Do we really need instant election returns? (About voting, not politics.)

Pointing out the obvious -- you can look at "how much" a person pays in two ways: the percentage he pays AND the total amount he pays. The person earning $30,000 pays a higher percentage of his income to taxes, but the person earning $300,000 pays a much larger total dollar amount.

Here's a little story, which you've probably heard before, which illustrates this principle:

Each and every day, 10 men go to a restaurant for dinner together. The bill for all 10 comes to $100 each day. If the bill were paid the way we pay our taxes, the first four would pay nothing; the fifth would pay $1; the sixth would pay $3; the seventh $7; the eighth $12; the ninth $18. The 10th man – the richest – would pay $59. Although the 10 men didn't share the bill equally, they all seemed content enough with the arrangement – until the restaurant owner threw them a curve.

"You're all very good customers," the owner said, "so I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20. I'm going to charge you just $80 in total." The 10 men looked at each other and seemed genuinely surprised, but quite happy about the news.

The first four men, of course, are unaffected because they weren't paying anything for their meals anyway. They'll still eat for free. The big question is how to divvy up the $20 in savings among the remaining six in a way that's fair for each of them. They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33, but if they subtract that amount from each person's share, then the fifth and sixth men would end up being paid to eat their meals. The restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each person's bill by roughly the same percentage, and he proceeded to work out the amounts that each should pay.

The results? The fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $14, leaving the 10th man with a bill of $50 instead of $59. Outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got one dollar out of the $20," said the sixth man, pointing to the 10th man, "and he got $9!" "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too! It's not fair that he got nine times more than me!" "That's true," shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get back $9 when I only got $2? The rich get all the breaks!" "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine outraged men surrounded the 10th and brutally assaulted him. The next day, he didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they faced a problem that they hadn't faced before. They were $50 short.

It's important to understand the whole picture, not just to focus on the percentage being paid.
That would work if everyone just paid a straightforward percentage. But it doesn’t. It’s more like the “rich man” in your story was supposed to pay $59 but only paid $39 b/c he had coupons for no reason other than he’s rich that entitled him to a reduced bill that the others didn’t get. So, really the whole bill comes up short & they argue about who’s responsibility it is to pay the difference.
 
OK. So what do you think should happen? People complain about the media all the time, but they forget the "media" is trying to appeal to the most people. In other words, they're trying to give their viewers/readers what they want. So is the problem the media, or is the problem the audience?

Hi, there! :)

My point was that what the people want/need is manufactured by the media. The media is manipulative, to say the least. This is not to say that "people" are innocent. This is not a blame game. The point of this is to understand what those who criticize instant results are saying, not to point fingers.
 
Hi, there! :)

My point was that what the people want/need is manufactured by the media. The media is manipulative, to say the least. This is not to say that "people" are innocent. This is not a blame game. The point of this is to understand what those who criticize instant results are saying, not to point fingers.

A race can be "called" with a certain level of certainty. However, even if it's 90% accurate, someone is going to be saying "See - they were wrong" or blaming some conspiracy for it.

But the fact is that there are all sorts of new variables that have been introduced. Absentee votes used to swing in one direction, but demographics of who cast an absentee ballot have changed immensely. More and more people are voting by mail, and even waiting until the last day to do so.

The real irony is that people casting traditional votes at the polls and early voting have their results ready soon after the polls close. My vote was tabulated on site before I left the polling place. Also most absentee ballots that are received early and authenticated are ready to be counted. If that were it, then there would be a high certainty soon after the polls close as results come in. But that's not what we have any more.

I still don't buy that it's a media creation only. People tune in to these things because they want it.
 
Hi, there! :)

My point was that what the people want/need is manufactured by the media. The media is manipulative, to say the least. This is not to say that "people" are innocent. This is not a blame game. The point of this is to understand what those who criticize instant results are saying, not to point fingers.
And again I'll ask, what do you think should happen? Media is driven by ratings. More ratings = more money. It is in their best interest to do stories that more people want to watch. Call it "supply and demand". If there's no demand for a certain type of story, it wouldn't be supplied.

That's not to say there aren't media members that let their bias show, but painting all media members like that is no different than saying "teachers are lazy", "lawyers are slime", or "car mechanics just want to rip you off".
 


My point was that what the people want/need is manufactured by the media. The media is manipulative, to say the least. This is not to say that "people" are innocent. This is not a blame game. The point of this is to understand what those who criticize instant results are saying, not to point fingers.

It isn't the media that creates the demand for instant results, except in the vaguest sense. What has happened is that we've grown so accustomed to knowing *everything* immediately, in the era of mass media and electronic communications, that it has become an expectation. To the point where a certain percentage of the population automatically assumes something shady is going on when that expectation isn't met.

True story from my first post on this thread:
I work for a small town weekly and we try to get election results out by midnight on election day - usually not a big deal because we're dealing with jurisdictions with a few thousand voters - but OMG did I catch hell from some readers about a race I didn't report until around lunchtime the day after the election because at 2 am when I called it a night it was still only around 65% reporting. By the time I got in the next day, the internet pot-stirrers had decided that it going unreported was a case of bias in favor of an incumbent who was voted out... because the idea that a three-man newsroom might not be staffed for 24/7 real-time results was just implausible. It makes me VERY glad I don't deal with races of statewide or national interest!
 
