Thread: The voter's dilemma

They need to introduce the concept of an anti-vote. That way, if there are more than 2 major players running, then instead of giving one of them a "+1" you can give one of them a "-1" and make your vote count that way. Like, a lot of people are like, "I just don't want X to win, but it sucks that the non-X vote will be split between Y and Z" - so you just give X a "-1" which is the proper formulation of your voice.

Originally Posted by DuB

I don't need to "prove" this any more than you need to "prove" that he wouldn't have. Speculating about counterfactual realities is not going to get us far at all here. Factual history is far more informative.

When it comes to politics, we have to speculate about what reality might be like. Your argument is founded on the idea that voting is useless because the candidates are similar to the point that there wouldn't be much of a difference today regardless of who actually took office. In order to make this argument with any degree of conviction, you must imagine, speculate, that any given administration would not have been much different from an opposing administration.

Even if two opposing candidates are essentially moderate, the one way, no matter how small, in which they potentially diverge could have such large consequences that it is worth choosing between them.

Perhaps the most common rebuttal to this reasoning is to point out that if everyone shared this attitude, no one would vote, and democracy would grind to a halt. In other words, if we lived in an alternate, fictional reality in which everyone shared my views, voting would be rational. Needless to say, I do not find this rebuttal very compelling.

And why isn't it a good argument? Being apathetic is a very common problem. It doesn't take a genius to conclude that voting isn't worth the effort because there are so many voters. In America, only about half of the 200 million eligible voters actually voted. Obama only won the popular vote by ten million. I say with confidence that most of those 100 million or so people who didn't vote were not disabled or otherwise had some other reason they couldn't vote. If only one-tenth of those people hold the same attitude as you, the outcome of the popular vote could have easily swung in McCain's favor. Food for thought: Survey Shows Why Many Americans Fail to Vote in Elections.

The payoffs of the voting game are not entirely objective. The expected payoff increases when you factor in the emotional boon or toll folks feel when they actually participate in democracy.

Bleagle, your position completely ignores the fact that the electoral college actually makes the decision of who becomes president. Its ironic too, because you chose the example of "what if Al Gore had become president" and whether or not we would have gone to war. Al Gore actually did win the popular vote, and yet George Bush was the one elected.

Woops, meant to put "popular vote" in place of "election" in the second to last sentence of the first paragraph.

Since this thread is about elections in general, not just presidential elections within the United States, I'm trying to make the point to DuB that unwillingness to vote is widespread and can affect the outcome of elections.

Also, the example I gave of Al Gore only coincides with my position that candidates are different and therefore it is worth choosing between them..

Originally Posted by Black_Eagle

When it comes to politics, we have to speculate about what reality might be like.
[..]
In order to make this argument with any degree of conviction, you must imagine, speculate, that any given administration would not have been much different from an opposing administration.

No, we don't and I don't. Speculation about "might-have-beens" is completely useless--nothing can ever be settled that way precisely because we can only speculate about them. They're moving targets which are open to anyone's interpretation. We need only refer to factual history; "actually-have-beens," if you like. History has shown us again and again that if candidates even attempt to uphold most of their campaign promises, you can bet that what we actually end up with is only a shadow of what was promised. We need to turn to facts, not stories and promises.

Originally Posted by Black_Eagle

Your argument is founded on the idea that voting is useless because the candidates are similar to the point that there wouldn't be much of a difference today regardless of who actually took office.

That's just icing on the cake. In the end, it doesn't really matter if I am voting between Hitler and Gandhi. My argument is founded on the objective fact that the chances of my vote making any mark on the political word at all--positive or negative--are approximately equal to my chances of winning a major lottery.

Originally Posted by Black_Eagle

And why isn't it a good argument?

To say that I should vote because "If everyone had your attitude, no one would vote and we would be screwed!" is an empty argument because, guess what: everyone doesn't! As I said in the OP, this "argument" is exactly the same as saying, "If we didn't live in the real world, but rather in some fictional place where everyone thought voting was pointless, things would be bad." Well, okay, that's an interesting proposition, but we happen to live right here in the real world where plenty of people like yourself are going to vote no matter what, nullifying any meaningful influence of my vote.

