Thread: The voter's dilemma

Originally Posted by DuB

Accusing. Perhaps my primary argument is for the conclusion that 99.99% of the time my vote will not influence the outcome of an election. Since your assurance that "if you voted, it influenced the outcome" doesn't actually address the logic or premises of my argument and it doesn't introduce a new argument, it's simply a handwaved-over assertion that what I said is wrong. If the outcome of an election is exactly the same no matter how or whether I cast my vote--as it is in almost every imaginable case--then in what possible sense has my vote influenced that outcome?

Influencing the outcome =/= casting the deciding vote. True, in 99.99% of democratic elections there is no such thing as a deciding vote, because all votes cast and counted influence the outcome equally. The only thing to be argued statistically is how much any given vote influences the election. If you accept that the total body of votes influences the outcome of the election, then by what magical mechanism can any vote within that body fail to have influence? As Alric already pointed out, that your vote lacks the power to decide the election is the point of democracy.

Voting is the initiatory, not the sole act of participation in a democracy. While your individual vote may have minuscule influence (but cannot fail to have influence) in any given race, you are free to participate in other, proportionately more influential events leading up to the vote, including earlier elections for lower offices from which the pool of candidates was drawn. You're also free to participate collectively with like minded persons in finding, promoting and/or influencing candidates.

Running a cost/benefit analysis on going to a polling place and voting on a single race is almost a non sequitur to the question of whether or not to vote in general, a question which already ignores large swaths of the democratic process. The salient question is, "How and to what extent do I wish to participate in my democracy?" Obviously, there's not going to be a great divide between the options you're entertaining: barely, or not at all.

Originally Posted by DuB

I'm not sure exactly what you're getting at here. I may live in a social collective, but I am still an individual: my costs are not your costs, your benefits are not my benefits, etc., so I fail to see why self-interest is fictional, ill-informed, or self-defeating. I'm not falling for your Jedi mind tricks this time!

The majority of your costs and benefits ARE my costs and benefits, and there are a number of means by which you profit more directly, now and in the long term, by pursuing that which benefits others as well as yourself rather than that which appears to give you the greatest immediate reward. In the simplest terms, you will live in a more pleasant society where those around you are more agreeable because you have promoted their well being, and others may be more likely to promote your well being on the basis of your influence. We support each other's very existence, and cannot be disentangled.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

Influencing the outcome =/= casting the deciding vote. True, in 99.99% of democratic elections there is no such thing as a deciding vote, because all votes cast and counted influence the outcome equally. The only thing to be argued statistically is how much any given vote influences the election. If you accept that the total body of votes influences the outcome of the election, then by what magical mechanism can any vote within that body fail to have influence? As Alric already pointed out, that your vote lacks the power to decide the election is the point of democracy.

Voting is the initiatory, not the sole act of participation in a democracy. While your individual vote may have minuscule influence (but cannot fail to have influence) in any given race, you are free to participate in other, proportionately more influential events leading up to the vote, including earlier elections for lower offices from which the pool of candidates was drawn. You're also free to participate collectively with like minded persons in finding, promoting and/or influencing candidates.

Running a cost/benefit analysis on going to a polling place and voting on a single race is almost a non sequitur to the question of whether or not to vote in general, a question which already ignores large swaths of the democratic process. The salient question is, "How and to what extent do I wish to participate in my democracy?" Obviously, there's not going to be a great divide between the options you're entertaining: barely, or not at all.

I think you're using a broader and seemingly more nebulous definition of what it means to "influence" an electoral outcome than I am. For binary-outcome events such as this, "influencing" the outcome--that is to say, producing any observable effect on the outcome--is synonymous with determining the outcome, because there are only two observable states which the outcome can occupy. If for 99.99% of elections, my vote is not capable of producing any observable effect on the outcome, then by my definition, my vote is not capable of influencing the outcome 99.99% of the time. I'd be interested to hear you elaborate on your definition which apparently holds that even in these cases, my vote would somehow still "influence" the outcome. Whatever the definition is, such influence doesn't sound like much of a consolation for someone who was hoping for their vote to actually have some effect on the political world (the purported purpose of voting, unless I'm mistaken and it's actually something much more mysterious).

