Choose or Lose

by Will Wilkinson on July 20, 2004

Has anyone considered that this may be an inclusive disjunction?

Meanwhile, P. Diddy is attempting to stir the nation’s youth to action with his “Vote or Die” campaign. Now, Diddy, being a master logician, has had the foresight to pick a disjunction that is certainly true, if only contingently so. Everyone will eventually die, while it is perfectly possible (because actual) to neither choose nor lose.

Now it may be that Diddy intends an exclusive disjunction. (Either one or the other, but not both.) But I don’t think he really wants to say that people who die didn’t vote. He only wants to say that if you don’t vote, then you’ll die. Right? Well, we do know that only about half of the registered voters, to say nothing of eligible voters, failed to exercise their rights of citizenship in the last election. But Diddy’s conditional entails that the non-dead voted, yet many non-dead non-voters are among us. So that can’t be right. So he must be saying that if you don’t vote, the probability of dying will increase. How about that? Well, we can check the death rates among voters and non-voters from the last election. My hunch is that the rate of death among voters is probably higher than among non-voters, since the elderly vote more reliably than the young, and the elderly tend to die more. So what is Mr. Combs trying to say?

Wonkette, takes it as a threat, “Vote or I’ll wave a gun in your face in a midtown nightclub,” which is frightening, but can’t quite capture it, because waving a gun in someone’s face doesn’t entail their death. So it needs to be a bit stronger: Vote or I’ll make you dead (whether with a pistol, a machete, a tank of water and a cinder block, a mortally frightening clown, whatever). I don’t think this is the intended message, however.

Perhaps it is something like “There is someone such that if you don’t vote, they will make you dead.” This is a good possibility. But who could “someone” be? An avenging Democracy Fairy who slays non-voters? Well, the Democracy Fairy would have to be new, since we guessed that voters are in fact more likely to die than non-voters. Maybe the intention instead is “In a contest between A and B, if you don’t vote, then A or B will make you dead.” I think we’re getting very close, and that this is entailed by the correct interpretation. I think it’s more like, “In a contest between A and B, if A wins, then A will not make you dead, and if B wins, then B will make you dead, and if you vote, then you vote for A, and A wins, and if you don’t vote, then B wins.”

I wonder if Puffy knows something we don’t. For my part, I suspect that B is . . . Michael Badnarik!

Or that the Diddy is subversively highlighting the majoritarian coercion implicit in democracy.

  • Mortally Frightening Clowns would make a great band name.
  • Marie
    Well, you do have a reputation to protect as a paragon of analytical rigor applied to minutia!
  • Yes, we must always employ the utmost empirical rigor while running through a series of satirical misinterpretations of a perfectly straighforward albeit retarded slogan!
  • Anonymous
    You write:
    1) "So he must be saying that if you don't vote, the probability of dying will increase.
    2) How about that?
    3) Well, we can check the death rates among voters and non-voters from the last election.
    4) My hunch is that the rate of death among voters is probably higher than among non-voters, since the elderly vote more reliably than the young, and the elderly tend to die more.
    5) So what is Mr. Combs trying to say?"

    I took this to mean that you considered the test you suggested in sentences 3 and 4, above, adequate to rebut the Diddy Death Hypothesis articulated in sentence 1.

    Not that I actually mind, of course! Empirical sloppiness is one of philosophers' charming tendencies. Not everyone should be as unbearably annoying as I am hoping to become one day.
  • It is nice. But I thought it was clear that I was saying that being a voter correlates with being old, and that being old correlates with dying and not that voting straightaway correlates with dying.
  • Marie
    Why Mr. Wilkinson, a simple bivariate regression is no way to determine the effect of voting on mortality rates! If your observation that voters die more often than non-voters were indeed adequate to rebut the "vote or you're more likely to die" proposition, it would imply that voting itself causes death. But we know that isn't true. Rather, a third characteristic - advanced age - is positively correllated with both voting and death.

    To find out whether voting reduces or increases the chances of death, we would have to generate a multivariate regression controlling for correllated characteristics such as age. Or better yet, run a random controlled experiment assigning people to voting and non-voting groups and monitoring their death rates.

    Isn't it nice that I'm learning things in school?
blog comments powered by Disqus

Previous post:

Next post: