The Importance of One

We often hear of the importance of one. This will briefly look at the numbers of just how important one is. After that, I’d like to discuss this issue (knowing full well that I will end up going off on a tangent).

The importance of one person when there are x people:


x people

% that one person equals
(1/x)*100

1

100

2

50

3

33.3

4

25

5

20

6

16.6

7

14.285714

8

12.5

9

11.1

10

10

11

9.09

12

8.3

13

7.692307

14

7.142857

15

6.6

16

6.25

17

5.8823529411764705

18

5.5

19

5.263157894736842105

20

5

21

4.761904

22

4.54

23

4.347826086956521739130

24

4.16

25

4

26

3.846153

27

3.703

28

3.571428

29

3.4482758620689655172413793103

30

3.3

31

3.225806451612903

32

3.125

33

3.03

34

2.9411764705882352

35

2.857142

With these 35 results, we see that the importance of one, in percent, decreases fairly quickly, and then slowly goes lower.


x people

% = to one person
(1/x) * 100

1

100

5

20

10

10

25

4

50

2

100

1

200

0.5

250

0.4

500

0.2

1000

0.1

5000

0.02

10000

0.01

50000

0.002

100000

0.001

500000

0.0002

1000000

0.0001

5000000

0.00002

The question is, of course, as always, why did I decide to write this page? It's interesting that people are always talking about how one person can make a difference, yet, when you look at the numbers behind the statement, one person really doesn't appear to make a difference. Of course, it's quite true that if 11 people had to decide on something, and 5 people went one way, and 5 people went another way, then that one last person really would make the difference.

However, when you have a decision that goes 6-5 or 5-6, there should be more concern with why it was so close, as opposed to one side winning over the other by a mere one vote. After all, how sure can we be that one side is 'better' then another if the vote is that close? If anything, if a vote boils down to one vote, we should throw the results out and go through the process anew.

We can compare a 5-6/6-5 vote with one that is 10-1/1-10, or 8-3/3-8. When we see these three different outcomes, and assuming that your side gets the highest vote, which one would you really prefer? I personally would prefer the one that is 10-1/1-10, since that means that I was able to sway everyone but one person. Even 8-3/3-8 isn't all that bad. However, a 5-6/6-5 vote is quite amazing, since I must not have done too well of a job convincing the voters of the 'truth' of my side.

Yet, people, for the most part, are quite amazed, and applaud these kinds of occurrences (where the vote came down to one person, or some other low number). It seems as though such an occurrence should instead be looked upon with a bit of reluctance (reluctance accepting the winning side), since the vote was so close.

It seems to me that if we suggest that some vote showcases that one person/vote really does matter, then we should really take a look at just whether it showcases that, or that neither side really presented their argument in a way to persuade people to their side. Of course, it's quite possible that both sides persuaded equally well, yet, that again shows that not everything is cut straight and clean, but that instead there exists a level of grey between the black and the white. When presented with such greyness, we should be open to it, and realize that not everything can be one way or another, but that there should instead always be the possibility for another possibility.

While the last sentence of that last paragraph may be pretty good 'concluding sentence' material, there is one other thing to point out, which hasn't been as of yet (in this article). When people usually talk about how 'one vote matters', they usually do so in order to get many people thinking about voting, not just one person. That is, if they wanted one vote (since one vote matters) they could send a brief letter to some, typically non-voting individual, instead of spending all that money on marketing and advertising. Id est, the very fact that such 'one vote counts' propaganda is going out via the media showcases that one vote counts only if a bunch of 'ones' decide to vote. The reasoning is that while one vote really doesn't count, if people think that one vote does count, they'll be more likely to vote, and vote for the party/side suggesting that one vote counts.

Honestly, I'm torn. I'm not really a voter, since I believe that in order to vote one should have some justification for voting. I believe it was Harlan Ellison that said something to the effect of 'everyone has the right to voice their opinion, as long as it is an educated one'. While I certainly don't believe that we should live in a state of rule by the rich/educated, I do believe that only those educated enough to have some backing behind their decision should be allowed to vote. The freedom of speech allows me to post this very site, with this very article (however, my ability to do so is based on the fact that I have money to pay for the site, and access to the Internet, and I can only reach to those with enough money to access the site), so I'm not willing to throw that out - we should, we ought, be allowed to voice our opinions, but only to a point.

Id est, I'm not a farmer, so, while I can certainly suggest that farmers do such a thing, or that Iraqis do such and such a thing, I cannot expect them to take my opinion as anything more then that - my opinion. In addition, I ought not, and ought not be allowed to, push my opinion upon others, since I have no reason to be related to this other then as a concerned individual in the society/environment/world/etcetera that is being affected by the state of farmers/Iraqis. Unpopular views, I know, but views that I currently hold (and that some people hold when it comes to celebrities standing beside, or against, a particular politician).

History

Created: April 21st 2003
Modified: October 24th 2003; February 4th 2004; August 9th 2004; February 5th 2005