I don't accept your premise that if an aggregate does or causes (or "influences") something, this implies that each individual in the aggregate did or caused that something. This carelessly conflates two different levels of abstraction, and we don't even have to switch contexts to see that this leads to some rather absurd claims. As an example, if the aggregate of votes caused Obama to win our last presidential election, does that imply that each individual vote caused Obama to win? Of course not. More generally, the fact that an electoral outcome is determined by the aggregate of the votes does not imply that each individual vote determined (or "influenced"--see above) the outcome. No magical mechanism required--it simply does not follow.

And yes, I understand that there are other ways to participate in a democracy than to vote, as you have repeatedly reminded me. Your points on the many other ways to effect political change are well taken, however, since I created this thread to be about voting per se, you'll forgive me if that's what I've chosen to focus on for this discussion.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

The majority of your costs and benefits ARE my costs and benefits, and there are a number of means by which you profit more directly, now and in the long term, by pursuing that which benefits others as well as yourself rather than that which appears to give you the greatest immediate reward. In the simplest terms, you will live in a more pleasant society where those around you are more agreeable because you have promoted their well being, and others may be more likely to promote your well being on the basis of your influence. We support each other's very existence, and cannot be disentangled.

That is interesting: Notice that in making the case that it is often desirable for me to pursue others' interests even before my own, you did so by appealing to the fact that it would ultimately be in my self-interest to do so. So you seem to acknowledge on some level or other that, at the end of the day, behavior is guided by self-interest.

This is all a bit of a tangent in any case, since my purpose in making the statement you were replying to ("ought I as an individual," etc.) was simply that I wanted the discussion to be about whether people who already live in a voting society should participate in the voting, as opposed to the very different question of whether we should prefer voting or non-voting societies.

Originally Posted by DuB

I think you're using a broader and seemingly more nebulous definition of what it means to "influence" an electoral outcome than I am.

And you're using a reductive abstraction all but irrelevant to the question of whether voting, and by extension participation in democracy, is effective. Again, the fact that the effects of individual votes are not observable in the aggregate is the point of having an election. If contributing to the aggregate that determines the outcome of an election (particularly if you've already contributed to the aggregate determining who the candidates are, and the aggregates determining who the possible electoral delegates are, in a Presidential election) does not constitute influence on the outcome, what does? Your vote does not count more in an outcome of 671 to 670 than in an outcome of 841 to 176, but it doesn't count any less in the second case, either. The aggregate is not known until after it has formed, after the votes have been cast, and at that point speculation on what "would have happened" if you had not voted or voted differently is moot.

What exactly are your criteria for having an influence on the outcome of an election, your 0.01% of cases?

Originally Posted by DuB

As an example, if the aggregate of votes caused Obama to win our last presidential election, does that imply that each individual vote caused Obama to win?

Imply nothing: it follows without question. Rather, each vote contributed to the win, which is both the minimum and the full extent of influence one can expect from voting alone.

Originally Posted by DuB

I think you're using a broader and seemingly more nebulous definition of what it means to "influence" an electoral outcome than I am. For binary-outcome events such as this, "influencing" the outcome--that is to say, producing any observable effect on the outcome--is synonymous with determining the outcome, because there are only two observable states which the outcome can occupy. If for 99.99% of elections, my vote is not capable of producing any observable effect on the outcome, then by my definition, my vote is not capable of influencing the outcome 99.99% of the time. I'd be interested to hear you elaborate on your definition which apparently holds that even in these cases, my vote would somehow still "influence" the outcome. Whatever the definition is, such influence doesn't sound like much of a consolation for someone who was hoping for their vote to actually have some effect on the political world (the purported purpose of voting, unless I'm mistaken and it's actually something much more mysterious).

I don't accept your premise that if an aggregate does or causes (or "influences") something, this implies that each individual in the aggregate did or caused that something. This carelessly conflates two different levels of abstraction, and we don't even have to switch contexts to see that this leads to some rather absurd claims. As an example, if the aggregate of votes caused Obama to win our last presidential election, does that imply that each individual vote caused Obama to win? Of course not. More generally, the fact that an electoral outcome is determined by the aggregate of the votes does not imply that each individual vote determined (or "influenced"--see above) the outcome. No magical mechanism required--it simply does not follow.

I don't think there's any use in worrying about whether there is an observable impact or not, it seems Taosaur is merely pointing out the fact that each and every individual's votes counts. By influence, I highly doubt he means in terms of causality, but influence in terms of contribution. Every vote contributes, and in that sense, obviously everybody who votes for Obama is a contributory and a collective influence to Obama's win. It really isn't that complicated. We can talk all day about whether it is a big or small contribution, but in the end a vote is a vote.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

And you're using a reductive abstraction all but irrelevant to the question of whether voting, and by extension participation in democracy, is effective.

