BrickBlog

BrickWife's big sonogram occurred last week, and we received some good news. It seems BrickBaby has a pecker. So, unless we've spawned a hermaphrodite, it appears that our home will be blessed with the presence of BrickSon in about four and half months.

Well, despite all good intentions, the free will shit has not come to fruition... yet. My best friend's bachelor party (two weekends ago) and wedding (this weekend) have occupied all of my energies, both creative and administrative. The recent revelation that my 2-hour seminar course will require 350-400 pages of reading per week, plus weekly "reaction papers," an in-class presentation and a 30-page paper, has altered my schedule somewhat. I know what you're thinking: "A 2-hour course that requires a shitload of reading and the production of an enormous pile of busy-work? AWESOME!" But, hold your horses, because doing that much work for such a small payoff is not awesome. It sucks. Oh well, at least the topic (Constitutional law and the strategy of war and statecraft) is fascinating.

Also of interest, the Daily Show has focused its programs this week on the debate over evolution and intelligent design. Unfortunately, I missed the first two episodes, but I was able to catch the show last night. Lucky me - I caught the panel discussion in which noted a-hole William Dembski participated. No video is available on the Daily Show website, but suffice it to say that Dr. Dembski was as smarmy and weasely as ever. At least he admitted that his conversion to religion preceded his conversion to pseudoscience.

Over the next few weeks, I will be posting a series of essays on the concept of free will. This is a topic that fascinates me, primarily because belief in the existence of human free will is so widely held and yet so obviously inconsistent with other fundamental philosophical, scientific, religious and legal concepts. That the vast majority of human beings cling to a notion that flatly contradicts one or more of their other beliefs is, at the very least, a curious fact that merits reflection.

In my view, the concept of free will is a cognitive short-cut that aided the complex social animal that is the human being pass through the gantlet of natural selection, and thus lingers in our species today. Such cognitive short-cuts, while aiding animals whose survival depends on quick, simple and statistically beneficial guidelines for decision-making, often obscure the true nature of reality. And so it is with free will: we believe in free will, because it is an efficient and generally useful model of human behavior; however, the theory that humans are capable of decision-making free of external influences and of altering the course of the future is almost certainly not an accurate reflection of reality. This central idea will be expanded upon in the subsequent essays, which are listed below along with short descriptions of what I will (or, rather, intend) to detail in each one.

1. The Definition of “Free Will”

Before embarking on an investigation of the existence of free will, it must first be established exactly what we mean by “free will.” In this essay, I will evaluate several considerations and formulate a reasonable working definition of free will that provides a basis for further analysis.

2. Is Free Will Required to Explain Empirical Data?

One key argument in favor of the existence of free will is its power to explain human decision-making. In this essay, I evaluate whether the concept of free will is a necessary component of theoretical models of human behavior. Emphasis is placed on the scientific notion of the relative “truth” of one theory in comparison to others; on this metric, the truth of a theory is established by demonstrating that it is Pareto optimal on the parameter of predictive accuracy when compared to other competing theories. Additionally, the preference for theoretical simplicity is discussed. The notion of free will can be shown to be theoretically superfluous and only equally accurate, at best, when compared to other theories.

3. Free Will and Causality

The notion of causality is one of the central assumptions underlying human understanding of nature: for every occurrence, we ascribe a cause. The concept of free will is shown to be only partially consistent with the notions of causality, and entirely incompatible with unique causality, also known as determinism. Free will is shown to be impossible not only in a strictly deterministic world, but in a strictly non-deterministic world as well. The causal system in which free will is possible is constructed and analyzed.

4. Free Will and Omniscience

It is important to understand the relation of free will and omniscience because the two concepts are often preached in tandem within religious systems. This essay presents a simple proof that free will and omniscience cannot coexist. A broader theory, which proposes that free will cannot exist in a determined system (a class which includes deterministic worlds and worlds in which omniscience is possible), is discussed.