Originally Posted by Black_Eagle

The payoffs of the voting game are not entirely objective. The expected payoff increases when you factor in the emotional boon or toll folks feel when they actually participate in democracy.

I am willing to accept that for many people, there is some sort of emotional payoff from voting. Perhaps this can even partially account for the paradox of voting. My point is that this response doesn't make any sense. Why on Earth should voting simply feel good for it's own sake? The purpose of voting, and the thing which therefore might lead voting to feel good, is that it has the potential to effect political change. If my vote has little or no such potential, why on Earth should I feel good about voting? There is no such emotional payoff for me.

Originally Posted by Black_Eagle

To prove your final point, you must prove that Al Gore would have steered us into not one, but two wars, or you must prove that the occurrence of these wars is inconsequential to the state of the United States today.

Check out these Democrats, starting with Al Gore...









Democrats supported the war in Afghanistan also, but that was never swept under the rug. Plus, Democrats have dominated Congress for three years, and a Democrat has been president for a year and a half. What has happened with the two wars as a result? The Iraq war has continued without even the beginning of a withdrawal process, and the war in Afghanistan has been expanded, because that is what the Democrats in power want.

My opinion on systems of government is that they don't matter, since they are just preferences adopted by a populace.

People vote with the expectation they will select someone that will be good for them or the country as a whole. The reality is that typically even though they do vote for someone with this intent, they end up with someone not good. The result is essentially the same as if they didn't vote, which is why some people are apathetic and have given up on voting.

Voting is good, but it isn't the cure all. It is seen that you are participating to make a difference so to speak, but in reality you aren't really participating. You can't just go vote and expect to make a difference, that would be like donating money to a charity organization and expecting to make a difference. How you make a difference is active participation on a daily basis, which voting is in actuality inactive participation that been perverted by society into being viewed as active participation.

Should you vote? Yes, it is positive. Does just voting make a difference? Absolutely not, which to make a difference by only doing that one deed is almost impossible to make an impact to the point that is pretty much unnecessary.

Originally Posted by DuB

No, we don't and I don't. Speculation about "might-have-beens" is completely useless--nothing can ever be settled that way precisely because we can only speculate about them. They're moving targets which are open to anyone's interpretation. We need only refer to factual history; "actually-have-beens," if you like. History has shown us again and again that if candidates even attempt to uphold most of their campaign promises, you can bet that what we actually end up with is only a shadow of what was promised. We need to turn to facts, not stories and promises.

dont you think this is a bit hypocritical? Even if you point to history, its still speculation on what they will or wont uphold. Positive or negative on this stance, its still an assumption.

Originally Posted by DuB

To say that I should vote because "If everyone had your attitude, no one would vote and we would be screwed!" is an empty argument because, guess what: everyone doesn't! As I said in the OP, this "argument" is exactly the same as saying, "If we didn't live in the real world, but rather in some fictional place where everyone thought voting was pointless, things would be bad." Well, okay, that's an interesting proposition, but we happen to live right here in the real world where plenty of people like yourself are going to vote no matter what, nullifying any meaningful influence of my vote.

If thats how you feel, then heres the question. Do you want to promote the attitude you have? Because if so, then that question becomes more and more valid.

