A single vote doesn't make a difference

[Corporate Thug]

if everybody thought that way, then our democratic system would be in shambles, and the election would fail.

but everyone doesnt think that way so it doesnt matter

 

[Kipper]

Originally posted by: Lazee

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: tweakmm
You are comparing apples to oranges. If somebody treats a person unfairly a single entity is affected. When somebody casts a vote it probably won't make a difference. If the previous election's didn't provide enough evidence, with the current electorial college system, depending on what state one resides in a single vote doesn't mean sh!t.

i agree.

I think the electorial college needs to be abolished and have the presidancy elected on the popular vote. I understand why the electorial college was started. But i i dont think it is really needed today.

I dont know why im writing this since this thread will get locked due to the virgin and the pussy but anyway, the electorial college will never get abandoned due to the fact that there are more midde/lower income people then upperclass folks. No way in the world will rich republicans let the popular vote matter.

The electoral college will probably not be abolished but could use some modification. For instance, altering the 'winner takes all' system of politics we have in this country would allow for a significant amount of proportional representation. WOMEN could have their own party, disenfranchised Blacks who the Democratic party barely even represents could have their own party, etc. The benefits far outweigh the possible negatives, IMO. The current two-party system is so obsolete and overstretched that you have union workers flying the same party flags as Democrat business leaders and Jerry Falwell in bed with people whose worldviews are essentially opposite to his own.

However, it is unlikely we will see any sort of modification for the next decade as the two political parties yell at each other, accusing the other of being Satan. Neither wishes to give up political power as well...with the influx of strong 3rd party candidates in the past decade (Perot got double-digit popular votes!) I am sure we will see a gradual shift. But don't expect it to happen overnight...changes to the electoral system will come as slowly as minority Presidents.

 

[bmacd]

glad to see the thread got back on track 🙂

-=bmacd=-

 

[her209]

OMG, its the Architect from Matrix 2. :Q

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Lazee

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: tweakmm
You are comparing apples to oranges. If somebody treats a person unfairly a single entity is affected. When somebody casts a vote it probably won't make a difference. If the previous election's didn't provide enough evidence, with the current electorial college system, depending on what state one resides in a single vote doesn't mean sh!t.

i agree.

I think the electorial college needs to be abolished and have the presidancy elected on the popular vote. I understand why the electorial college was started. But i i dont think it is really needed today.

I dont know why im writing this since this thread will get locked due to the virgin and the pussy but anyway, the electorial college will never get abandoned due to the fact that there are more midde/lower income people then upperclass folks. No way in the world will rich republicans let the popular vote matter.

While i agree it will never happen blaming it on rich republicans is silly. Its not just the republicans it is also the demcrats etc.

both have been in power and neither have said anything about it.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: bmacd
glad to see the thread got back on track 🙂

-=bmacd=-

I wouldn't say it was ever on track, unless that track is leading off a cliff.

 

[imported_KirbsAw]

So this thread is about voting? or virtue? or internet virgins? 😕

 

[StageLeft]

I've gone into this before, but it's true that in an election of any size a single vote is inconsequential to the point of being meaningless. The argument that "if everybody thought that way" is shortsighted and fallacious. The fact is, if I vote or do not vote, it will not affect anybody else voting. If you want to convince somebody with a brain to vote, that is not the argument to use.

 

[pyonir]

I wish i had a real doll. 🙁

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: pyonir
I wish i had a real doll. 🙁

Your doll is exactly as advertised and has fulfilled all of my expectations and more. The only thing better would be 2 dolls. I don't know when I'll be able to afford another one, but I'm working on it.

 

[oogabooga]

i love the people who do not vote, yet criticize bush. Especially the ones based in florida, great jorb there. The democratic process requires the participation of all individuals within that society. My opinion is don't vote, then don't exercise your other rights as well.

I think though, this isn't your point, but because it's in the subject line that's what everyone's talking about

Voting and Virtue- i think the two are related enough to compare, but not quite related enough to make a direct comparison. It is true that a vote is not statisitcally significant, however, this does not make a vote insignificant. Your vote still counts, and it is that essence that makes it significant. The idea that someone's vote doesn't make a different is asinine as clearly these canidates are getting their votes from individuals, not just collective bodies with a lot of votes (though this is arguable i suppose)

With virtue though, you're talking about direct interaction between individuals. If i thread crap your thread, it's not quite like choosing not to vote. If everyone chose not to vote, the system would fall apart. Likewise, if everyone chose not to practice virtue, patience, etc then society would fall apart. On the individual level if someone chose not to vote, though their direct action isn't an endall for society, it still has it's implications. However do somethind that isn't virtuous, and you'll find that your action still takes significance. Mainly in the sense that you've done a disservice to another individual, and there's nothing people like to spread more than a bad mood. In essence your act of misvirtue so to speak, will likely set in motion the events to your own downfall. Plus you only get one vote, but if you completely abandon 'virtue' then you'll probally be throwing sh!t into the wind that a lot of people will be eager to throw back.

