CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Voting and Not Voting
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Voting and Not Voting

post #1 of 40
10/21/08 at 11:09pm
Thread Starter 
Rath made a post in the election thread about how he was annoyed at non-voters, and I thought the topic could be an interesting thread. I'm sure many of you don't think it's interesting, and will just say I'm dumb (almost as dumb as the non-voters) for writing this, but that's okay, too. Anyway,

Let's say, in a crazy hypothetical situation, that you're an Obama supporter. You think the guy's great and you want him to win. But on election day, right before you vote, John McCain comes up to you and says "I'll give you a million dollars if I win this." Assume that no one else gets this offer, no one knows you got it, this is a single situation, etc. etc... Do you change your vote?

Well, you're a brilliant person, so you do some math* and you see that the probability that your vote for McCain will swing your state, compounded with the probability that your state's electors will swing the nation, is stupidly small. It's the kind of small that most math or science classes would comfortably call "zero." So you listen nicely to Mr. McCain, but you say you're still going with Mr. Obama. Then John says, okay, ten million. You still refuse.

No? One billion dollars, how about that? Well, you do some more calculations and see you're still making nothing, maybe a couple cents, on average, with a vote switch. You leave John behind and go vote against him, because it's funny.

But then you start to wonder, if I'm not voting for a fortune, then why am I voting at all, when the real benefits are much more nebulous?

An economist might say you shouldn't vote, because the average reward is less than the average cost. If you measure the reward as (chance of affecting outcome) times (positive effect on you of the preferred outcome), then it would seem that the reward is almost nothing, and the cost is some time, which is something.

But the economist is wrong, you say. You vote, I vote, a lot of people vote, and we feel it's worth it. And that's the point. You can't do much to reduce the cost from the above formula (maybe early voting), but you can add a lot of benefits to the list. Simply counting on your vote to make a difference is nice, but it's like counting on winning a lottery and a half... which is okay, because that's not the main benefit, anyway, IMO.

When you vote, you get to feel good about fulfilling your civic duty. You get to feel good about voting for your candidate, or voting against a crappy one. You get to tell people you voted, and feel better than them if they didn't.

There could of course be any other, more specific factors. For example, this is my first presidential election for which I'm of eligible age, so "satisfying curiosity" is one reason for me to vote.

Seriously, though, these effects are real, and in general, they're the real reason to vote. And don't give me any "what if everyone thought that way?" crap.

Discuss.


*: I didn't do any math here because a) I'm lazy, and b) it'd have to take into account the margin of the frontrunner's lead in the state, and then the chance of the state's vote mattering, and it'd be both ridiculously complicated and too reliant on estimates to really mean anything. If I'm wrong on the scale of any of these, please tell me.
Reply
post #2 of 40
10/21/08 at 11:16pm
I'd be curious to see how would an economist would say it's not worth it to vote. In the sense of how did the economist quantify the cost of taking the time to vote versus not voting? And while it can be argued for certain races where the information about the candidate is difficult to nonexistent. It may not be worth the cost of voting if an informed choice cannot be made. I feel in the case of major races there is very little that can be made to state that the cost of not voting is lower than the cost of voting.

I guess (Now mind you this is strictly armchair thinking and half-assed at that) that while voting is an individual act, you do have the collective effect. And yes, there are states where voting for the other guy isn't going to do much. But you could still take into the account that voting is free speech and even if your candidate or issue does not make it. You made your statement whatever the result may be.
Reply
post #3 of 40
10/21/08 at 11:18pm
Thread Starter 
Yeah, and the great thing about that (even though it's going to sound silly...) is that even if those gestures mean nothing to the world, they mean something to you, and are therefore worth it.
Reply
post #4 of 40
10/21/08 at 11:21pm
Voting is an individual act. Unless your vote somehow was THE VOTE that affected the result of the race. It isn't going to matter in the grand scheme of things. It's very much is a personal act because you are making a personal statement.
Reply
post #5 of 40
10/21/08 at 11:26pm
When I look back at the 2004 election, I can understand why some people would choose not to vote. I don't like it, but I can understand it. The choices were basically Bush and Not-Bush. There was no one to really get enthusiastic about, and the best they could think of to get new voters to vote was "Vote or Die".