5. Free Will and Legal Culpability

Religion is not the only realm in which we find notions of free will. The concept that man can freely choose his actions also plays a central role in the law. In fact, it might be argued that law is the primary realm of free will, as religious doctrine surrounding free will is almost always centered on sacred law. This essay will discuss the utility of the free will concept to legal systems, and analyze several problems that arise from misguided focus on free will in evaluating culpability.

6. Why Do We Believe in Free Will?

With the concept of free will relegated to theoretical trash heap, one final question remains: if free will is so obviously a fantasy, why do humans so strongly believe in its existence? This essay provides some answers to that question.

Of course, I reserve the right to adjust this outline as the essays are developed. Enjoy!

Okay, I'll admit it. I've been a lazy sack of shit since last December. Today's posts are the first new additions to this blog since Anthony Flew made his mental illness public. But, I've been busy. I've been REALLY busy. Since last December, I have accomplished the following tasks: (1) I finished my Fall semester finals, (2) I started and completed a Winter semester, (3) I started and finished a Spring semester, (4) the wife and I tripped to Playa del Carmen, Mexico, (5) I knocked up the wife and (6) I started and finished my summer associate jobs with a couple of law firms in Austin, Texas. Yes, humble reader, you read that list correctly... I had to take classes in the winter.

Also, of lesser interest, is the news that BrickWife and I are expecting our first child, which will be named "Hellspawn" - if not by us, then certainly by the poor souls unfortunate enough to live under our child's iron-fisted reign of terror. Yes, I fully expect my firstborn to rise to power in a violent revolution, only to brutally oppress his subjects and establish an empire of the cruelest and most bloodthirsty temperment. Ah... what idealistic hopes we new fathers hold for our future children! Anyhoo, below is an image from BrickBaby's first sonogram.



Aside from the impending birth of our little eating-and-pooping machine, I have very little news to report. I plan to start posting, in serial, my thoughts on the concept of free will. Deja vu? Yes, I've made such promises before, only to deliver JACK SQUAT. However, I'm staring 2 weeks of freetime in the face and am already bored of doing my wife's laundry. Do you know how awkward it is to walk into the public laundry room with a basket full of nothing but frilly panties? Well, it's even more uncomfortable when I have to wash my wife's clothes!

Since I've already put together an outline of my free will diatribe, I figure, what the hell?, I might as well choose to spend my free time explaining why I believe we are incapable of truly choosing what we can do. I hope that after several months of seclusion in my own little personal bubble of non-bloggery, I still have some readers out there. If not, well fuck it - I'll just have to amuse myself with what amounts to partnerless rhetorical masturbation. Enjoy!

I recently picked up a copy of Lee Strobel's much-heralded defense of the historical (and spiritual) Jesus Christ, The Case for Christ. After reading approximately 50% of the work, I am convinced that a better title would have been The Case for Christian Credulity.

For those who are unfamiliar with Strobel's work, here is a brief summary. Lee Strobel is a graduate of Yale Law School (he earned something called a "Masters of Studies in Law," which indicates that he completed what roughly amounts to the first 1/3rd of a JD program) who formerly served as a legal editor of the Chicago Tribune. His pedigree is unforgettable, if only because, throughout the book, Mr. Strobel constantly reminds the reader of his credentials. In any case, the book basically presents a litigation-style case for the historical reality of the Jesus of the Bible. Strobel seeks out and questions various experts, whose fields of study include theology, history, liguistics, archaeology, psychology, etc. Although Mr. Strobel would like his readers to believe that his role is akin to that of an impartial judge or jury member, it is more analagous to that of an attorney interviewing potential expert witnesses. Strobel chooses only experts who agree with his final conclusion; this is true even when he seeks to evaluate the merits of work that contradicts his views. What's more, the author's selection of experts includes only men who are devout Christians. In short, Strobel is looking for reassurance from scholars who he knows will vigorously uphold his final, predetermined conclusion. His quest is to construct one-sided advocacy, not find the truth.