See, the thing is, at least in America, is that there are only two parties that will ever be in power. And they are partners, they play off the biases and prejudices of the other party to accomplish the same goals, as UM's posted videos point out. Did you know, in this last presidential election that the same International Banks and oil companies and chemical and pharmaceutical companies that financed Bush's campaigns and McCain's campaigns also funded Obama's campaigns? Each party just takes turns taking the blame so half the people think it is the other half's fault instead of the whole fault of the fake system. This way the people will always be against each other and not united. The liberals and the conservatives will blame each other while the democrats and the republicans will work together to bring about globalization. Obama doesn't want Universal Healthcare. But at least he can look like he is trying and the liberals will blame the republicans for blocking it. Then when people wise up and realize that he is full of shit they will vote for a conservative republican. Then the shoe will be on the other foot but nothing will change. See? Everyone hated Bush, so they voted for an inexperienced false prophet. It is a pendulum that keeps the whole clock ticking.
These people, at least on the federal level, are just the middle-men for the same global corporations that really call the shots.
Sure, I vote for the mayor, I vote for the city council, I even vote for state representatives sometimes, I vote for Sherriffs sometimes.
Next presidential election I will vote for either Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich. But these people have no chance of becoming president because they are not funded by international corporate dollars and cannot compete in campaigns. And if they DID win, and ACTUALLY change anything, they would be shot.

Originally Posted by tkdyo

dont you think this is a bit hypocritical? Even if you point to history, its still speculation on what they will or wont uphold. Positive or negative on this stance, its still an assumption.

Notice that what I said is worthless is speculation about what politicians could have possibly done in the past but didn't. I manifestly did not say that the general enterprise of trying to predict what someone will do in the future is worthless.

Originally Posted by tkdyo

Do you want to promote the attitude you have? Because if so, then that question becomes more and more valid.

I'm explaining my position, not trying to convince people that they ought to adopt it as well.

It is not true, that a person wins, and that is that. While the percentage a person wins by doesn't effect who wins, it does have an impact. A person who wins by half a percent of the vote is going to act very different from someone who won in a land slide victory. It is true that they are under no obligation to listen to anyone once elected, but if they ignore large sections of the vote, it causes problems. For one, not getting reelected next time around.

Now when it comes to Bush and now Obama, neither of them cared about popular opinion. Obama got elected and now he doesn't care what people think, he is just going to do what he wants to do. However with the more local elections, its far less likely an elected person is going to flat out ignore the people. This is especially true for people in the house of representatives, which has elections every two years. The house was made to be the popular opinion side of the government. A member of the house can't afford to just ignore people, and the margins they win by effect very much on how they act.

Originally Posted by Alric

While the percentage a person wins by doesn't effect who wins, it does have an impact. A person who wins by half a percent of the vote is going to act very different from someone who won in a land slide victory.

I disagree. Can you provide historical evidence for this claim?

Originally Posted by Alric

Now when it comes to Bush and now Obama, neither of them cared about popular opinion. Obama got elected and now he doesn't care what people think, he is just going to do what he wants to do.

If these are true, don't these examples run directly contrary to what you've just asserted? And if so, what accounts for these exceptions? Do we have any reason to think that future candidates will be very different?

Originally Posted by Alric

However with the more local elections, its far less likely an elected person is going to flat out ignore the people. This is especially true for people in the house of representatives, which has elections every two years. The house was made to be the popular opinion side of the government. A member of the house can't afford to just ignore people, and the margins they win by effect very much on how they act.

I agree that the expected payoff for voting in smaller, local elections is larger than in large, national elections. However, it's still not clear to me that it's appreciably high.

Originally Posted by Alric

This is especially true for people in the house of representatives, which has elections every two years. The house was made to be the popular opinion side of the government. A member of the house can't afford to just ignore people, and the margins they win by effect very much on how they act.

I'm so sure about that. What is it? Four years for unlimited medical, retirement, etc.? After that time period, they can do what ever they want. They make a crap load of money for nothing realistically. Most of the big money is made through their vote being bought through lobbyists. Since corporate political financing was reversed in January, them getting elected is pretty much solid regardless of what people think. They would have to seriously screw up like rape or something to that effect, but even then, money can be dished out to purchase a specific media broadcast.

People are naive. The proof is in the fact that there was little to no outcry when the Supreme Court reversed the ruling. Local elections are really the only way to go since the corporate eye will most likely view that as insignificant, which I'm talking the position of governor on down, non-federal.

The reason they get away with a lot of stuff, is because of people not voting. If everyone was voting they would get away with a lot less. Though people do get their voices heard, and things do change some times. I totally agree that the higher you go up the worse it gets as well. That is why local elections are so important. The issue here, is the people who don't vote, don't vote in the local stuff. The stuff they have the most impact in, they totally ignore. For every presidential election, there are 870 elections held for members of the house. Why do people focus on the 1 election, and ignore the other 870? Add in the senate and you got even more. Add in local government, and you got even more. How can people just blow off all the elections, because their upset about the presidential election? As for historical evidence, you don't even need that. Its a common practice in modern politics, for groups of people to trade their support for a candidate, in exchange for the candidates support on some issue. The bigger the group, the bigger the impact. It happens all the time. People look at politicians and they always look at the presidents, but ignore the thousands of lesser elected offices in the government. Because the president is big and important, its all people care about. I agree people are stupid, naive and generally under educated. Which is why they see the big ads and big tv coverage, and they flock and awe over the presidential election, yet they totally ignore all local elections, which are vastly more important to them, and which they have a far larger say. If you go down to the city level, a lot of the positions are in grasp of the average citizen. You can actually run and win elections in some of the spots, without millions of dollars of support.

Originally Posted by Alric

The reason they get away with a lot of stuff, is because of people not voting. If everyone was voting they would get away with a lot less. Though people do get their voices heard, and things do change some times. I totally agree that the higher you go up the worse it gets as well. That is why local elections are so important. The issue here, is the people who don't vote, don't vote in the local stuff. The stuff they have the most impact in, they totally ignore. For every presidential election, there are 870 elections held for members of the house. Why do people focus on the 1 election, and ignore the other 870? Add in the senate and you got even more. Add in local government, and you got even more. How can people just blow off all the elections, because their upset about the presidential election? As for historical evidence, you don't even need that. Its a common practice in modern politics, for groups of people to trade their support for a candidate, in exchange for the candidates support on some issue. The bigger the group, the bigger the impact. It happens all the time. People look at politicians and they always look at the presidents, but ignore the thousands of lesser elected offices in the government. Because the president is big and important, its all people care about. I agree people are stupid, naive and generally under educated. Which is why they see the big ads and big tv coverage, and they flock and awe over the presidential election, yet they totally ignore all local elections, which are vastly more important to them, and which they have a far larger say. If you go down to the city level, a lot of the positions are in grasp of the average citizen. You can actually run and win elections in some of the spots, without millions of dollars of support.

I totally agree what you say about voting on the local level. People might as well give up on voting on the Federal level. Ultimately, the construct or foundation begins at the base, which is the local level. That is the only way to make a difference that will funnel from the bottom on up. Likewise, local level votes are going to be viewed as insignificant by those counting the votes etc. because of the social engineering that has taken place in society.

The thing is, if people are mad and act on emotion, they are very very easy to sway. How do people think Hitler arose to power? He took everyones' simple minuscule griefs and focused them on one object of blame for their woes. Thats it, but he was crazy, which sucks.

Originally Posted by Xei

You're seriously saying that governments do not influence society?

You're seriously saying that society does not influence government? Here's a thought - what would our government look like if everyone was a fundie christian? Now how different would that picture be if everyone was atheist?

That is the power of social change. And no, it doesn't happen through a government. Government only reflects the social change already taking place through policy. But it does not create the social change.

Just as local governments come before the federal in the bottom up picture - the society voting comes before the local governments. Therefore society and the value she holds is actually the power at the bottom of the entire picture. Change americans and you change america.

Sorry, no, you can't complain

You might as well triple dare me, you can't stop anyone from complaining by saying they can't complain

Yes, but last general election, I didn't pay much attention at all, and ended up voting based on arbitrary reasons...for example, I voted for some guy named Baker because I thought that "cookin' up justice" was a cool campaign slogan. And then I voted for a guy named Charles, because I've never known any evil Charleses. It was the primary...I was mostly there to fuck with the Republican ballot anyway.

