Menus Subscribe Search

What Makes Us Politic

screaming1

(Photo: Public Domain)

Can 1 Screaming Idiot Undermine a Democracy?

• January 30, 2014 • 9:50 AM

(Photo: Public Domain)

Of course.

It was September 2012, and Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa was standing onstage at the crowded Democratic National Convention in the Time-Warner Cable Arena in Charlotte, North Carolina, optioning a resolution to reinsert “God-given talents” and language about the capital of Israel into the party’s platform.

Villaraigosa had already strained to hear whether the shouted results of two votes represented a two-thirds majority for “aye” or “no.” Now, he stood before the room with a confused grin on his face and glanced desperately to both sides of the room. “I um,” he paused. “I guess….” A female organizer walked up to his side, and gave him a nudge. “I’ll do that one more time,” he continued.

After a third vote, and over the loud boos of audience members, Villaraigosa called it an affirmative decision:

As University of Iowa acoustician Ingo Titze watched the episode unfold on television, he was surprised at the result, as were many other observers at the time. “There were very emotional people in that audience,” he recalled. “People were literally jumping up and shouting ‘No! No!’ It got me thinking: What good is a voice vote when there’s a real issue at stake—real emotion involved?’”

Titze teamed up with a researcher from the National Center for Voice and Speech to run a series of experiments designed to gauge the reliability of voice votes, which are used everywhere from the U.S. Senate to local zoning board meetings. In a new paper published this month in the Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, the scientists concluded that this type of vote is extremely unreliable and that even just one boisterous idiot can distort the perceptions of a judge.

After convening a group of 54 speaking subjects and splitting them equally into an experimental group of 27, with 10 participants “successively” speaking at the loudest levels (or “as if shouting to someone across a busy street”), and a test group of 27, which had speakers at moderate loudness levels (“as if teaching a class of about 40 students”), the researchers asked five outside judges to gauge which groups were louder or whether they rated the same. “The judges noticed an increase in voting loudness in the voter group that was increasing in the number of voters speaking louder (linear trend, p 1⁄4 0.008),” the authors wrote. “This difference in voting loudness was noticeable to the judges beginning with one voter speaking louder than the rest (1/27, or 4% of voters in that group) and was clearly obvious to all judges after three voters spoke louder (3/27, or 11% of voters in that group).”

In another experiment, individuals in the experimental group were asked to lower their voices successively to a level that someone would use “if across a table or desk with someone.” “They noticed a marginally significant decrease in voting loudness in the voter group that was increasing in the number of voters speaking softer….”

The research suggests that judging a simple majority, or even a two-thirds majority, among a group of voice voters is only possible when everyone uses similar conversational volumes. In other words, a couple of vociferous voices can easily drown out the desires of the group.

A separate acoustic analysis also supported the authors’ conclusions. Loud individuals can apparently raise a group’s total volume by between three and five decibels, “as if the group size has doubled from, say, 20 to 40.” And even just a single very loud speaker “affects the group sound level by more than 2dB up to a group size of 20. Even in a group size of 40, one speaker can raise the group sound level by 1dB, near the just noticeable difference (JND).” What does this mean in practice?

In a small group, simple superposition theory predicts that one voter can bias a vote to the degree that even a two-thirds majority perception is challenged. Also, random fluctuations of sound power of a few voters produce a group loudness fluctuation on the order of the [just noticeable difference], suggesting that a voice vote for a simple majority is highly suspect unless individual loudness is controlled. For example, it requires a group of 40 or more voices before a single loud voice bias is overcome to establish a 60:40 majority.

The authors don’t recommend using a voice vote for anything that rises above a decision that’s “relatively benign” and done with “cooperative” voters. With larger crowds, there is little hope for determining “a simple majority … by voice vote unless individuals know how to produce (and agree to produce) a standard sound level, which is unlikely.”

At the paper’s conclusion, the researchers even worry that vote hijackers will use their findings for political advantage.

“The possibility exists that those who deliberately wish to influence a vote, or discredit it, will realize how easily it can be done and substantiated,” they conclude. “It is doubtful, however, that this is not already known and considered by most parliamentarians.”

Ryan Jacobs
Associate Digital Editor Ryan Jacobs joined Pacific Standard from The Atlantic, where he wrote for and produced the magazine’s Global and China channels online. Before that, he was a senior editorial fellow at Mother Jones. Follow him on Twitter @Ryanj899.

More From Ryan Jacobs

A weekly roundup of the best of Pacific Standard and PSmag.com, delivered straight to your inbox.

Recent Posts

August 29 • 4:00 PM

The Hidden Costs of Tobacco Debt

Even when taxpayers aren’t explicitly on the hook, tobacco bonds can cost states and local governments money. Here’s how.


August 29 • 2:00 PM

Why Don’t Men and Women Wear the Same Gender-Neutral Bathing Suits?

They used to in the 1920s.


August 29 • 11:48 AM

Your Brain Decides Whether to Trust Someone in Milliseconds

We can determine trustworthiness even when we’re only subliminally aware of the other person.