All the while, Strobel nods approvingly to even the most plainly absurd of explanations. One example, which I will share below, was the inspiration for creating this thread. When reading TCFC last night, I came across this doozey and about fell out of my chair from laughing so hard. So, without further ado, I present my Case for the Credulity of Lee Strobel.

In his chapter dealing with the work of the infamous Jesus Seminar, which Strobel labels the "rebuttal evidence," the author interviews "Ivy League-educated theology professor" and pastor of the Woodland Hills Church, Gregory Boyd. See Strobel at p. 112. While the entire interview is full of logical fallacies, my favorite occurred during Strobel and Boyd's discussion of the non-canonical Cross Gospel. When queried as to the credibility of the Cross Gospel, Boyd responded:

"No, most scholars don't give it credibility, because it includes such outlandishly legendary material. For instance, Jesus comes out of his tomb and he's huge - he goes up beyond the sky - and the cross comes out of the tomb and actually talks! Obviously, the much more sober gospels are more reliable than anything found in this account."

Strobel at p. 123.

Strobel never questions this assessment. He moves on to another gospel, presumably satisfied with a theory that distinguishes the genuine accounts of Jesus Christ from the frauds on the basis of the "outlandishly legendary" nature of the material. Strobel is comfortable with the idea that a giant Jesus and a talking cross are too obviously mythical to be believed. However, he completely ignores the necessary consequence of such a test: the canonical gospels, along with pretty much the entire Old Testament, Acts and most of the New Testament epistles, must fail this same test of legitimacy. Talking crosses are too outlandish to be believed? You'll get no argument from me, but don't try to sell me on the idea of having a conversation with inflamed shrubbery. A giant Jesus is absurd? Fair enough. But, so also is a giant Philistine, or a Jesus who walks on water, or a Jesus who flies into Heaven.

Boyd's major basis for distinguishing between one set of gospels and all of the rest is simply laughable, and yet Yale Law School partial-graduate Lee Strobel (did I mention that he has years of experience as a legal reporter and is Ivy League-educated?) failed to pick up on such an obvious flaw.

While the scene above is clearly one example of an error of logic in TCFC, it is important to note that it is representative of an epidemic of fallacy in Strobel's work. Throughout the book, Strobel employs specious reasoning and demonstrates an inability to recognized or challenge obvious flaws in the rationale of his supposed experts. Strobel introduces each of his chosen experts with an embarrassing appeal to authority; their education, publications, and even their stereotypically intelligent appearance are described in excrutiating detail as if such superficial nonsense will lend credence to the snippets of opinion that follow. Each interview is a series of softball questions followed by hollow answers lacking detail followed by either a softball follow-up or a gullible affirmation by the author. The expert "testimony" is generally lacking in substance and very, very few citations are made. We are supposed to believe the expert's typically summary conclusions for no other reason besides their impressive resumes and nerdy personas.

I will continue to read the book, if only because it is an incredibly easy read and a fertile source of ammunition with which to critique fundamentalist "logic."

The philosophers of Christianity are giddy over the recent news that famous limey philosopher and atheist Anthony Flew has accepted Jesus Christ as his Lord and personal Savior and has bathed in the waters of baptismal redemption. Well, that may be overstating the truth a tad bit. Flew didn't quite endorse the divinity of Jesus Christ, per se. Nor did he give a clear endorsement of Yaweh, the God of Judeo-Christian lineage. However, it seems pretty clear that Flew is just as devoted to Jesus Christ as any NASCAR-lovin', Saddam-hatin', Bible-totin' American when he states - in response to the question "what he would mean if he ever asserted that 'probably God exists?'" - that "I do not think I will ever make that assertion." Flew Article Yep, Flew has been born again.

