[lbo-talk] Irrelevance of "big" numbers

[Carrol Cox]

Jordan: "I'll try one more time.  If both groups -- voters and nonvoters --
aren't happy with the government; and the voters are about evenly split
between Republican and Democrat parties; why should I believe that adding
more discontented people to the mix would change the outcome?"

Agreed, it wouldn't change the outcome of elections -- but that is of
utterly no political interest. The wrong questions are being asked (and the
right ones will never be asked).

A question establishes (for most people) the relevant parameters of the
answer. Questions about elections will gather answers relevant to elections.
Such questions and answers tell us nothing about political views -- they
focus attention on horse races rather than on substance.

Discussion of polls focuses attention on big numbers; everyone thinks that,
for example, 1% is an insignificant figure. But 1% in B/N, for example,
would mean around 1500 people. If only another 300 people would become
active members of any of about 4 different small groups, we could turn this
community upside down; we could have thousands on the streets.


>From the perspective of the only real politics, the politics of mass
movements and direct action, percentages under 5% represent a great deal of
power.

Carrol