‘Social voting’ really does rock the vote
September 14, 2012
The experiment and direct effects. Examples of the informational message and social message Facebook treatments (a) and their direct effect on voting behavior (b). (Credit: Robert M. Bond, et al./Nature)
Brace yourself for a tidal wave of Facebook campaigning before November’s U.S. presidential election. A study of 61 million Facebook users finds that using online social networks to urge people to vote has a much stronger effect on their voting behavior than spamming them with information via television ads or phone calls, Science Now reports.
The study follows a Science paper that tracked how people influence each other’s online behavior through Facebook.
On Election Day, about 60 million people received a message that encouraged them to vote. It included links to local polling stations, a clickable “I Voted” button, and photos of six of their randomly chosen friends who had already clicked the “I Voted” button.
The photos apparently worked: People who received messages alerting them that their friends had voted were 0.39% more likely to vote than those who received messages with no social information. That translates to an additional 282,000 votes cast, the team reports online today in Nature.
Comments (23)
by Daniel B. Davis
The entire history of all modern economies has shown that those which reacted to a reduction of economic activity with more frugality, watching every penny, less spending suffered deeper and longer periods of recession/depression. The deficit hawks are right — we must pay down our debt –, but don’t do it now. In 3 years, after we are recovering, then we should bite the bullet.
by Mr.X
“The entire history”… ?Maybe you should read an economics textbook.No offense intended.There are also free lectures on economics on youtube.In case you have the time and want to get closer to “the truth”.
Also, the most important thing is: Not all spending is created equal.
by de Broglie
I agree. With Mr. X. All spending is not created equal. The Obama Stimulus spent less than 7% on infrastructure. Much of the rest was to perpuate certain bureaucracies. If the government actually used it resources wisely the Democrats would have more of a leg to stand on.
by Lance
Vote? What for, and for what? None of the candidates, nor any of the political party’s represent MY point of view. Odd man out, I guess.
by jerry t. searcy
“None of the candidates, nor any of the political party’s represent MY point of view.”
Not the socialist, republican, democrat, green, independent or libertarian party interest you. This is interesting. What would you like to see Lance?
by takastone
@DeBroglie:
Though in fact there is evidence for your belief that some innovation comes from industry (Henry Ford et al ) there is stronger evidence that without government support the sciences and industry would lag. Since Republicans are generally associated with trying to forestall innovation and progress your assertions seem more than a little forced. To say the Bush administration “objected” to stem cell research is at least disingenuous and possibly a politically motivated obfuscation. During the reign of the Bushites, their suppression of the scientific community was obvious to anyone watching with an objective eye.
by de Broglie
Why do you think Peter Thiel, a co-founder of the Singularity Institute, is a proponent of laissez faire economics and generally supports Republican policies?
by Mr.X
Maybe because he is human and in the end, realizes his own payoff and not yours?
But I also think that most technological (as opposed to purely scientific) innovation comes from industry.Innovation in business can also mean iteration, less time consuming production or product differentiation.
by Mr.X
Forgot the etc at the end.
by de Broglie
He has loads of money (either a billionaire or a near billionaire). Who would he be passing it onto? He seems to see it in a philosophical lense. Capitalism requires advancing technology and innovation in order to survive. It is also creates innovation. Why do you think the technological innovation followed period of the bourgeosie becoming the dominant class. Even Karl Marx talks about how capitalism produces the most productivity and technological innovation out of any system. Marx’s gripe was that he thought the distribution of ownership was unjust and alienating (entfremdung).
by Jerry Dines
FILE 27
FORGOTTEN FACTS YOU MUST KNOW TO VOTE INTELLIGENTLY
From 1931 to 1933 three republican administrations ending with President Hoover worked to dismantle government regulations that protected our economy. The result was the bubble and collapse of the stock market in 1929.
From 2000 to 2008 the republican administration with President Bush worked to dismantle government regulations that protected our economy. The result was the bubble and collapse of the housing market and the banks in 2009.
Now only three years later they want the power back saying that the democrats did not fix their mess fast enough and that they will correct it by doing more of what they have already done, deregulate, lower taxes, not to forget sending jobs and corporate profits out of the country thus starving our economy of essentials needed to bring back just the things they say the present administration has not accomplished. This is what happened to Greece and Libya also. Above all do not forget the republican controlled congress vowed to make sure this administration failed in order for them to win in 2012
There are an estimated two trillion America dollars sitting in foreign countries which may be evidenced in Romney’s tax returns some speculate.
Jerry Dines an independent voter who feels this time President Obama is the safest choice for America and the World
by de Broglie
Don’t people have the right to do what they please with their own money? Why would the economic friction created by more regulation and taxes help the American economy to produce jobs? We live in a global economy. The economy that is the most business friendly will draw the most capital. Furthermore, every person should diversify their assets abroad because historically foreign economies have not been fully correlated to the US economy. This allows for diversification.
The credit bubble occured because the US government through chartered organizations like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac caused credit that was too cheap and not sensible. The finance guys basically poured salt on the government created wound. If the government had let the economy alone this would have never happedned and they would not have needed to bailout the banks. The democrats just promise things that we cannot afford. Their constituency has a shorter “time-preference.” Sure there are a few example of where the Republicans show short run thinking, but overall their message is more economically stable in the longterm.