Interestingly, the great majority of political scientists, economists, and sociologists over the past 50+ years seem to think that it's a very relevant analysis. I've been hesitant to play the appeal-to-authority card, but this is one of the most well-studied problems in social science, the reason being that the logic is sound and compelling, notwithstanding your refusal to grasp it.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

If contributing to the aggregate that determines the outcome of an election [...] does not constitute influence on the outcome, what does?
[...]
What exactly are your criteria for having an influence on the outcome of an election, your 0.01% of cases?

To be utterly frank, if you really haven't figured out what I mean by now, you're not going to, and there's no point in us continuing. I was very clear on this point in my last post and in my earlier posts. I don't have the patience to keep explaining myself.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

Imply nothing: it follows without question. Rather, each vote contributed to the win, which is both the minimum and the full extent of influence one can expect from voting alone.

So, for example, the 59,934,814 individual votes cast in favor of John McCain each individually contributed to Obama's win? Now that is interesting. I wonder if those individuals would agree with you? My intuition tells me that they would question whether that follows. Or wait, do they not count as part of the aggregate of votes?

Originally Posted by really

I don't think there's any use in worrying about whether there is an observable impact or not, it seems Taosaur is merely pointing out the fact that each and every individual's votes counts. By influence, I highly doubt he means in terms of causality, but influence in terms of contribution.

Oohh, so you're telling me that by casting my vote, I can raise the ticker from 70,000,000 : 60,000,000 to 70,000,001 : 60,000,000? My God, if I only I had realized my vote held so much influence! Believe you me, I'll never be late to the polls again.

More seriously, if the definition of "influence" and/or "contribution" that is being sold to me is simply that I can say "Yeah, I was there on top of the dogpile for Obama!", with practically no expectation that my actions actually made a damn bit of causal difference, then hopefully you can understand my reluctance to drink the voting Kool-Aid. I have better things to do with my time. In fact, I can't think of anything more worthless.

Originally Posted by DuB

Interestingly, the great majority of political scientists, economists, and sociologists over the past 50+ years seem to think that it's a very relevant analysis. I've been hesitant to play the appeal-to-authority card, but this is one of the most well-studied problems in social science, the reason being that the logic is sound and compelling, notwithstanding your refusal to grasp it.

Whether it is effective or insignificant is a matter of viewpoint; you don't need to have studied years in university to see this. If just one individual's study from the collective "great majority of political scientists, economists, and sociologists over the past 50+ years" were to be shown isolated by itself, does it really seem to have as much value? Although it is a more complicated matter, I'm wondering if this is almost analogous to what you've been saying about voting.

Oohh, so you're telling me that by casting my vote, I can raise the ticker from 70,000,000 : 60,000,000 to 70,000,001 : 60,000,000? My God, if I only I had realized my vote held so much influence! Believe you me, I'll never be late to the polls again.

More seriously, if the definition of "influence" and/or "contribution" that is being sold to me is simply that I can say "Yeah, I was there on top of the dogpile for Obama!", with practically no expectation that my actions actually made a damn bit of causal difference, then hopefully you can understand my reluctance to drink the voting Kool-Aid. I have better things to do with my time. In fact, I can't think of anything more worthless.

Voting has its place in the world, and given typical circumstances if anything was changed it probably wouldn't be called 'voting' anymore. If you want your votes to be worth more, or maybe just want to better have your say, maybe you should be a politician. Because otherwise at this stage, the allocated selection of choice is just what you have to deal with. If you're just complaining because it doesn't mean much to you and you want it to be different, then you're inventing your own dilemma. Voting should not be about how much power or influence you have, but the point lies in the bigger picture, and that is, what power or influence the population has collectively.

Voting is not about you changing the world by raising your hand. You're just giving your two cents worth, and nothing more is asked of you. Maybe you are worthless as an individual person, until you feel the need to participate in a vote, or perhaps until you are invited to. Maybe your vote seems pointless, until it is counted, recorded and registered. We can talk all day about whether it is a big or small contribution, but in the end a vote is a vote.

Originally Posted by DuB

Interestingly, the great majority of political scientists, economists, and sociologists over the past 50+ years seem to think that it's a very relevant analysis. I've been hesitant to play the appeal-to-authority card, but this is one of the most well-studied problems in social science, the reason being that the logic is sound and compelling, notwithstanding your refusal to grasp it.