What Flew's new position boils down to is this: given recent scientific evidence, the most rational assumption regarding God is that some form of ultimate designer created the universe. Despite the fact that Flew's new opinions conflict with their dogma, Christians are trumpeting Flew's second thoughts as evidence that even the staunchest atheist can "wise up" and see the light. But, one has to wonder: is an 80 year-old convert really the mose effective poster boy for the Christian cause? Flew, by his own admission, no longer "keeps up with the relevant literature in science and theology" and he "confesses [that] his memory fails him often now." What we have here is an old man who has lost touch with the recent research in his field and is under pressure to answer questions for which his capabilities to resolve have diminished. It is unfortunate that, despite his contributions to the philosophy of science and religion, Flew may end his life best known as the senile old man who converted to Deism against the better judgment of his younger self.

The primary crux of Flew's change of heart is his inability to rectify the complexity of the first self-replicating DNA molecules with a random origin. However, many scientists, mathematicians and philosophers have shown this argument to be a red herring. The complicated structure of molecules and life on Earth may not have arisen randomly, but fortunately, it didn't have to. The universe is ordered by simple rules governing the interaction of its constituent components. As anyone familiar with cellular automata will tell you, very complex, intricate order may arise from chaos when the evolution of such chaos is governed by simple rules. And, when such patterns occur in cellular automata, they do so necessarily - there is no room for error. The simple rules ont only improve the chances for intricate order, they demand it.

So, God is not necessary to create order, even highly improbable and intricately arranged formations. But, is God necessary to design the rules themselves? That is a more interesting question. Physicists and philosophers puzzle over the unique combination of physical constants that governs our universe. There is a wide (in some instances, infinite) range of possible values for fundamental constants, but only within a certain window of values will the laws of nature permit the evolution of life. As luck would have it, we fit within that window. Many theologians propose that this fortuitous circumstance is evidence of Godly design. But, there is an equally compelling answer known as the anthropic principle (or, as the multiverse theory). According to this principle, all possible universes possessing all possibilities of fundamental constant values exist somewhere. But, it is only within those universes whose combination of constants permits - or even necessitates - life that there is any observer to puzzle over the question.

The anthropic principle is at least as powerful an explanation for our fortuitous circumstances as Flew's newfound Deistic view, but it requires no foray into the realm of the supernatural. All propositions regarding alternative universes involve parameters scientists have measured within our own natural universe, but with values that are slightly (or greatly) modified. Our current understanding of physics enables us to understand the exact laws of physics within these extra-universal realms, and to make predictions regarding their behavior. Given that both the anthropic view and the Deistic design view provide the same answer in regards to our own universe, it seems only logical to place one's "faith" in the theory that provides verifiable predictions. The better view, contrary to Flew's recent statements, is not the god hypothesis.

According to CNN, CBS and NBC recently refused to run an 30-second spot by a liberal church advertising its openness to gay men and women. CNN Story CBS cited a policy against "advocacy advertisement" as the rationale for refusing to run the ad; NBC relied on their "long-standing policy of not accepting ads that deal with issues of public controversy." The networks' stated rationales simply don't hold water. As the article notes, both CBS and NBC aired controversial advocacy ads during the recent presidential campaign.

This decision was nothing more than an economic maneuver, designed to avoid offending a vast and newly coherent voting bloc in this country: the Middle American Evangelical Conservative. Who can blame the networks - which are, after all, businesses - for refusing to air an advertisement that would offend, and likely run off, a large portion of their viewing audience? The Religious Right demonstrated that they will vote against homosexuals in the voting booths, so it's only logical to believe that they would cast a similar vote with their remote controls. The networks simply can't afford to insult a viewing audience as large and as belligerent as the Religious Right.