But this election year...with times being what they are...and with a candidate so many people are getting excited over...I can't understand why someone wouldn't want to vote this time.
Reply
post #6 of 40
10/21/08 at 11:29pm
I like to think that my vote, whoever it may be for, is effectively dashing the hopes and dreams of half the American population. I like that kind of power. Where else could I piss in the cornflakes of 150 million people with the simple yank of a lever?
Reply
post #7 of 40
10/21/08 at 11:30pm
With '04 you had Kerry who wasn't that great of a candidate (Although really I have no idea who would have been the right one. I remember one editorial saying Lieberman should have gotten it of all things. Anyway) and the fuck-ups of the Bush admin did not come into play until right after he gets sworn in the second term.

The only reason I can think of now why not to vote is if you fall into the Ralph Nader school (The parties are the same and shills for corporate interests) now that may be the case (Paging YT) but that shouldn't be viewed as some kind of excuse unless you really don't care how things are.

I say this as a guy who has already voted. (Thank you Absentee).
Reply
post #8 of 40
10/21/08 at 11:55pm
An economist would say, strictly speaking, your vote almost never counts. The only time your vote will ever, EVER, truly count is if it's the tie breaker. The truth about democracy is that the larger the populace the more you are a slave to the majority. When Aristotle philosophized about the ideal city-state he imagined a small population (5000 "citizens"?) where each citizen not only voted but had the opportunity to rule in some sort of rotation.

My response to the economist is, however, a moral one. To paraphrase Kant, it is wrong to act on a certain maxim (not voting) because we could not rationally will it to be true that everyone acts on this maxim. In other words, unless you see no value in anyone voting it's wrong to ignore your duty to vote.
Reply
post #9 of 40
10/22/08 at 12:03am
What you're talking about is direct democracy. Something that cannot function on a large scale.
Reply
post #10 of 40
10/22/08 at 12:33am
It's also not entirely accurate as viewing only the vote that directly decides the election (and I suppose it is possible at a certain point to pinpoint the one that puts things over irrevocably) as the only vote that "matters". Because even if your vote isn't that magical one, it affects which one is. Which is to say that if in your state candidate A gets a million votes and candidate B gets a million and one, B supporter 1,000,001 did not cast the only vote that matters. Supporters 1-1,000,000's votes were all essential to making that last vote matter.

Point is, a vote can effect an election without deciding it. If nothing else, it's another incremental roadblock the other guy has to get over to get that magical vote that actually does "matter".
Reply
post #11 of 40
10/22/08 at 12:48am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post
It's also not entirely accurate as viewing only the vote that directly decides the election (and I suppose it is possible at a certain point to pinpoint the one that puts things over irrevocably) as the only vote that "matters". Because even if your vote isn't that magical one, it affects which one is. Which is to say that if in your state candidate A gets a million votes and candidate B gets a million and one, B supporter 1,000,001 did not cast the only vote that matters. Supporters 1-1,000,000's votes were all essential to making that last vote matter.

Point is, a vote can effect an election without deciding it. If nothing else, it's another incremental roadblock the other guy has to get over to get that magical vote that actually does "matter".
you beat me to it.

Essentially, if your horse wins, then your vote mattered. If your horse loses, then it didn't. But again, it's reductive
Reply
post #12 of 40
10/22/08 at 12:50am
Yeah, I think our system needs a lot of work, but for now we have to deal with the system we have (I hate how much that sounds like Rummy) and then work to change it. That said, I'll borrow the analogy that each of us has a teaspoon to deal with the massive issues and problems we face as a people, and the teaspoon is our vote. One teaspoon doesn't seem like it will scoop out the entire swamp, but if each of us uses our own, we'll make progress.

I think even the idea of self-interest is narrow-minded when considering how to vote, because even if you look at it as "John McCain will give me a billion dollars if I vote for him," committing that kind of betrayal will ultimately come back to haunt anyone in a big way. The ramifications of voting solely for one's personal self-interest ripples out and ultimately harms and destabilizes the balance of society at large.

Especially in an election like this one, in which so much swings in the balance.