I'm not sure what i've said makes sense, but i think i see where you're getting at. If not just ignore what i've said.

 

[wviperw]

I've gone into this before, but it's true that in an election of any size a single vote is inconsequential to the point of being meaningless. The argument that "if everybody thought that way" is shortsighted and fallacious. The fact is, if I vote or do not vote, it will not affect anybody else voting. If you want to convince somebody with a brain to vote, that is not the argument to use.

Finally somebody who understands the point I was trying to get across. 🙂 So what would be an argument for somebody with a brain to vote? For example, I am not registered to vote, and others wonder why. It is not out of a disrespect for society as much as it is me thinking it is pointless for myself as an individual to vote (not to mention the whole election deal is pretty corrupted to begin with, on both sides of the fence).

 

[wviperw]

i love the people who do not vote, yet criticize bush. Especially the ones based in florida, great jorb there. The democratic process requires the participation of all individuals within that society. My opinion is don't vote, then don't exercise your other rights as well.

I think though, this isn't your point, but because it's in the subject line that's what everyone's talking about

I think you're talking to somebody else above (?), but just to make sure, I don't criticize either party at all. I refrain from any politcal discussions or views, frankly because it does me no good to get my panties in a knot over something that, ultimately, will have little to no effect on my life. Yeah, I altered my subject line quite a few times before posting--hard to express my ideas in 3-5 words. 🙂

Voting and Virtue- i think the two are related enough to compare, but not quite related enough to make a direct comparison. It is true that a vote is not statisitcally significant, however, this does not make a vote insignificant. Your vote still counts, and it is that essence that makes it significant. The idea that someone's vote doesn't make a different is asinine as clearly these canidates are getting their votes from individuals, not just collective bodies with a lot of votes (though this is arguable i suppose)

Yes, your vote still technically counts, but in the vast scheme of things, the only difference between voting and nonvoting for a single individual will be the "good feeling" he gets from voting. I'd contend that the canidates get their votes from collective bodies, since that is how they campaign (to demographics). Of course, the individual still has a right to vote whatever he wants. But ultimately, I don't think our current voting system is designed to measure the accuracy of single votes. At times, the voting system can be wildly inaccurate as a result of ballot stuffing, lost ballots, florida, etc. Instead, the popular vote is there to get a gist of things more or less.

An analogy might be a quantum physicist trying to measure the number of quantum particles in a given substance (bear in mind that IANAQP). His tool to measure the quantum particles is only so precise, and can not therefore measure it down to the exact number of particles (not to mention Heisenberg). There will always be a few stray ones that the device misses, and maybe a few extra blotches that it mistakes for quantum particles. The device ultimately just gives a pretty good estimate as to the number of quantum particles, so having a single quantum particle who didn't decide to show up that day in the lab won't affect things.

With virtue though, you're talking about direct interaction between individuals. If i thread crap your thread, it's not quite like choosing not to vote. If everyone chose not to vote, the system would fall apart. Likewise, if everyone chose not to practice virtue, patience, etc then society would fall apart. On the individual level if someone chose not to vote, though their direct action isn't an endall for society, it still has it's implications. However do somethind that isn't virtuous, and you'll find that your action still takes significance. Mainly in the sense that you've done a disservice to another individual, and there's nothing people like to spread more than a bad mood. In essence your act of misvirtue so to speak, will likely set in motion the events to your own downfall. Plus you only get one vote, but if you completely abandon 'virtue' then you'll probally be throwing sh!t into the wind that a lot of people will be eager to throw back.

Well yeah, I agree with you that in close 1-on-1 relationships, others will notice if you're not being "good". And it is wise to "play nice" in the world, otherwise, like you said, you'll get what you deserve. Also, it is wise to follow the rules authority sets down, because again, you don't want to face the consequences. But what about when it is a relationship between you and authority/society in general, and let's say that you can get away with doing something bad towards them without anybody really noticing/caring. At this point, what reason do you have to do the right thing? See my Microsoft example above to see what I'm talking about here.

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
I've gone into this before, but it's true that in an election of any size a single vote is inconsequential to the point of being meaningless. The argument that "if everybody thought that way" is shortsighted and fallacious. The fact is, if I vote or do not vote, it will not affect anybody else voting. If you want to convince somebody with a brain to vote, that is not the argument to use.

the very act of you voting doesn't affect anyone else, but the attitude of "single votes don't matter" does.

 

[wviperw]

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: Skoorb
I've gone into this before, but it's true that in an election of any size a single vote is inconsequential to the point of being meaningless. The argument that "if everybody thought that way" is shortsighted and fallacious. The fact is, if I vote or do not vote, it will not affect anybody else voting. If you want to convince somebody with a brain to vote, that is not the argument to use.

the very act of you voting doesn't affect anyone else, but the attitude of "single votes don't matter" does.