The critical lesson of this story is that the "liberal media" is a will-o'-the-wisp. The media is in the service business. To operate successfully, the networks must cater to the wishes of their audience. Network executives don't base advertising or programming choices on political beliefs. Rather, executive decisions of this type are based solely on the impact to the bottom line. As the nation moves right, so will the media. Anyone who has listened to AM radio in this country knows that the talk radio airwaves are dominated by conservative voices. The cable news channels, while more concerned than talk radio stations with maintaining pretensions of journalistic objectivity, present largely conservative views. This is especially true in foreign policy matters, where the cable news networks report from an assumption of American benevolence. How many cable news programs have attempted to estimate the number of Iraqi casualties, or questioned the United States' motives* in this war?

That the broadcast networks are moving to the right should come as no surprise given the success of the right-leaning cable networks and talk radio stations. Success breeds imitation, and the cable news channels have found a truly successful business model in parroting the ignorant, myopic viewpoints of the Religious Right.

* Many news networks have questioned the US's justifications for the war, but have uniformly approached the issue from the angle that Bush, while acting in good faith and with good intentions, merely acted rashly and misread the available "evidence."

According to a recent CBS poll, 55% of the US population believes that God created the human race in its current form. See CBS Poll Not surprisingly, the populace's beliefs respecting evolution split dramatically along party lines. Only 6% of Bush voters believe humans evolved without the aid of God during the process, while 21% of Kerry voters hold this scientific view. An overwhelming 2/3rds majority (67%) of Bush voters believe in strict creationism, while only 47% of Kerry voters place faith in such nonsense.

What this poll suggests is a partisan split in the country between the rational and the irrational. The nation is now in the hands of the Republican Party, where God, and not science, rules. Fortunately for Bush and his cronies, God never says or does anything directly. God's beliefs are untestable, His actions unobservable, His opinions undecipherable. Thus it falls to our worldly spiritual leaders to "interpret" (read, "completely fabricate") God's directions for His people. Hell, it's even up to our worldly leaders to determine who God's people truly are (one thing we know for sure - it's either us or them, but it certainly isn't both). Ironically (or maybe by divine design), God's perspective on world events always seems to resonate with the personal desires and ambitions of those who purport to channel His voice.

That a majority of our nation is willing to place unbending faith in the translated opinions of a silent God ought to alarm most scientifically-minded citizens. A shocking majority of those who voted for the current president hold grave misconceptions about the respective roles of science and religion. Science is seen as an area in which deception and personal ambitions direct results, where religion is viewed as the only outlet for pure factfinding. One poster on Hornfans.com - a man who has apparently received a college degree from one of the most well-recognized universities in the world - made the following statement in a recent debate about the creationism/evolution issue: "You are a stereotypical scientist. You make decisions about someone or something and immediately think you are right, even though you don't know anything." Of course, many of us recognize the folly of such a role-reversal. But, "many" apparently doesn't amount to a majority.

When scientific curiosity takes a backseat to religious fervor, empires crumble and Dark Ages commence. Unless we reverse the alarming trend of growing faith in arbitrary religion and its dangerous partner, a growing distrust in scientific thought, America will be headed for a truly dark era of her history.

“We the People.” We’ve all read those words. They form the opening statement of the Constitution, the document that gave birth to the United States of America. The familiarity of the phrase has had the unfortunate effect of diluting its power. It is striking that, in constructing a new nation, the Framers of the Constitution were careful to identify the source of governmental power in the first line of the new government’s blueprint. The People are the authors of the Constitution, and the People are the source of the United States government’s power. After generations of increasing centralization of government power and a trend towards paternalistic socialism, Americans have largely forgotten that it is they, and not their elected officials, who rule. We have given too much authority and bestowed too much trust in the officials of our federal government. The imbalance of power favoring the government is dangerous for many reasons, but recent events have highlighted the danger such an imbalance might pose to the very foundation of our democracy by attacking one of its most vulnerable points: the electoral process.

The events of the recent presidential election could aptly be described as the proverbial “emotional roller coaster.” Politicos on both sides of the aisle likely experienced dramatic swings in their respective states of mind over the course of election Tuesday. Early exit polls showed a commanding lead for John Kerry. Later exit polls verified the early poll results, and it looked like Kerry would win in a landslide. Approximately six hours after the final exit poll results were released, a domino string of news networks called the election for George W. Bush.