Hey, all!

I agree: what I say sounds like I'm really just blaming the media. What I meant is that in the case of capitalism, especially in relation to profit-driven media, demand is created via excess supply. This, in fact, is one of the key features of capitalism. Notice: I am not blaming or discrediting capitalism; my statement only concerns the nature of supply and demand in a capitalist world. I am not saying the people are innocent either. As much as the media gives the people what they want, there are those who consume available media simply because that's all there is available.
 
Hey, all!

I agree: what I say sounds like I'm really just blaming the media.
Well, of course it does... go back and read your posts again.

In relation to the original post:

The media rushes to report trends, predictions, and half-baked "results" solely because it is profitable. Elections, especially if they are seminal--such as Presidential elections--are extremely fruitful events for media houses. The emergence of mass media coincides with the rise of services prefixed with "instant." Instant election results are a fad, and very fruitless and indispensable if they are not accurate. In fact, "experts" mostly peddle "predictions" and "trends," which are just other words for "guesses." Election reporting, as some have rightly argued, represents the "carnivalization" of democracy (Source: Essentials of Sociology - 12th Edition). It does little good.

My point was that what the people want/need is manufactured by the media. The media is manipulative, to say the least.
If that's not blaming the media, I don't know what is. I've asked you this twice before... since you apparently know what the problem is, how do you fix it? What do you think SHOULD be happening?

What I meant is that in the case of capitalism, especially in relation to profit-driven media, demand is created via excess supply. This, in fact, is one of the key features of capitalism. Notice: I am not blaming or discrediting capitalism; my statement only concerns the nature of supply and demand in a capitalist world. I am not saying the people are innocent either. As much as the media gives the people what they want, there are those who consume available media simply because that's all there is available.
Excess supply results in demand? Sorry, not buying that. If people don't want something, it doesn't matter how much of that thing exists, it won't sell. People want to know election results. People want to listen to "experts" (and I use that term loosely) expound on who's going to win and why. Why do you think there are so many sports analysis shows? And election results are "all that's available"? Not really. Especially in this day and age, there are all kinds of distractions that can keep you from watching/reading election results. If you went back 30-40 years when there were only the "Big 3" networks, then yes, all you could watch was results. But now? No.
 


That would work if everyone just paid a straightforward percentage. But it doesn’t. It’s more like the “rich man” in your story was supposed to pay $59 but only paid $39 b/c he had coupons for no reason other than he’s rich that entitled him to a reduced bill that the others didn’t get. So, really the whole bill comes up short & they argue about who’s responsibility it is to pay the difference.
I personally can't understand WHY we don't have a flat tax -- let everyone pay the same percentage. That, however, is a whole different topic.

Did you get the point of the story though? The rich man is paying a smaller percentage, but he is paying much more in terms of dollars. The poorest among us aren't going to get big tax breaks because almost half are paying no federal tax in the first place. People like to complain about the rich paying more -- "more" depends upon whether you're talking about dollars or percentages.

Hi, there! :)

My point was that what the people want/need is manufactured by the media. The media is manipulative, to say the least. This is not to say that "people" are innocent. This is not a blame game. The point of this is to understand what those who criticize instant results are saying, not to point fingers.
Chicken and egg.
 
Well, of course it does... go back and read your posts again.




If that's not blaming the media, I don't know what is. I've asked you this twice before... since you apparently know what the problem is, how do you fix it? What do you think SHOULD be happening?


Excess supply results in demand? Sorry, not buying that. If people don't want something, it doesn't matter how much of that thing exists, it won't sell. People want to know election results. People want to listen to "experts" (and I use that term loosely) expound on who's going to win and why. Why do you think there are so many sports analysis shows? And election results are "all that's available"? Not really. Especially in this day and age, there are all kinds of distractions that can keep you from watching/reading election results. If you went back 30-40 years when there were only the "Big 3" networks, then yes, all you could watch was results. But now? No.


I did not peddle solutions. I was just talking about how things are. My discussion began with media as the starting point, and how it represents the carnivalization of politics and democracy. This statement of mine implicates people, too. You're missing my point, and restating the same thing repeatedly. I am disengaging from this futile conversation.
 
That would work if everyone just paid a straightforward percentage. But it doesn’t. It’s more like the “rich man” in your story was supposed to pay $59 but only paid $39 b/c he had coupons for no reason other than he’s rich that entitled him to a reduced bill that the others didn’t get. So, really the whole bill comes up short & they argue about who’s responsibility it is to pay the difference.
So, if the rich donate to charity, they get to write the amount off on taxes. Unfair, right?
Please explain what deductions you disagree with on taxes, because I think it still goes back to "The evil rich" screwing over those with less.
 

GET A DISNEY VACATION QUOTE

Dreams Unlimited Travel is committed to providing you with the very best vacation planning experience possible. Our Vacation Planners are experts and will share their honest advice to help you have a magical vacation.

Let us help you with your next Disney Vacation!





Latest posts

Top