In case the text on the images is hard to read, here are the two ideas again back to back:

​

More than 10x Better Election System:

​

Fun Fact (with amazing consequences): Did you know that since not everyone votes on election day, it is also technically a poll? Yes, mathematically speaking, anything less than the full population voting means that our elections are technically also just polls or surveys. And here is another fun fact: we already know how to conduct intelligent polls (via probability & statistics) and the way we conduct the poll that decides who our leaders are (or anything else) on election day is anything but intelligent! Why? Notice that what we call “voter turnout” on election day is what mathematicians call a “sample size”, and the sample sizes that we encounter in any probability & statistics textbook (doing it the intelligent way) are typically on the order of just a few thousand (or even less) and are never in the tens of millions like on Election Day. It may seem counterintuitive, but the reason why we don’t need overly large sample sizes can be understood with a simple analogy/question: Do we have to look at an entire bottle of green Gatorade to know it’s green, or can we discern that it’s green via just a single little drop? The answer is that we can obviously discern that it’s green via just a single little drop! Notice though that this analogy assumes that the green food coloring in the Gatorade is mixed or stirred well (i.e. this analogy assumes that the green particles in the Gatorade are mixed RANDOMLY). If we were to drop in the same amount of green particles in the Gatorade and not mix or stir it, then a single drop is probably not going to be the same color (or good approximation) as the whole (i.e. it’s probably not going to have the same PERCENTAGE of food coloring molecules as the whole). Also profoundly note that the sample size that we call “voter turnout” on election day is NOT taken randomly because not all demographics vote equally. Voter turnout on election day is demographically skewed (e.g. Whites disproportionately vote more than Blacks, rich people disproportionately vote more than working class people etc). The SMART way to conduct polls is via relatively SMALL (in the thousands, not millions) and RANDOM sample sizes, but we very unintelligently do neither! So this begs the question: how much better would our election process be if we implemented an intelligent poll instead of the very unintelligent poll as we currently do? The answer is that our election system would be AT LEAST 10x better than our current unintelligent system, and we can easily showcase this by listing out the pros and cons when comparing each election system. If we can list out 10 or more upsides (pros) with only a single or no downside (a con that's on par with one of the 10 or more pros), then conducting an intelligent poll is 10 or more times better than the unintelligent poll that we use today. (Note if there was exactly 10 upsides and exactly 1 downside, all of equal weight, then the intelligent poll would be exactly 10x better). Now let’s list out the upsides and downsides (pros and cons) of conducting an intelligent poll. First, here are MORE than 10 upsides:

 

1 (More Accurate) Regardless of what we call it (“poll, “survey”, or “bubba”) the entire end goal of conducting an election is to measure the voice/will of the people AS A WHOLE (an individual casting a vote is only a tiny, almost minuscule step towards that end goal) and an intelligent poll measures that collective voice FAR more accurately than the unintelligent poll. For example, imagine a CLOSE American election with two presidential candidates and where the TRUE leading candidate (let’s call him Mickey) is up 51% to 49% over his pal Pluto on Election Day (these would be the percentages that we want to measure as accurately as possible but we almost always get wrong due to the extremely skewed [non random] sample size that we call “voter turnout”). However, notice that the ONLY thing that FUNDAMENTALLY matters here is for Mickey to have as LOW of a PROBABILITY as possible of LOSING (ideally 0%) and this remains true no matter how much Mickey is up by. Now if we randomly sample ONLY 20,000 voters in a very large eligible voting population the size of the USA, then the probability of Mickey LOSING the election is only 0.0023 (or 0.23%, which is much less than 1%). If Mickey were leading by say 53%, then with an even smaller random sample size of 5,000, Mickey would have only a 0.0000102 (or 0.00102%) of losing the election. That's the true leading candidate not being elected about once every 98,000 election cycles! (Or about once every 392,000 years)! (See the end of this paper for two different straightforward ways to derive these probabilities).