But as a system, I think the two-party system, the electoral college, all of it, just blows. I'd love to have instant run-off voting, for instance, and let the guy with the most votes be #1 and the next highest be #2. You'd probably need machines for that, but we need publicly owned, run and managed machines. Privatizing the vote has been catastrophic to democracy (as evidenced by the Bush "wins").
Reply
post #13 of 40
10/22/08 at 1:33am
In the words of the true patriot Craig Ferguson, "If you don't vote, you're a moron." Voting is one of our most basic rights. If you don't vote, you are in effect giving up your right. Use it or lose it.
Reply
post #14 of 40
10/22/08 at 1:41am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post
It's also not entirely accurate as viewing only the vote that directly decides the election (and I suppose it is possible at a certain point to pinpoint the one that puts things over irrevocably) as the only vote that "matters". Because even if your vote isn't that magical one, it affects which one is. Which is to say that if in your state candidate A gets a million votes and candidate B gets a million and one, B supporter 1,000,001 did not cast the only vote that matters. Supporters 1-1,000,000's votes were all essential to making that last vote matter.

Point is, a vote can effect an election without deciding it. If nothing else, it's another incremental roadblock the other guy has to get over to get that magical vote that actually does "matter".
When the vote is super close, they all "matter" a lot. But as it gets further from dead even, they lose their influence really quickly.
Reply
post #15 of 40
10/22/08 at 1:47am
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Kimbell View Post
When the vote is super close, they all "matter" a lot. But as it gets further from dead even, they lose their influence really quickly.
Right, it's the same concept as declining marginal utility*. But the thing to recognize is that 1) every vote on a single side has the same value, and 2) that value is a fraction of the margin of victory (which comes, not the overall number of votes.

Of course, this is using the very reductive perspective on voting. I happen to agree with Judd and Kant that you really need to be going around doing what you think everyone else should be doing.

*meaning each additional dollar/fish/whatever unit you have is incrementally less valuable than the preceding one.
Reply
post #16 of 40
10/22/08 at 1:54am
What do the American Chewers think of the concept of Mandatory Voting? To be honest it kinda freaks me out that you guys haven't adopted that system already. We (Australia) have had that system since 1924 and I can't remember anyone of note ever proposing to change that. If you just flat out hate and disagree with every single presented candidate you can throw your vote by ticking off the registration that you have voted, but not actually fill out an actual election form, or deface it or whatever. Once I voted for David Cronenberg.
I'm just honestly curious what the intelligent debate against mandatory voting is.
Here is a cool Slate article on the subject.
Reply
post #17 of 40
10/22/08 at 10:13am
While people argue that mandatory voting would be the best way to shore up voter turnout. Something about making a right like that mandatory just bothers me. It makes the task like jury duty and there are some people are who just can't get around to vote. Not to mention does every race require this? And if so, how do I vote in races with little to no information on the candidates (Judges, Water Board, etc) in which candidate selection is like throwing darts. That to me is not an effective use of democracy.

I believe voting is a fundamental right and that because it is a right you have the choice of exercising or not exercising it. Much in the same way of taking the fifth or representing yourself in court. It's a choice.
Reply
post #18 of 40
10/22/08 at 10:46am
Mandatory voting is a good idea, but I don't believe it's necessary. People have a right not to vote, and in some ways not voting is casting a vote (apathy, laziness, or a protest against all the candidates).

I think a better idea is to make election day a national holiday, not forcing people to participate in things they don't care for in the first place.
Reply
post #19 of 40
10/22/08 at 11:03am
All I'll say is this. You can choose not to vote if that's your thing. That's fine. But if you make the choice to not vote, you forfeit your right to complain about the politicians that get elected.
Reply
post #20 of 40
10/22/08 at 11:14am
I don't think everyone needs to vote. If you don't know your congressional delegation, can't name at least five Supreme Court members, or don't know where the candidates stand on important issues, you probably shouldn't vote. An uninformed idiot who votes is just taking a shit in the swimming pool.
Reply
post #21 of 40
10/22/08 at 11:17am
Quote:
Originally Posted by agracru View Post
All I'll say is this. You can choose not to vote if that's your thing. That's fine. But if you make the choice to not vote, you forfeit your right to complain about the politicians that get elected.
I always loved this line of thinking. What if someone chose not to vote exactly BECAUSE of the people that were up for election? They should vote for someone they don't care for or believe in? Give me a break.
Reply
post #22 of 40
10/22/08 at 11:39am
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyG View Post
I always loved this line of thinking. What if someone chose not to vote exactly BECAUSE of the people that were up for election? They should vote for someone they don't care for or believe in? Give me a break.
Then you vote for the least of all evils. No one's demanding that you vote for a viable candidate - vote third-party or for a write-in candidate. But if you can't be bothered to make any effort at all in researching your options and having your say in how the government is run, your opinion on the winner's not worth a damn. Voting's not a perk of democracy (of any sort), but an ethical responsibility.
Reply
post #23 of 40
10/22/08 at 12:34pm
Exactly. You aren't required to vote for, in the case of November 4th, McCain or Obama, and they certainly aren't the only names out there that you could put on your ballot.
Reply
post #24 of 40
10/22/08 at 12:51pm
I also don't understand the "my vote doesn't count". It does. It may not count in the Presidential election, for me, I'm in Illinois, and Obama is gonna win no matter what in my state. Sucks for all those douche bags with the McCain signs in their yards, but they ain't counting for shit.