The exit polls were wrong – uniformly wrong. How could this have happened? The first – and for most voters and commentators, the final – instinct would be to assume that the exit polls were simply inaccurate enough that disagreement with the final vote counts was not unexpected. That this view dominated the media and voter base is obvious from the startling silence on the issue. Only one mainstream media source, Keith Olberman on MSNBC, has commented on the issue. See http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6210240/ However, the work of at least one professional statistician calls this summary dismissal of the exit poll accuracy into question. According to Dr. David Anick, a former professor of mathematics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the odds that the final vote tallies would differ from the results of the final exit polls by 4.15 points* is 1 in 50,000. See http://www.bluelemur.com/index.php?p=405 In other words, given the exit poll data, there was only a 0.002% chance that Bush could have legitimately “gained” as much ground as he apparently did. While a showing of extreme improbability is not tantamount to a showing of foul play, the accomplishment of such an amazingly improbable act generally inspires reasonable men to seek for evidence of human design. The reason is simple: the improbable is much more probable when human interference is involved. But, if there was fraud, how was it accomplished?

A stream of stories detailing purported incidents of voter fraud followed immediately after the election. Much of it was anecdotal – someone in Florida found a pile of ballots in the trash, boxes of ballots were destroyed in transit, voters in economically depressed districts were intimidated, etc. While these stories are disturbing, their veracity is too uncertain to warrant serious concern. However, at least one study, using official election data from the Florida Secretary of State’s office, produced empirical evidence indicating possible voter fraud. The study, available at http://ustogether.org/election04/FloridaDataStats.htm and http://ustogether.org/Florida_Election.htm compared the ratios of registered Democrats and Republicans to the election returns in each Florida county. The results revealed an interesting trend: in counties that utilized computer touch-screen voting machines, the election results closely tracked the party registration data. However, in counties that employed optical scan voting machines, the election results varied dramatically from the party registration figures – each time in favor of the Republicans. The key observation is that the only uniform distinction between those counties that closely tracked the registration data and those that varied wildly – namely, the type of voting machine employed – also neatly divides the counties into two groups based on ease of perpetrating voter fraud. Computer voting machines perform many of their critical operations in a parallel mode, making it quite difficult to doctor the results. However, optical scan machines feed their data back to a centralized Microsoft Windows computer for tallying. At least one author has suggested that these machines may easily be manipulated to distort election results. See http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/110804Z.shtml

At this point, it would be wise to take a step back and clarify my goal in writing this entry. I want to make it perfectly clear that this analysis was not motivated by partisan animosity. In fact, I should point out that the Olberman article cited above highlights potential voter fraud by the Democrats in Ohio. Rather, my intent is to shed light on a pressing issue in American politics: namely, that we the people are running a grave risk in transferring too much of our responsibility to the government. Our nation belongs to us, not the government. If we want to retain our rights, we must be vigilant in guarding the integrity of the voting process. Our voting rights represent the entirety of our collective voice in government; if we lose the right to vote, we lose any control over our national destiny.

As a people, we should be oversensitive to evidence of voter fraud. Humans are generally oversensitive to sensory data indicating the presence of a nearby predator. When we hear a rustling in the bushes, our first thought is to assume agency and investigate. The reason for this is simple: it is far safer to assume danger where there is none than to assume the absence of danger in a perilous situation. The downside to unnecessary investigation and caution is the loss of a small amount of time and effort; the downside to unjustified confidence could be the loss of life and limb. The same logic applies to voter fraud. We should diligently investigate any reasonable accusation of fraud. If no fraud is found, then we have done nothing more than assuage our fears and increase confidence in the election process. However, if fraud is found, then we have a chance to eliminate it and prevent future injustices.

While it is obvious that vigilant investigation of voter fraud is critical, it is not so obvious where the responsibility for conducting such investigations should lie. The purpose of this entry is to argue that it is we the people who must conduct such investigations and oversee elections. It is we who possess the requisite incentives to ensure fair elections; we cannot trust the candidates to self-police, nor can we trust the various departments of government – who are, after all, the employees of the winning candidates – to expose voter fraud. Government officials are inspired by only one goal, the acquisition of power. As such, an interesting dynamic governs the decision to cheat in an election. This dymanic, as it turns out, is very similar to the “prisoner’s dilemma” of economic game theory.

A nice summary of the prisoner’s dilemma is available at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/game-theory/#PD The dilemma occurs when two individuals (i.e. the “players”) independently make choices that collectively affect the outcome for both players. The prisoner’s dilemma goes like this: two criminals are brought into custody for the same crime. Each is told that he may confess or remain silent. Each is also told that the following possibilities will occur, depending on the answers of both players: (1) if A confesses and B confesses, each will receive 5 years in prison, (2) if A confesses and B remains silent, A will receive 0 years in prison and B will receive 10, (3) if A remains silent and B confesses, A will receive 10 years in prison and B will receive 0, and (4) if A and B both remain silent, each will receive 2 years in prison. The situation may be charted like this, where the numbers in parentheses represent (A’s prison term, B’s prison term) for each set of choices:

		B
		Confess	Remain silent
A	Confess	(5, 5)	(0, 10)
	Remain silent	(10, 0)	(2, 2)

Obviously, the globally optimal situation (i.e. the result that would be best for the aggregate of all players involved) would be for both A & B to remain silent. In that case, the total number of years in prison would be 4. In all other cases, the total number of years spent in jail would equal 10. However, the rub of the prisoner’s dilemma is that the globally optimal result will not be the outcome of a game played by rational actors. In fact, the result of such a game will be not only suboptimal in a global sense, but will be one in which each player is worse off than they could be. The reason is that “rational actors” seek, at every decision point, to optimize their own interests.

In this case, regardless whether A chooses to confess or to remain silent, B’s best choice is to confess: if A confesses, B has a choice to confess and take a 5-year term or remain silent and go to jail for 10 years; if A remains silent, B can confess and go free or remain silent and take a 2-year stint up river. In both cases, B’s best option is to confess. Knowing that B will confess (because it is always in his best interest), A must also confess to avoid a 10-year sentence. The result is that both A and B will confess and take 5-year prison terms (this outcome is termed the "Nash equilibrium"). If both had remained silent, each would have received only a 2-year sentence and both would be better off. (NOTE: The preceding discussion provides only a very cursory analysis of the prisoner’s dilemma. Careful study of the link provided above is recommended.)

A similar dilemma is created for politicians running for office. In such a situation, both candidates have a choice: to cheat or not to cheat. For the purposes of simplicity, we will assume that the candidates are able to cheat in a way that is undetectable. This assumption might seem suspect, but the level of sophistication required to deal with a variable probability of detection is beyond the scope of this analysis. Additionally, the assumption may be justified by recognition of the fact that any candidate that cheats and wins will exercise significant authority over those charged with investigating any allegations of fraud. Another assumption made in this analysis is that each candidate cheats equally effectively. It should be noted, however, that both assumptions are irrelevant to the main point. When both are incorporated into the analysis, the result is basically the same.

The dynamics of the candidate’s dilemma may be represented in the following chart, which evaluates the results in terms of the candidates’ probability for election.

		B
		Cheat	Not cheat
A	Cheat	(50%, 50%)	(100%, 0%)
	Not cheat	(0%, 100%)	(50%, 50%)

The end result of the candidate’s dilemma is that both candidates have an incentive to cheat - even though each candidate's probability for victory is no better if both cheat than it is if neither cheat. Dual cheating is the Nash equilibrium of the candidate's dilemma. This result occurs because, whether the opponent cheats or not, it is too the benefit of each candidate to cheat. For example, whether or not A cheats, B’s best move is always to cheat (and vice-versa). And, thus, political candidates have an incentive to commit voter fraud in their own favor. Perhaps even more importantly, the winner will inevitably have no incentive to investigate allegations of cheating. This is so for two reasons: (1) any effective investigation would likely uncover evidence of his own cheating and (2) he (and his party) is likely to have benefited from the cheating, and thus would be foolish to support the eradication of a useful tool.