 

2 (Funner) There are various specific ways that we can implement an intelligent poll for Election Day. Here is one such fun way that closely resembles a lottery with cash prizes (after all, it is not written into the laws of nature that our elections can’t be fun): During registration, the government provides us with a unique lottery ticket, and in return, we provide the government with a phone number of our choice. Now in order to select our random sample on Election Day (to choose the electorate) we first print everyone’s lottery tickets on small material and place them inside a very large container. The container is then shaken up very well so the lottery tickets inside can mix randomly. Next, we begin to randomly pick lottery tickets in a live televised setting (just like a lottery) and announce all winning ticket numbers. This is to give the randomly chosen electorate a heads-up that they will shortly receive a phone call by election officials. The phone calls are then subsequently made, and after some security questions and voice recognition software confirms their identity, they are asked to cast their vote(s). Lastly, after tallying up all the votes, we post all the randomly chosen lottery tickets along with their corresponding candidate(s) that they voted for (and on multiple publicly accessible media platforms) to give the electorate the peace of mind of verifying that their vote was counted correctly. [Note that this also adds another layer of security by giving the voter the ability to raise a red flag if they see that their lottery number does not correspond to their candidate pick(s)]. And of course, why not just give all of the randomly chosen electorate a few thousand bucks for their participation? And for some extra fun, why not just make Election Day a national holiday so almost nobody has to work (maybe throw in an NFL game or two) because again, kindly note that it is not written into the laws of nature that our elections can’t be fun.

 

3 (It Makes Everyone’s Voices Equal) One of the greatest aspects of this new election system is that it renders the days of regular demographically skewed elections a thing of the past (i.e. non random sample sizes). In other words, it finally realizes (in practice) the dreams of countless civil/voting rights activists since the beginning of our democracy. Regardless of race, wealth, gender, etc, all are equal under this new intelligent election system. As long as one is registered to vote (which can be done automatically), one's voice is statistically entered to more accurately measure the voice of the American people as a whole, which is again, the entire point of conducting an election. (Or all people within a state would be equal if we leave the Electoral College in tact and implement this on the state level).

 

4 (Not Everyone Has to Vote) The FACT that we can much more accurately measure the will/voice of the people as a whole with much less people going through the hassle of voting is a definite upside, NOT a downside. It’s not magic, it’s simply mathematics. As already noted, an individual going through the process of casting a vote is only a tiny, almost minuscule step toward the end goal of measuring the will/voice of the people AS A WHOLE. In other words, voting is only a means to an end, and not the end itself. Why bother trying to measure the color of an ENTIRE Gatorade bottle when we can easily measure the same color (or sufficiently close to the same color) via just a single drop? And although technically measuring more and more of a Gatorade bottle will produce a slightly better approximation, the difference is minuscule and therefore extremely inefficient. [Note that the exact decimal value for pi is literally infinite (3.141592654…), but scientists & engineers rarely have to use more than just few of its decimals for most practical applications].

 

5 (Much More Transparent) Notice how since an intelligent poll requires only a small electorate (i.e. a small sample size) and since we can do it all via telephone, means that we can do it all in one central location, and therefore, we can make it all EXTREMELY transparent. We can simply build a new building with literal transparent walls, literal transparent floors (to a certain depth), literally transparent tables, etc. We can also invite multiple (if not ALL), independent media outlets to oversee everything from start to finish. We can also place cameras almost EVERYWHERE and connect many of them to the internet so the people can observe what’s going on 24/7! Additionally, since everyone’s winning lottery numbers (along with who they voted for) are publicly posted, it means that anyone can tally up the counts/percentages to verify who won. Imagine if you tried doing that with the millions upon millions of casted votes across the country! Imagine an ordinary American citizen walking into even a single polling location and asking if they could verify their count. They’d probably look at you like if you’re crazy! :)

 

6 (Voting Machines & Paper Ballots Rendered Obsolete) Much anxiety, speculation, and even accusations have risen lately over our voting machines being hacked (e.g. see Dominion $787 million election settlement/scandal with Fox News), Similarly, much anxiety, speculation and accusations have risen over mail-in ballots being manipulated or thrown away somehow (e.g. the Republican Party right before the attempted coup on our nation’s capitol [January 6]). Regardless of whether this has actually occurred or not, it's a HUGE problem when many people BELIEVE it has, or BELIEVE that it will happen in the future (it undermines the entire election). Moreover, the truth is that there does exist at least a potential risk for this to occur in the future (i.e. it’s definitely a non zero probability). This new intelligent poll voting system renders voting machines AND mail-in ballots obsolete, and hence, their associated potential risks are also eliminated.

