An FAQ for the 2012 US Presidential Election

This is possibly the most reasonable and cool-headed analysis of an upcoming election that I have ever read.<p>I love how he concludes that voting is rational. I'd never thought to multiply the, potentially massive, cost of the candidate I disfavor getting elected, multiply it by the tiny chance my vote makes the difference, and compare the result to the amount of money I make in an hour. He admits his cost figures are fudged, but in principle, it works out.<p>Since I spotted this on the front page, it seems to have been nuked by mods. Perhaps that's for the better, but I'd be much more interested in discussing politics if everyone could handle it with the restrained style and tone in this article. Interesting link.

Assuming nothing extraordinary happens, this election is Obama's.<p>Having said that, I find Washington state initiative 502 (and to a lesser extent colorado amendment 64) to be the most interesting and important elections this year.<p>Recent polls have shown support for marijuana legalization of more than 50% and a state voting for legalization will be the start of the end of prohibition.

By Norvig's calculation, the swing voters in the 2000 election voted wrongly, costing the country $600,000 each. Much more rational and patriotic to not vote, then.<p>Also, remember that Bush presided over two terms, winning two elections, and the majority of the "cost" was in the second term and thus not a direct result of the close 2000 presidential election he's analyzing.<p>Conclusion: Norvig's analysis in this case, in contrast to his technical work, is not worth the paper it is (not) printed on.<p>Moral: Political speech is usually politically motivated, and is generally not as strongly based in rational analysis as the speaker would have you believe.

Norvig writes that the expected cost of voting is about one hour. That ignores the hours needed to determine which candidate is better. That is very intellectually demanding work, and e.g. the mainstream media strikes me as more of a hinderence than a help.

Given raganwald's recent "Tell HN", is it possible to keep the discussion on this thread civil? I would assume it is still impossible to needlessly argue politics here, but please prove me wrong.

Minor nitpick, shouldn't it be "A FAQ", not "An FAQ"? Does anybody really read it "Eff Ay Queue" and not the monosyllabic "Fack"?

OT, but interesting to see that Norvig pronounces FAQ eff-ay-cue not fack.