That's actually a point that I had never really thought of before. So if the individual doesn't make his opinions public, it'd be okay for the most part. This is the first time that I've purposefully brought the issue to public, so it is not like I go around trying to get people to join my side. Good point though.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: Skoorb
I've gone into this before, but it's true that in an election of any size a single vote is inconsequential to the point of being meaningless. The argument that "if everybody thought that way" is shortsighted and fallacious. The fact is, if I vote or do not vote, it will not affect anybody else voting. If you want to convince somebody with a brain to vote, that is not the argument to use.

the very act of you voting doesn't affect anyone else, but the attitude of "single votes don't matter" does.

So essentially it's an unspoken fact, because we don't want the public to be aware of it? If that's the case I'm not sure I'd want people that dim witted to vote anyway. Would you?

what would be an argument for somebody with a brain to vote?

I've never heard it.

 

[gopunk]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: gopunk

Originally posted by: Skoorb
I've gone into this before, but it's true that in an election of any size a single vote is inconsequential to the point of being meaningless. The argument that "if everybody thought that way" is shortsighted and fallacious. The fact is, if I vote or do not vote, it will not affect anybody else voting. If you want to convince somebody with a brain to vote, that is not the argument to use.

the very act of you voting doesn't affect anyone else, but the attitude of "single votes don't matter" does.

So essentially it's an unspoken fact, because we don't want the public to be aware of it? If that's the case I'm not sure I'd want people that dim witted to vote anyway. Would you?

if you don't want dim-witted people to vote, don't live in a democracy 😛

anyways, it's not so much that you need to keep it an unspoken fact, but that in order for a democracy to work, and many other systems, there are key behaviors and viewpoints that need to be held by the components of the system. from a purely selfish standpoint, a lot of the required behavior is a waste of time, but on a whole, it keeps the gears greased. so you're not trying to hide it from the dim-witted ones so much as just cultivating and fostering the concept of political responsibility in this society.

 

[remagavon]

Originally posted by: wviperw
Sorry for the poor subject line. It is really hard to express in words what I am trying to get at, but here it goes.

There is an old argument for matters concerning the individual's "duty" to society, in such areas as political involvement (voting), morality, virtue, the Golden Rule, etc. The argument goes something like this:

Rebellious teenager refuses to vote because he doesn't think a *single* vote will make a difference. Wise adult explains that if everybody thought that way, then our democratic system would be in shambles, and the election would fail.

The same argument can be applied to why an individual should exercise virtue, integrity, etc. (the Golden Rule principle). However, to me this argument doesn't seem to hold up. In the political analogy, statistically, a single vote really doesn't count (in major elections), no matter how much people try to convince you that it does. In the morality analogy, why *shouldn't* an individual think that the Golden Rule should be applied to everyone but himself?

Let's say an individual recognizes no supernatural being. What reason does that individual have to exercise "virtue"? I can see a reason for him to exercise morality to a point--after all, the moral life tends to be easier and happier to live (e.g. - you're not sent to prison). But is there a reason for that individual to exercise personal integrity and virtue, other than to make himself "feel good"?

What type of election are you talking about? If it's the Presidential one then we're voting for members of the electoral college that "should" *cough last election* elect a predetermined candidate. If you are refering to a vote outside of our Presidential system then your analogy does hold some weight but I don't follow how the democratic system falling apart has anything to do with integrity.

I don't put my moral weight into a supernatural force, I simply do the right thing (subjectively of course) because I personally feel that it is the .. right thing to do, pardon the reuse of the phrase. It's not about 'feeling good', if I wanted to feel good I'd do drugs and get drunk during my spare time, but I don't think that those things are productive or ethical when some other factors are brought into the picture (children). It's about personal choice, and it is up to the individual to decide what he or she is going to do with themselves- it is difficult, more likely impossible to put a label on everyone.

 

[wviperw]

I simply do the right thing (subjectively of course) because I personally feel that it is the .. right thing to do, pardon the reuse of the phrase. It's not about 'feeling good'

You "feeling it is the right thing to do" is entirely subjective however. Where did this feeling come from? It most likely came from the way you were raised, whether you are conscious of that fact or not. As soon as we start defing morality like this, we start getting those wackos who "feel it is the right thing to do" in blowing people up. Right?

This argument is at the core of what I am trying to understand here. You say you don't put weight in the supernatural, but then you go on to say that you base your morality off of "feelings" and "choice." What are these then based on? Is it possible that you choose to do the right thing because it gives you a deeper sense of "feeling good," a sense of "hey, i'm a good person!"? No, I'm not suggesting you're boasting and you're not *really* saying this to yourself, of course. It is more subtle than that. The line of reasoning deep down inside might be: do the right thing because.... it is what one should do.... because it is what society defines as good to do... because I want to fit in with society... because then I will be happier...

(btw, please don't take me as trying to attack your argument. I am really hoping and trying to understand it.)

 

[nageov3t]

I don't mind people who don't vote. What pisses me off are the people who don't vote and complain about the state of the country.

My roommate is the poster child for these people. He rails on the FCC and Bush almost every day (mostly for the Howard Stern issue), yet refuses to vote for someone who might try and change things (either in terms of congress of the presidential election). We get into fights about it on a regular basis. heh.