 

7 (Virtually Hack Proof) Note that through the sheer simplicity, transparency, and obsolescence (non existence) of the very hackable voting machines/paper ballots makes an intelligent poll voting system virtually hack proof! Someone simply cannot hack a voting machine that doesn't exist. Someone simply cannot manipulate or throw away a paper ballot that does not exist. Also note that even if someone were to somehow hack your vote via the telephone system, your lottery ticket number along with your corresponding candidate pick(s) will be posted across multiple media outlets so you can raise a red flag and correct it! (We would obviously have a waiting period for people to raise such red flags before we certified the winner/election results).

 

8 (Election Fraud MUCH More Difficult) Note that since this new intelligent voting system is extremely transparent and virtually hack proof, it also makes it extremely difficult (if not virtually impossible) for candidates or governments to commit election fraud. Therefore, it ALSO renders FALSE ACCUSATIONS of election fraud by candidates/governments futile. It would be ridiculous to falsely accuse someone of cheating when we can easily and OVERLY fact check that they didn’t. It would be like someone falsely accusing someone of stealing a cookie from a cookie jar when we have thousands of independent cameras and guards around the cookie jar AND the jar itself is literally transparent (we can easily see right through the cookie jar and count all cookies to prove that nobody stole anything). Profoundly note that if this intelligent voting system would have been in place this last election cycle, we almost certainly wouldn't have experienced the subsequent accusations and chaos which followed on January 6 (regardless of which side you believed or were on). Hence, REGARDLESS of whether Donald Trump’s claims of the election being stolen are true or not, EVERYONE should be for a system that prevents what happened on January 6 from ever happening again (including Republicans that believe the election was stolen), and an intelligent voting system does exactly that…and then some! (as should already be obvious)!

 

9 (Literally Saves Lives!) This last election cycle, which was held in the midst of a global pandemic (Covid 19), exposed how problematic and dangerous it is for voters, volunteers, and election officials to physically attend polling locations. Note that this new intelligent poll election system makes it safer to hold elections during unforseen, future national crises that make it hazardous or impossible to go to a polling location. Notice that if this new system would have already been in place, we would have surely avoided the countless new Covid cases that we obtained by people simply waiting in line to cast their vote. So on top of all the other advantages, this new voting system is a literal life saver as well. 

 

10 (Voter Mobilizations Unnecessary) Note that this new intelligent poll voting election system is so much better to the old that it even makes the extreme hassle of enticing people to the polls a thing of the past. 

 

11 (Easier to Predict Elections) Notice how pollsters on TV usually have to go through the extra hassle of polling "likely" voters when trying to predict election outcomes. The reason for this is to correct for the extremely skewed sample size (i.e. "voter turnout") on election day. This adds an unnecessary layer of complexity that makes predicting elections more difficult.

The new intelligent election system described here eliminates this unnecessary extra layer, since all eligible voters are equally likely to be chosen. Hence this makes predicting elections much simpler and easier.

 

12 (Environmentally Friendlier) Aside from obviously saving trees via eliminating paper ballots, in this age of rapid climate change, the large amount of CO2 that's emitted by voters being transported to physical polling locations is problematic. This new intelligent election system also solves this problem since physical polling locations become unnecessary/obsolete.