They may find it worthy of teaching, including in textbooks and writing papers about, but if you subjected them to this poll, how many do you think would have found it adequate rationale not to vote? I suspect a majority of the people most conversant with this analysis DO vote, probably more regularly than the general population, given their education level and special interest in the field.

All you're talking about is statistical analysis of the likelihood of casting a deciding vote in a binary outcome election. I grasp it--with a pair of tweezers, because it's such a tiny sliver of the relevant information to consider in deciding your level of participation in a democracy. Most people do not go to the polls with any expectation of casting a deciding vote--something I can only assume you define as voting in an election where the winning margin was one (1) vote. Of course, a real "deciding vote" is one in which all voters positions are known except your own, which will then "decide" the outcome: an impossibility in popular elections, and therefor an absurd criterion for participating.

Originally Posted by DuB

So, for example, the 59,934,814 individual votes cast in favor of John McCain each individually contributed to Obama's win? Now that is interesting. I wonder if those individuals would agree with you? My intuition tells me that they would question whether that follows. Or wait, do they not count as part of the aggregate of votes?

They contributed to the outcome of the election, the total aggregate of votes. Would they have found it more emotionally satisfying if that outcome had favored their candidate? Sure. Would their influence/contribution/effect have been any greater? Not a bit. To say they contributed to Obama's win is probably an oversimplification, though not quite as absurd as saying they had no effect on the outcome at all.

Originally Posted by DuB

More seriously, if the definition of "influence" and/or "contribution" that is being sold to me is simply that I can say "Yeah, I was there on top of the dogpile for Obama!", with practically no expectation that my actions actually made a damn bit of causal difference, then hopefully you can understand my reluctance to drink the voting Kool-Aid. I have better things to do with my time. In fact, I can't think of anything more worthless.

You've made your position clear enough. As Alric pointed out early in the thread, it's an arrogant position, antithetical to the purpose of holding democratic elections.

To say I vote "regularily" might be a bit of an overstatement, seeing how there's only been one election after I became old enough to cast a vote, but in principle: Yes, I vote.

There are two reasons why I do this. 1: My vote does make a difference, albeit a small one. 2: Since we have a multiple parties to vote for, currently 7 different political parties are represented in our parliament, it's possible to find an influential party that stands for your most important values.
However, I believe people should vote for the party best suited to their views even if it's not represented in the parliament, or if no party is suitable they should cast a "blank" vote (a vote that's not for any party)

However, I have a question for DuB. If there was a change in the way presidential elections were handled in the US, for instance so that presidential elections were determined by a nation-wide majority, would you still choose not to vote?

So, who counts the votes?

khh: Probably so.

Originally Posted by khh

Since we have a multiple parties to vote for, currently 7 different political parties are represented in our parliament, it's possible to find an influential party that stands for your most important values.

You'd think so, wouldn't you.

Well, I don't usually argue much on national issues, I'm much more interested in EU and global issues, in which really no one has any influence, but that are much much more important. If I could have voted on Lisabon, I would have. I don't much complain about tax or school reforms, etc. because yea, you usually would have an alternative party, albeit that what they say before the election has no merit on what they will do in their terms, but there are slight differences, on these lower political spheres.

The reason I haven't voted in the previous elections was, well I wasn't inside my country, but I wouldn't have voted even if I were here, because I do not feel represented at all, I don't want any of them to be the head of state or ministers, I think that the serious issues I care about are either ignored or absurdly misrepresented and that being part of the mainstream political progress is keeping your brains numb and far from the diversity of what's actually going on. And what's worse, I don't think there could be any way that this would change, it's not possible through political means, because there is a certain status quo of opinion that is carefully nurtured, by both politics and media, albeit for different reasons. This must have become obvious at least through the financial crisis.

I wouldn't discount becoming involved in political processes or educational work, I often consider actively trying to do my part, which I quite likely will, but it would never, ever do that by means of the 'natural political process', because I feel it's a charade and a bureaucratic waste of time that could be very effectively spent to actually get somewhere (e.g. helping people directly). I'm a student of media-sciences, planning to do my master in media-ethics, so there is an actual chance I will be working in support of objective and honest journalism at some point (which I consider the most important, fourth pillar in a democracy and which is dysfunctioning). But I do think that everyone carries a responsibility, I just don't limit it to voting.

my opinion