunteers.