Sometimes children are smarter than adults

Go talk to your child, or if you do not have kids a child that you know, and tell them that from now on they can only use two crayons: blue and red.

Inevitably the child will ask why. The child will tell you that he or she has a full box of crayons and that it makes no sense that they can only use blue and red.

Read the rest at Crack the Vote

14 Responses to “Sometimes children are smarter than adults”

  1. undercover_anarchist Says:

    Analogies like this are stupid. Why? Because although you can select any crayon from the box, ultimately we are all going to end up with just one crayon. Whichever crayon gets the most votes is the only crayon we can color with.

  2. Trent Hill Says:

    U_A, but you are alot more likely to end up with your favorite color if you get to pick from 16 instead of two. This is simple odds,you’re just being retarded aqs usual.

  3. Carl Says:

    UA is right. The problem is that voting is a group decision. Plurality voting only allows people to specify their favorite candidate. It does not allow the voter to specify their preferences between the 15 other candidates (in Trent’s example).

    Ranked choice voting such as IRV and Condorcet allow the voter to give more information, but these still have problems. Consider a ballot with two conservative candidates, Fred and Bubba, and two liberal candidates, Thelma and Louise. A conservative voter can vote Fred, Bubba, Louise, Thelma, or could reverse the order between Fred and Bubba and/or Louise and Thelma, without making much difference in that voter’s preference. But for a conservative voter, swapping Bubba and Louise would make a big difference.

    That is, ranked choice ballots do a poor job of handling clones—candidates who appeal to the same base. There is no way in a ranked choice ballot for the voter to say “just give me one out of this set, but save me from these others.” And there are all sorts of interesting theorems that reveal the results of this data deficiency.

    Range voting allows voters to intelligently pick from three or more candidates because range ballots contain more information. For example, in a 1-10 range vote our conservative voter could say Fred=10, Bubba=8, Thelma=1, Louise=2. We have much more information about our voter’s preferences than we have with a simple ranked choice ballot.

  4. Doctor Paul Wayne Snyder, PhD Says:

    What Don Lake used repeatedly, as early as John B. Anderson and the National Unity Party from 1980, was/ is: “Only two political parties? And yet we have dozens of breakfast cereals staring down from the grocery shelves!”

  5. globalist_elitist Says:

    Sorry for being “retarded” aqs usual. What does that mean, anyway?

    Carl is right.

    I’m just tired of these simplistic, anti-intellectual, elementary and incorrect platitudes touted by the regulars at TPW.

    Here are the facts:

    1. Your vote will not determine the outcome of the election.

    2. Your vote is an opportunity to make a political statement. Nothing more.

    Obscuring these two core facts with bullshit about crayons and all of the times that elections were supposedly decided by one vote makes third-party supporters look like the Quixotic social rejects that they are.

  6. globalist_elitist Says:

    “you are alot more likely to end up with your favorite color if you get to pick from 16 instead of two”

    They really don’t teach math in Amish schools, do they?

    1. Your “favorite” has to run. Since Jefferson Davis isn’t running any time soon, your favorite isn’t going to run. Sorry.

    2. If you mean your “favorite” of those who are running, then clearly you decrease the odds of your “favorite” winning as you increase the number of candidates.

    3. Let’s say that you have a better chance of having A “favorite” (look up the definition of the word – they don’t teach English in Freedumb Bible Skool either, I guess) run as you increase the number of candidates. While this may increase the “odds” of your “favorite” winning by an infinitesimal degree, it’s irrelevant. i.e. does having a Libertarian candidate on the ballot increase the odds of a Libertarian winning the presidency? Yes, infinitely. But the odds are still so slim, that the real effect is moot.

    Retard.

    “Alot” isn’t a word, you fucking moron. Please don’t tell me you’re one of the “English for national language” knuckle-draggers. You need to learn the language yourself before you want to use the government’s guns to force it on some Mexikunz.

  7. Trent Hill Says:

    My FAVORITE is running. Ron Paul. Jefferson Davis is DEAD,in case you didn’t know. And therefor is not very high on my list of “People whom I would like to run the country.”
    Does that make sense to you UA?
    ALOT isn’t a word. You are one hundred percent correct. I’ll allow my spelling mistakes to lie next to your incredibly ignorant remarks. And we’ll see whose words speak loudest.

  8. globalist_elitist Says:

    Logic just doesn’t exist in your Biblical realm, does it?

    The fact that the joke Ron Paul is running means what in this crayon analogy? That we get to pick him as part of the Crayloa runoff, but he will be dead last (because thankfully, even Republicans aren’t dumb enough to pick an economic assassin like Paul) so we still can’t color with him?

    You make no sense.

    Vote for Ron Paul. Revel in your ignorance. But the analogy does not apply.

  9. Trent Hill Says:

    The Analogy does apply. Ron Paul is black lets say.
    So are red (Guliani) and blue (Hillary) the only choices? Absolutely not.

    The Republicans were once a third party.

    Logic just doesn’t make sense in your Democrat-is-god realm does it?

  10. undercover_anarchist Says:

    So you choose black. Too bad. We all get blue. No one gets to use black.

    And come on, you know that Ron Paul would be white.

    What if we can’t choose white? Do you mean that white is simply your favorite among the choices? What if your favorite were turquoise?

    This is idiotic and the typical mental level of CP types.

    Go back to coloring your Confederate Flag coloring book. You’re going to need your red, black, and blue crayons to color the lynching picture.

  11. Trent Hill Says:

    UA, you are quite possibly more prejudice than anyone here.
    Just because im from the south im a Confederate junkie?
    Because im white im a racist
    Because im in the CP, Im a fundamentalist christian.

  12. globalist_elitist Says:

    Makes sense to me.

  13. Devin Ray Freeman Says:

    The words “isn’t” and “aren’t” are artifacts of English wankery that have the same claim to worddom as “amn’t.”
    It’s weak to say “isn’t” because, unlike “’s not”, there’s no place to put stress on it without sounding like a fairy. Children know all this, but learn from adults to dillute their speech with prescriptivist grammatical inconsistencies like “Aren’t I?” (Are not I? *@&#???) or “Why don’t you sit down? (Why do not you sit down? #&@*???), and so on ‘til ya puke. It aint kidding, kids’re smarter in some ways.
    But, what I wanna know is, what’s a English for national language knuckle dragger?

  14. Devin Ray Freeman Says:

    When somebody fabulous’s running, what’s there to do but vote for the best? Vote in the Republican primaries for Ron Paul. Better yet, contribute to Ron Paul’s campaign… www.ronpaul2008.com

Leave a Reply