But where their vote will count, is in the local elections. Those are the ones where the most impact is made by your vote. That always gets overlooked.
Reply
post #25 of 40
10/22/08 at 1:15pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by agracru View Post
Exactly. You aren't required to vote for, in the case of November 4th, McCain or Obama, and they certainly aren't the only names out there that you could put on your ballot.
I've said it before, but I wish more of the unenthusiastic and non-voters would just go vote for a 3rd party candidate, even if its a total wingnut. There's no chance they would accidentally get elected, but if Nader or Ron Paul or whoever could pull a significant chunk of the vote then maybe next time we could have a viable third option, and not have to be subjected to months of drama queen undecideds whining about how they don't like what's on the menu.

So that's my advice to undecideds: if you still can't make up your mind, go vote for a fruitcake. It''s a vote for more variety.
Reply
post #26 of 40
10/22/08 at 1:22pm
There is a guy that I work with and consider a friend who PRIDES himself on not voting. He always goes on about how voting only divides the nation and all politicians do is make promises they can't keep (the student body President argument) so why bother? If you start talking seriously about politics in front of him he gets very vocal and upset, then gets on his soapbox to talk about how we're as bad as racists because supporting one side or another is as bad as racism.

He told me a story last week where he and his wife were at a autumn festival (or something similar) and his wife was looking for an Obama sign for her mom (yay). When they found an Obama booth the lady asked this guy who he was voting for and he proudly told me how he "went off" on her because she obviously wants him to support Obama (shock! At an Obama booth?) and went into detail of how what she was doing was as bad as inciting a race riot.

Heh? This guy would have done the same if it were a McCain booth, but still. How many people are that uneducated about their civic duty? How can people call themselves patriotic but then not take advantage of the greatest freedom they have in this country?

People have weird notions of freedom too. Two more quick stories about co workers-

One lady (McCain supporter) told me you can tell how patriotic she is because of all of the red, white, and blue stuff she has in her office. Again:.... heh?

Another co-worker told me that the people don't really have freedom in this country because he could not buy a new car with red interior, and if this is truly a free country he should be able to. Once more:....... heh?

So sad.
Reply
post #27 of 40
10/22/08 at 1:36pm
I don't like to make judgments about people I've never met, but that is one stupid fucking dude. I imagine him having a full blown aneurysm if someone suggests he try the roast beef instead of the ham.
Reply
post #28 of 40
10/22/08 at 1:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post
not have to be subjected to months of drama queen undecideds whining about how they don't like what's on the menu.
Oh man, if only.

And Swice, I'm perversely interested in hearing how your friend there equates voting for a political party with racism.
Reply
post #29 of 40
10/22/08 at 2:06pm
Yeah, that was kind of...wow. Having to choose a political party is equal to being beaten down and repressed by a societal hierarchy that favors a white majority? Interesting.
Reply
post #30 of 40
10/22/08 at 2:19pm
I'd really rather not ask him to elaborate, but he mentioned how [sarcastic tone]Everybody brags about how we live in a non segregated society, but what do politics do if not divide us?[/sarcastic tone]

Really, I'm as dumbfounded as you are.
Reply
post #31 of 40
10/22/08 at 2:38pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by C.Swicegood View Post
[sarcastic tone]Everybody brags about how we live in a non segregated society, but what do politics do if not divide us?[/sarcastic tone]
On second thought, please don't elaborate any further. I don't think my gray matter can take it.
Reply
post #32 of 40
10/22/08 at 2:54pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by C.Swicegood View Post
I'd really rather not ask him to elaborate, but he mentioned how [sarcastic tone]Everybody brags about how we live in a non segregated society, but what do politics do if not divide us?[/sarcastic tone]