August 29 • 10:00 AM

True Darwinism Is All About Chance

Though the rich sometimes forget, Darwin knew that nature frequently rolls the dice.


August 29 • 8:00 AM

Why Our Molecular Make-Up Can’t Explain Who We Are

Our genes only tell a portion of the story.


August 29 • 6:00 AM

Strange Situations: Attachment Theory and Sexual Assault on College Campuses

When college women leave home, does attachment behavior make them more vulnerable to campus rape?


August 29 • 4:00 AM

Forgive Your Philandering Partner—and Pay the Price

New research finds people who forgive an unfaithful romantic partner are considered weaker and less competent than those who ended the relationship.


August 28 • 4:00 PM

Some Natural-Looking Zoo Exhibits May Be Even Worse Than the Old Concrete Ones

They’re often designed for you, the paying visitor, and not the animals who have to inhabit them.


August 28 • 2:00 PM

What I Learned From Debating Science With Trolls

“Don’t feed the trolls” is sound advice, but occasionally ignoring it can lead to rewards.


August 28 • 12:00 PM

The Ice Bucket Challenge’s Meme Money

The ALS Association has raised nearly $100 million over the past month, 50 times what it raised in the same period last year. How will that money be spent, and how can non-profit executives make a windfall last?


August 28 • 11:56 AM

Outlawing Water Conflict: California Legislators Confront Risky Groundwater Loophole

California, where ambitious agriculture sucks up 80 percent of the state’s developed water, is no stranger to water wrangles. Now one of the worst droughts in state history is pushing legislators to reckon with its unwieldy water laws, especially one major oversight: California has been the only Western state without groundwater regulation—but now that looks set to change.


August 28 • 11:38 AM

Young, Undocumented, and Invisible

While young migrant workers struggle under poor working conditions, U.S. policy has done little to help.


August 28 • 10:00 AM

The Five Words You Never Want to Hear From Your Doctor

“Sometimes people just get pains.”


August 28 • 8:00 AM

Why I’m Not Sharing My Coke

Andy Warhol, algorithms, and a bunch of popular names printed on soda cans.


August 28 • 6:00 AM

Can Outdoor Art Revitalize Outdoor Advertising?

That art you’ve been seeing at bus stations and billboards—it’s serving a purpose beyond just promoting local museums.


August 28 • 4:00 AM

Linguistic Analysis Reveals Research Fraud

An examination of papers by the discredited Diederik Stapel finds linguistic differences between his legitimate and fraudulent studies.


August 28 • 2:00 AM

Poverty and Geography: The Myth of Racial Segregation

Migration, regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, or sexuality (not to mention class), can be a poverty-buster.


August 27 • 4:00 PM

The ‘Non-Lethal’ Flash-Bang Grenades Used in Ferguson Can Actually Be Quite Lethal

A journalist says he was singed by a flash-bang fired by St. Louis County police trying to disperse a crowd, raising questions about how to use these military-style devices safely and appropriately.


August 27 • 2:00 PM

Do Better Looking People Have Better Personalities Too?

An experiment on users of the dating site OKCupid found that members judge both looks and personality by looks alone.


August 27 • 12:00 PM

Love Can Make You Stronger

A new study links oxytocin, the hormone most commonly associated with social bonding, and the one that your body produces during an orgasm, with muscle regeneration.


August 27 • 11:05 AM

Education, Interrupted

When it comes to educational access, young Syrian refugees are becoming a “lost generation.”


August 27 • 9:47 AM

No, Smartphone-Loss Anxiety Disorder Isn’t Real

But people are anxious about losing their phones, even if they don’t do much to protect them.


August 27 • 8:00 AM

A Skeptic Meets a Psychic: When You Can See Into the Future, How Do You Handle Uncertainty?

For all the crystal balls and beaded doorways, some psychics provide a useful, non-paranormal service. The best ones—they give good advice.


August 27 • 6:00 AM

Speaking Eyebrow: Your Face Is Saying More Than You Think

Our involuntary gestures take on different “accents” depending on our cultural background.


August 27 • 4:00 AM

The Politics of Anti-NIMBYism and Addressing Housing Affordability

Respected expert economists like Paul Krugman and Edward Glaeser are confusing readers with their poor grasp of demography.


Follow us


Subscribe Now

Your Brain Decides Whether to Trust Someone in Milliseconds

We can determine trustworthiness even when we’re only subliminally aware of the other person.

Young, Undocumented, and Invisible

While young migrant workers struggle under poor working conditions, U.S. policy has done little to help.

Education, Interrupted

When it comes to educational access, young Syrian refugees are becoming a “lost generation.”

No, Smartphone-Loss Anxiety Disorder Isn’t Real

But people are anxious about losing their phones, even if they don’t do much to protect them.

Being a Couch Potato: Not So Bad After All?

For those who feel guilty about watching TV, a new study provides redemption.

The Big One

One in two full-time American fast-food workers' families are enrolled in public assistance programs, at a cost of $7 billion per year. July/August 2014 fast-food-big-one

Copyright © 2014 by Pacific Standard and The Miller-McCune Center for Research, Media, and Public Policy. All Rights Reserved.