 

13 (Much Less Costly) Our current inefficient election system, with its costly voting machines, physical polling locations, ridiculously high sample sizes, etc, are absurdly expensive endeavors. Even the cost of paper and shipping fees due to mail-in ballots accumulate, and are definitely not free (or environmentally friendly). This new election system renders all of the above obsolete and therefore makes it vastly superior in terms of costs as well. In fact, so much money can be saved that we can easily afford to give the aforementioned cash rewards to the randomly chosen electorate as a way to stimulate interest and engagement. Because once again, it is not written into in the laws of nature that elections can't be both useful and fun!  :)

 

14 (Increase Voter Engagement) Since we can implement an intelligent poll voting system in such a fun way with a holiday, cash prizes etc (see pro #2 above), it almost surely entails a substantial increase in voter engagement. This is a definite upside in an age when voter engagement in our elections (and politics in general) is severely lacking (to say the least). And as an extra bonus, note that it might even spawn an interest in probability & statistics as well (people will be curious to understand the mathematics behind the “magic” of an intelligent poll voting system). 

 

15 (Strengthen/Spread Democracy) Aside from obviously strengthening democracy at home, notice that as one of the world's oldest democracies, the U.S.A. has long prided itself in spreading democracy. With our controversial recent elections though, our democracy has become somewhat of a joke to many around the globe. Needless to say, spreading democracy is difficult when, according to some, our own democracy at home is in danger of total collapse. One of the nicest consequences of employing such a superior voting system is that other democratic nations will surely copy us, and other non democratic nations will be more open to adopting democracy.

 

Cons (None yet):

I have $100 to anyone who is the first to conjure up a downside (con) that's on par with one of the 10+ upsides listed above (i.e. nobody has been able to articulate one to me)! Send your best downside/con to my X account: @notanalien101 (Israel Flores). Note that the con must be AFTER the system is implemented and it must apply to the people AS A WHOLE. Therefore saying "politicians will never agree to do it" is NOT a con because we're obviously talking about a con AFTER the system becomes a reality. Also someone saying "I don't want Black people to have an equal voice as White people because I'm a racist, so there's your con" is also NOT a con because it doesn't apply to the American people as a whole!  Also kindly note that someone not being able to find a con that's on par with one of the aforementioned 10+ pros is an implicit admission that this intelligent voting system is indeed AT LEAST 10x better.

—————————————————————

Will an Intelligent Voting System (or Something Even Better) Ever Become a Reality?

If you’re thinking that this intelligent election system (or something even better) will never become a reality, well you should really think again. Here’s a thought experiment that illustrates my point: Imagine that we lived in a world with only those old black and white analog TV’s. Now also imagine that some genius engineer from South Korea or Japan created detailed accurate blueprints for the latest Samsung or Sony flat screen TV BUT didn’t physically build it. Instead, the genius engineer simply started sharing his or her blueprints/design with other engineers (i.e. open source). Now with enough engineers acquiring the blueprints/knowledge to physically build it, it’s pretty obvious that someone would eventually do so. Now notice the reason we can confidently predict someone eventually physically building the flat screen TV is because the newest flat screen TV from say Best Buy is many, MANY times better than the old black and white TV’s. Similarly, conducting an intelligent poll voting system is many, MANY times better (at least 10x better) than our current, extremely unintelligent poll voting system. So now it should be pretty obvious that we substantially increase the probability of having someone implement some version of an intelligent poll voting system by simply sharing the idea (i.e. raising awareness). Also note the U.S. is definitely not the world's only democracy. in fact, most countries in the world are democracies of some kind and therefore many other countries can implement some form of this FAR superior voting system first. After one nation does it, most (if not ALL) will surely follow. How many black and white TV’s are still around? …. Therefore kindly begin sharing the good news! ;)

———————————————————-

Probability Equation & Program:

The self-describing probability equation used to calculate Mickey's aforementioned chances of losing the election is shown in the first image below. The equation is an excellent model and works in general for calculating the probability of the true preferred candidate not being elected in a two candidate election system and with a large eligible voting population. (What I mean by “true preferred candidate” is what statisticians would simply call the candidate with the highest percentage population mean). Notice that when we input some realistic numbers into the function, the probabilities it outputs are minuscule. For our first Mickey example, if the true preferred candidate (Mickey) is favored with 51% true support (p = 51%), and we randomly sample 20,000 voters (n = 20,000), the probability that he or she will not be elected is less than 0.23%. (i.e. much less than 1%). For our second Mickey example: if the true preferred candidate is favored with 53% true support (p = 53%), and we randomly sample only 5,000 voters (n = 5000), the probability that he or she will not be elected is less than 0.00102%. Again, that's the true preferred candidate not being elected about once every 98,000 election cycles! (Or about once every 392,000 years)! We can also write a computer program that simulates the new election system to derive the same aforementioned probabilities. Perhaps one of the easiest algorithms is to represent the entire eligible voting population by a list of equal size as the entire eligible voting population. Place all eligible voters who favor the true preferred candidate (e.g. Mickey) at the beginning of the list, and the ones who favor the underdog (e.g. Pluto) at the end of the list. You then simulate each casted vote by randomly taking out a voter from the list and counting their corresponding vote. Repeat this the same number of times as the sample size. The candidate with the most votes at the end wins. This simulates one election. Keep simulating these elections as many times as you want while keeping track of how many times the true preferred candidate didn't win in a counting variable. At the end, the value of this counting variable divided by the total number of simulations is the true preferred candidate’s probability for not being elected. The short python script below (followed by corresponding output) uses the above algorithm, except it uses python's random integer function in place of a list. Note that the program simulates the same case scenario discussed where Mickey (the true preferred candidate) is favored by 51% and we sample 20,000 voters. After tallying up the results of 10,000 simulated elections, the true preferred candidate, Mickey, lost only 0.21% of the time. This is very close to the 0.23% predicted by our mathematical model.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

Here’s How to completely solve the long term existential threat of nuclear war once and for all! (5 step treaty idea).

 

1.    All nuclear powers sign a treaty that agrees to cut their nuclear arsenals in half every 4 years (e.g. all numbers here and below are examples subject to debate). Additionally all non-nuclear powers sign/agree to halt any nuclear weapons programs/ambitions. This gives nations a manageable timeline to dismantle their weapons and thus the earth's nuclear stockpiles would dwindle to minuscule numbers over time and make the earth less combustible. 

2.    Create a MULTIPLE, HIGHLY funded, independent, international nuclear weapons at inspectors with access to virtually anywhere in the world. Having multiple organizations (instead of one) lowers the probability of corrupting all of them.

3.    Create a reward of 1 billion dollars to any whistleblowers of a cheating nation. (Holding on to nuclear weapons blueprints would also be considered cheating). It takes a lot of people to run a nuclear arms program and therefore the probability of NOBODY whistle blowing is extremely low, especially over time. The extremely high monetary reward, coupled with the obviously right moral decision, substantially lowers the probability to almost zero for getting away with nuclear cheating over time.

4.    Create an international military safe zone where all heads of state, top government officials, AND top military leaders must enter ALONE every 6 months. Additionally have embassies in every nation administered by the international safe zone where anybody can just walk into. Again, this coupled with step 2 and 3 above, lowers the probability of getting away with cheating to almost zero! This renders the “trust” issue obsolete (we don’t have to trust that a nation not cheat when the chances of them getting caught cheating is virtually 100%).

5.    All nations agree to sanction any nation found cheating by completely stopping all international trade and economic ties with the cheating nation. Additionally, all nations agree to aid those nations whose economies will be disproportionately hurt due to cutting ties with cheating nation(s). This aid should be done such that any lost revenue/GDP to the international community is distributed in a proportionate way similar the how it was before the sanctions took place (like insurance). Every nation's economy depends heavily on international trade. Therefore completely cutting off a cheating nation's international trade will completely cripple it economically and therefore this substantially lowers the probability of a nation ever even wanting to create or hold on to nuclear weapons in the first place (i.e. it further renders it in every nation's interest to comply/sign on to the treaty). And hence this not only acts as a great deterrent, but also as a great enforcement mechanism that's short of war. It is simply not worth having nuclear weapons when the guaranteed cost is extreme/complete economic collapse. Also note this makes it unnecessary to have every nation initially sign on. A successful initial signing will inevitably force one (or even a few) non complying nations to come aboard.