The only candidate who might have an incentive to initiate a post-election investigation would be one who did not cheat and, likely, lost. However, at this point the candidate is most likely either a private citizen (and thus, one of the “people” whom I assert bear the burden for investigating voter fraud) or a government official in a lower capacity (i.e. a senator, governor, etc.). Of course, if he is a government official of any capacity, it is possible that he had perpetrated voter fraud to win his election to that post and would thus be unlikely to bite the hand that, at least in one instance, served to feed him.

The sad effect of the candidate’s dilemma emerges when we include a third outcome which represents the “value” of the public’s collective voting rights. In an honest election, the value of the public’s voting rights is at a maximum. But, in a dishonest election, there is little or no value in the right to vote. In such a case, the act of voting is an absurd and meaningless exercise.

The following chart details the candidate’s dilemma with the resulting value of the public’s voting rights included as the third number. We will represent the "value" of voting rights on a 0-10 scale, with 10 representing the highest value.

		B
		Cheat	Not cheat
A	Cheat	(50%, 50%, 0)	(100%, 0%, 0)
	Not cheat	(0%, 100%, 0)	(50%, 50%, 10)

As the chart shows, in only one outcome - the one in which our votes, and not the cheating of candidates, determines the election's outcome - do the voting rights of the people retain any value. Unfortunately, the "clean election" result is not the Nash equilibrium and is thus unlikely to occur. The inclusion of the value of voters rights has no effect on the candidates' decision whether or not to cheat, because that value is an externality in their decision. In other words, the diminishing value of a vote is a detriment that falls on other people, and not the decision makers. Therefore, the decision makers have no reason to account for it.

The lesson is that the candidates’ incentives guide them towards a set of decisions that renders our voting rights entirely worthless. If we delegate our responsibility to police the voting process in this country to our government, we place our candidates in a situation that rewards their dishonesty and theft of our democratic rights. Thus, it should be clear that, if we the people are to retain our democratic voice, it is we the people who must fight to maintain the integrity of the election process. No one else can be expected to do it for us.

* The “swing” between the final exit poll results and the final election results was 4.15 points, in favor of George W. Bush.

During the build-up to the election, I broke my promise and returned to posting on Hornfans.com. But, I promise not to return hereafter. In fact, I can guarantee that BrickHorn will make no further appearances on Hornfans.com. The reason is simple: Queen Katy hath swung her mighty axe of on-line judgment and sliced off my Hornfans.com head. For my efforts to post a series of satirical posts questioning the intertwining of religion and politics, I was permanently banned. The rule of law on Hornfans.com is apparently this: post either banalities or obnoxiously verbose, unnecessarily detailed comments.

I think many who read this blog would agree with me that Hornfans.com has, to state it elegantly, gone to shit over the past year or so. What was once a haven for intellectual discourse on a wide range of diverse topics is now a virtual primate house, filled with ignorant baboons slinging feces at one another and periodically thumping their chests in celebration of their vulgar triumphs. Certainly a stalwart few remain and attempt to maintain order in the zoo. While I applaud their patience, I must question the wisdom of their efforts to reason with apes.

In any case, I did not post this entry as a means to vent. Rather, it is a notification to those who would otherwise attempt to contact me on HF.com. As I can no longer respond to PMs on Hornfans, please feel free to contact me through this blog (comments are sent to my e-mail address).

NOTE: I am currently working on an entry examining the dynamics of voter fraud. It's about 75% complete, and I intend to post it this evening. I look forward to hearing your collective thoughts on the issue.