Originally Posted by Mario92

And then I voted for a guy named Charles, because I've never known any evil Charleses.

Never heard of Charles Manson?

At the UK 2010 General Election I was 34 days too young to vote, so unless the coallition falls apart, my first time voting could be aged almost 23. If I was 18 at this election, I wouldn't have voted as the British National Party didn't put up a candidate, however for the next election there most likly will be one, So I probably will vote in the 2015 General Election.

You're seriously saying that society does not influence government? Here's a thought - what would our government look like if everyone was a fundie christian? Now how different would that picture be if everyone was atheist?

That is the power of social change. And no, it doesn't happen through a government. Government only reflects the social change already taking place through policy. But it does not create the social change.

Just as local governments come before the federal in the bottom up picture - the society voting comes before the local governments. Therefore society and the value she holds is actually the power at the bottom of the entire picture. Change americans and you change america.

If you could perhaps respond to the questions I actually asked.

Originally Posted by Alric

Never heard of Charles Manson?

Well, yes, I suppose there's that, but Charles Gibson kind of balances out the lunacy, I think.

I'm not about to say everyone should vote or, as some have said, that the system relies on every person voting and non-voters are "what's wrong with the system." If you don't want to participate, knock yourself out. "My vote won't matter," however, is a feeble rationalization. If, collectively, votes influence officeholder and/or policy outcomes (as in ballot initiatives), then every vote in the collective influences the outcome. If not, then which votes did matter and which did not? There's no probability about it: if you voted, it influenced the outcome.

Granted, the impact of voting is small, and if you only vote in national elections, it's about the smallest possible impact you can have on your government, neck-and-neck with posting opinions on the internet. As has been said, it's the least you can do, and if the least you can do is the most you're willing, it's probably all the influence you should have. If you're really troubled by the infinitesimal impact of your vote and/or the range of available candidates, however, there are lots of things you can do. For instance, seed the parties with candidates that represent your views in local and state government. Work for a campaign. Run for office.

Want to vote directly for the President? Become a member of the electoral college.

If you choose not to participate in a representative democracy to even the bare minimum standard of casting a vote, then yes, you can complain about the state of that democracy: just not credibly.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

If, collectively, votes influence officeholder and/or policy outcomes (as in ballot initiatives), then every vote in the collective influences the outcome. If not, then which votes did matter and which did not? There's no probability about it: if you voted, it influenced the outcome.

Oh, okay.
These aren't the droids we're looking for...

BNP / 'Britishness' discussion split to new thread.

Originally Posted by DuB

Oh, okay.
These aren't the droids we're looking for...

Are you admitting to hand-waving, accusing me of it, or just begging off on the discussion?

You've called several positions in this thread hypothetical fantasies. Here are a couple more:

Originally Posted by DuB

As an individual (i.e., not as a society), ought I to exercise my right to vote in political elections?

Voting is by definition an act of participation in the social collective. Every decision one makes takes place within the context of society, local, national and global, and the most informed decision that will ultimately best serve one's self interest must take that context into account. Of course, you're welcome to make decisions based on the fiction of isolated self interest, but they're likely to be ill-informed and self-defeating.

Originally Posted by DuB

If I am voting in a presidential election, the fair and reasonable expectation would be that my vote is, in principle, capable of electing a president;

Not if you're voting in a presidential election in the USA, Earth, Reality. We have a representative democracy in which voting for officeholders and/or those who will appoint them is the lowest level of participation. If you want to participate on the level of directly voting for the president, again, become a member of the electoral college--the Illuminati it ain't, though it will require devoting much more of your time to the political process. The decision to vote isn't about the effectiveness of voting, and certainly not about the effectiveness of the individual vote; it's a given that quadrennial or biennial voting is the barest minimum commitment of resources for the barest minimum influence on government. There are much greater degrees of influence to be had if one is willing to commit more resources to pursuing them. What the decision to vote comes down to is whether or not to participate at all.