Attila Erdos
by Bri
I wish everybody was as clear thinking as you. Every regulation put in place to make shire it wouldn’t happen again was either subverted or removed. There still are so many loop holes you could pass the moon through it. I expect it will get a little better for awhile before they push us through the pens again and bring us to slaughter one more time.
by jerry t. searcy
Jerry, I sincerely wish one state, Rhode Island for instance, would adopt Libertarian principles while the other 49 adopted the system you, Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Bush,1 & 2, etal worship. I am 100% certain that within 50 years (probably much sooner) it would be obvious, once again to those aware of history, that central planning is a failure.
You completly failed to lend credit to the Community Reinvestment Act along with the other thousands of pages of regulations (red tape) imposed on commerce as a cause of our financial plight.
by follower
I seem to be agreeing with Bri.
I don’t know why.
But her typing seems so strong and definitive………..
by Bri
Hi, I’m Brian. I write under the name of Bri. I’m a guy, though it doesn’t bother me that you thought I was a girl. Could easily have been. I see republicans as elephants that crush everything in the room, and democrates as braying jackasses. Obama is very smart but very naive to think that the republicans were going to work with the Dems. The republicans very openly stated that they were going to crush Obama. Regan caused the first big crash of the savings and loans. I remember his speech quite clearly. He said that he was going to deregulate the banking industry because they wouldn’t do foolish things with money. I was yelling at him on TV and throwing my imaginary brick at him. He also is the first president to create a huge deficit I’ve got to give Obama credit for withstanding all the abuse that he gets. The first week of the crash I told everybody that we were going into another great depression unless somebody did something. I couldn’t believe what I was hearing from Bush and other leaders. Obama stopped it from spiraling out of control. The banks would not lend to each other cause they couldn’t tell how solvent they each were. There was a whole world of shadow banking at the time. The banks are still playing the ” we want Obama to go away” game. He wants to stop them from playing games like credit default swaps. Nobody had any skin in the game. With credit default swaps they were able to get around having at least some money to back up a loan. That is what the words CDS means. They rationalized that they were spreading the risk. My worker wanted to buy a house and they showed him a 500,000 dollar house. It was a sure thing he would default on the loan. That’s predatory lending, backed by nothing at all. My hedge fund manager client with a perfect credit history couldn’t get a loan on his new house and complained to me that it was Jimmy Carters fault. There is a great book by some Harvard economist that cronicles every bubble from the 100 years war to the tulip bubble to today. We are right on track to a little ahead of what typically happens. At times I can’t believe how much the republicans lie, but the Dems are no saints either. Choice is an illusion between those with power and those without. Once the robots take every job, the world economy will fall like a house of cards. If I try and discuss it rationally with a Tea Party or staunch republican it always gets nasty. I’ll leave it with this. On Reagans desk it said ” we can do it” Obama says ” yes we can. I say to both no we won’t. I wish it was deferent, but I am amazed at how short our memories are.
by de Broglie
KurzweilAI readers that realize that technological process is ultimately driven by capitalist imperative to accumulate wealth through investment will also realize the best party to vote for is the Republicans. Pointing out the Bush administration objection to government funding of Embryonic Stem Cell research is a straw man argument and negligible compared to the R&D carried out by industry and industrial demand.
by Dennis R.
This may not be true going forward. Technological progress previously depended on huge capital investments because research and development were so expensive and depended upon capital markets for the funding to pay for R&D. That may no longer be the case with rapid declines in cost and increasing ability of personal equipment like computers and 3-D printers. Not to mention the free exchange of ideas that the wired world makes possible.
Funding options like Kickstarter will be increasingly accessible and payback won’t necessarily be required for stockholders. Inventions won’t need to be monetized as quickly. Ideas can grow more freely. And all of this needn’t happen within any single country’s borders.
One could argue that ownership (patents, copyrights, non-disclosure agreements, etc.) are bigger hindrances to invention than taxes. And political campaigns are a massive waste of time, resources, and intellect that should probably be channeled into more productive paths.
by Mr. Kirk
A more pertinent question is whether or not the internet will open up real voting options. Choosing between Dem/ Rep isn’t much of a choice.
by jerry t. searcy
Internet voting. Sounds dangerous to me. I would prefer the following:
1. One must travel to a polling place (as today)…lets not make it any easier than it already is.
2. One must present at least two forms of identification certifying citizenship.
3. One must show proof of employment (present or past), business ownership or something to demonstrate having earned or currently earning a living.
4. No one drawing welfare should be allowed to vote (conflict of interest certain to garner democrat votes).
5. Voting should be made as easy as possible for active duty military.
by de Broglie
I agree with these requirements. Welfare does cause a conflict of interest.
by Mark
Jerry, that’s a pretty nice set of requirements that is no doubt meant to assist in culling out stupid people from voting. Let me agree with your list, with the following additional requirement to allow you to vote:
1) Anyone who attends a church. After all, it’s a conflict of interest certain to garner Republican votes, and violates the separation of Church and State. Not to mention, the vast majority of Republican votes come from predominantly rural areas, which are mostly populated by – you guessed it – stupid people.
Clearly, we can’t allow stupid people to vote, because they vote in their own perceived self-interest. Let’s make it work!
by Bri
That doesn’t bode well for nit wit homily. Even RIGHT radio has commented that the republican convention wasn’t very diverse..