P-ickleball

This past week, the RUF Pickleball Groupme (linked here, for any interested picklers) debated randomizing teams for our next monthly tournament. To settle this debate, the GroupMe admin sent a poll with options “1: randomize teams,” “2: pick partners,” and “3: I don’t care.”

Right before the poll expired, I remembered to vote. When I opened the ballot, I could see how many people had voted for each option! 24 people had voted for randomization, 23 for picking partners, and 7 were indifferent. I was already planning to vote for “2: pick partners” (I did not want to subject an unwitting, unknowing, random partner to my horrible lack of hand-eye and a subsequent first-round elimination). However, this count told me that my vote could tie the election (at 24-24-7), and that I would 100% influence the outcome of the election so long as I was the last voter. In other words, my EB increased as my perceived P increased, and my motivation to vote grew stronger. 

When discussing presidential elections, we’ve often claimed that "p" is practically 0. We've also suggested that it can be almost-impossible to determine the individual i’s "p" with civilian-level information. However, given the small number of voters, simplicity of this ballot, and published vote counts, I could somewhat-accurately approximate the “p” that my vote would make a difference in the pickleball group chat.

I was ultimately not the last voter, and the other last-minute voters won the election for “1: randomize teams.” But, at least for a minute, I experienced the triumphant feeling of a non-zero p and a rational decision to vote, given b*p-c.