Really, I'm as dumbfounded as you are.
That's, like, creatively dumb. Where you don't even know how to respond. Where it seems he's given the subject a lot of thought, but somehow managed to make the wrong logical inference at every single juncture, thus arriving at the wrongest possible conclusion. In the immortal words of Ron Burgundy, "I'm not even mad. I'm impressed!"
Reply
post #33 of 40
10/22/08 at 2:55pm
So your friend lives in a place where people voluntarily register for the race of their choosing after they turn 18? No wonder Ohio's always acting so squirrely.
Reply
post #34 of 40
10/22/08 at 6:45pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by EdHocken View Post
Not to mention does every race require this? And if so, how do I vote in races with little to no information on the candidates (Judges, Water Board, etc) in which candidate selection is like throwing darts. That to me is not an effective use of democracy.

I believe voting is a fundamental right and that because it is a right you have the choice of exercising or not exercising it. Much in the same way of taking the fifth or representing yourself in court. It's a choice.
We only vote in the federal and state elections.
Water Board? The fuck?
Also: what do you mean by there are some people who can't get around to vote? If you can't make it on the day there are ways of still voting. Absentee voting if you are out of the country, for example.
Reply
post #35 of 40
10/22/08 at 7:09pm
Some political scientists argue that low voter turnout keeps the political spectrum relatively stable and moderate compared to what would happen if everyone was compelled to vote. I don't want someone voting if they don't give one single ass-hair who wins. You think working-class Republicans are ignorant? They are political scholars compared to the ignorami that would emerge. Australia has compulsory voting and they don't strike me as any the better for it.

I agree that voting is a right and privilege, and that it should be taken as a duty, but I don't think democracies are strengthened by a higher voter turnout if the increase is due to a surge in uninformed voters. The obligation lies not just in the act of voting but also in the act of acquiring enough knowledge to make an informed choice.
Reply
post #36 of 40
10/22/08 at 7:53pm
I think local voting does matter... but in terms of president, this whole thing was a 4-horse race from day 1 for the most part, and the candidates are variations on a theme. The biggest difference in Obama is that he doesn't have to play the game because...

a. he hasn't been around long enough to have a real history or, more importantly, make any mistakes.
b. he isn't representing the party that has thoroughly fucked things up over the past 8 years.

People like me are left wondering what it's going to take to really change anything about this massive, corrupt machine. I'm hopeful for the change. I'm glad to see Bush gone, and I think Obama can restore some integrity to our government, and I think he will help this nation in doing what might need to be done (albeit via redistribution of wealth) in order to correct a lot of the wrongs that have been done... but he's just a politician. I don't see him changing Washington much.

But yeah, voting for things that effect you locally does matter to me, so I will be doing that. As far as president... I'll probably vote for a write-in candidate and not put in a name. But don't worry guys with Obama avatars... I'm in California.
Reply
post #37 of 40
10/23/08 at 12:26am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt OCallaghan View Post
We only vote in the federal and state elections.
Water Board? The fuck?
Also: what do you mean by there are some people who can't get around to vote? If you can't make it on the day there are ways of still voting. Absentee voting if you are out of the country, for example.
Local elections such as Water Board, Community College district. Heaven forbid you try to figure out how the neighborhood councils work. (It's an LA thing)

And as for not having the time. I don't know, people have commitments (Families and the like) and sometimes there really isn't any time. Shit don't ask me.
Reply
post #38 of 40
10/23/08 at 1:40am
Quote:
Originally Posted by EdHocken View Post
Local elections such as Water Board, Community College district. Heaven forbid you try to figure out how the neighborhood councils work. (It's an LA thing)
My favorite local elections here are the heated races for "Alderman of the Village of *INSERT SHITTY SMALL SPEED TRAP'S NAME HERE*". Sometimes when they're doing the election returns, they'll have a final vote of 1 to 0. That means one of the candidates didn't even vote for themselves. Happens ALL the fucking time, too.
Reply
post #39 of 40
10/23/08 at 10:20am
Quote:
Originally Posted by EdHocken View Post
And as for not having the time. I don't know, people have commitments (Families and the like) and sometimes there really isn't any time. Shit don't ask me.
Well it was a point that you bought up, so I did ask you. It's a bullshit point, so it has no weight.
Reply
post #40 of 40
10/23/08 at 10:26am
A friend of mine is not voting because "it won't matter since NY goes Democrat". Not if a few million people did the same. Get off your lazy ass and go to the polls, dammit!
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Voting and Not Voting