= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Furslid comments on Voting is like donating thousands of dollars to charity - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (210)
A couple of assumptions that you did not state. You assume that your favored candidate's budget contains truly optimal uses of charitable dollars. You need a step down function unless your preferred charity is funding government programs.
You assume that the opposition candidate's spending is valueless. Otherwise you need to consider the relative merits.
You assume that there is no portion of the opposition budget that is preferable. If you believe that each candidate has some portions right, you need to be subtracting this spending from the value of your contribution.
You assume that the proposed budget will be implemented. Given the track record of campaign promises, this is an iffy assumption. As this probability is necessarily less than 100% it should reduce the value of your contribution.
These assumptions are the mind killing biases of politics.
No, they don't all have to be assumed. What needs to happen is something resembling their budget, on the order of plus or minus a few trillion dollars, is implemented.
ETA: However, even this is unlikely to be entirely affected by the outcome of the presidential election, as this depends mostly on Congress.
[comment deleted]