Does your vote really matter?

[Jhhnn]

Probably to attempt to maintain the illusion that your vote matters for their base. Always have to have a boogeyman to point at.

That's completely circular. Begin from the faulty premise that your vote doesn't matter when it really does. Otherwise, neither party would attempt to build & maintain their voter base. Repubs wouldn't thwart attempts by Dems to build theirs.

It's also completely dismissive of the fact that voting in this country is highly skewed along racial & economic lines.

 

[cubby1223]

That's completely circular. Begin from the faulty premise that your vote doesn't matter when it really does. Otherwise, neither party would attempt to build & maintain their voter base. Repubs wouldn't thwart attempts by Dems to build theirs.

It's also completely dismissive of the fact that voting in this country is highly skewed along racial & economic lines.

You have faulty logic too. It's dependent on whether you as an individual belong to a demographic group the party wants to spoil with riches for 51% voting support or if your demographic group is one the parties view as inconsequential to the outcome. Parties don't reward individual citizens (unless you have a shit-ton of money to donate towards their cause), they instead reward select groups of their choosing.

 

[fskimospy]

The overriding issue is that people are liberal for a wide variety of reasons. One person votes Democratic for one issue while another person votes Democratic for a completely different issue.

I'll rephrase my comment - higher voter turnout might benefit your party of choice, but it doesn't mean the specific subjects you are passionate about will be addressed by the elected party.

Instead of now where you get 50/50 split in votes, if everyone voted, rather than, say, a 70/30 split, I'd suspect you get more towards a 30/30/20/20 split. But I don't see 3rd parties injecting themselves in any meaningful way, so I'm going to predict more low voter turnouts for many, many years to come.

While I agree that more inclusive voting would perhaps change party priorities, higher turnout is very unlikely to lead to any additional parties.

People vote strategically and so in any system where 50.1% of the vote gets 100% of the representation you will end up with two parties.

 

[Jhhnn]

The overriding issue is that people are liberal for a wide variety of reasons. One person votes Democratic for one issue while another person votes Democratic for a completely different issue.

I'll rephrase my comment - higher voter turnout might benefit your party of choice, but it doesn't mean the specific subjects you are passionate about will be addressed by the elected party.

Instead of now where you get 50/50 split in votes, if everyone voted, rather than, say, a 70/30 split, I'd suspect you get more towards a 30/30/20/20 split. But I don't see 3rd parties injecting themselves in any meaningful way, so I'm going to predict more low voter turnouts for many, many years to come.

That completely ignores commonality of interests & underlying values among Democrats.

 

[DeepPurple]

Let's assume your premise. Than if only the majority party voted, the winning candidate would assume that everyone backed their ideals. Therefore, they would then vote without a second thought against your ideals. Now, does it seem like a good idea to vote?

 

[WHAMPOM]

My friend told me that I should vote because every vote counts, but then that got me thinking. If votes are counted per state and not individually and unless the state is 50/50 or near that status with republican and democrat voters, then your vote really does not count. Like in Texas, without a doubt it's a Republican state, so if I wanted to vote democrats, it really makes no difference as the majority will be republican anyway, so doesn't that mean my vote does not really matter?

Well since we barely break 60% in voter turn out in most elections, a minority of 30% can get together to run/ruin the country.

 

[nickqt]

Your logic falls apart when I point out that if you vote it won't affect whether I do or vice versa. I'm not aware of any magical super powers any voters have that force others to vote or not to based on that magical super voter's behavior.

My logic doesn't fall apart because you say it does.

Each individual vote counts. Trying to argue that it doesn't because it isn't specifically the deciding vote is missing the point.

If every person that voted for the majority candidate stayed home just because they weren't going to be the deciding voting, that majority candidate would have instead lost.

Your vote counts along with every other vote. Just because it isn't the deciding vote doesn't make it stop counting or not matter.

You can't say an individual vote doesn't count or matter, without pointing at every single individual vote and saying the same thing. And again, you do that, and the other candidate wins, proving you wrong.

 

[Jhhnn]

Well since we barely break 60% in voter turn out in most elections, a minority of 30% can get together to run/ruin the country.

It's worse than that at the state level. Take Texas, for example-

http://amarillo.com/news/local-news...ks-last-voter-turnout-close-last-registration

No wonder Texas Repubs want to limit the franchise & gerrymander the districts. They already have all the low hanging fruit in the basket & it won't be enough all by itself.

 

[fskimospy]

My logic doesn't fall apart because you say it does.

Each individual vote counts. Trying to argue that it doesn't because it isn't specifically the deciding vote is missing the point.

If every person that voted for the majority candidate stayed home just because they weren't going to be the deciding voting, that majority candidate would have instead lost.

Your vote counts along with every other vote. Just because it isn't the deciding vote doesn't make it stop counting or not matter.

You can't say an individual vote doesn't count or matter, without pointing at every single individual vote and saying the same thing. And again, you do that, and the other candidate wins, proving you wrong.

Think about it this way: voting matters on the whole, but whether or not you personally vote is functionally irrelevant. Why? Because others don't choose to vote based on what you do, and your vote is one of thousands if not millions.

This same thought is true for everyone else too. In the aggregate votes matter but it is individually economically irrational to vote.

 

[soulcougher73]

I think doing away with the EC and going straight popular vote would bring out a lot more voters as well. I have no incentive where i live for example to vote DEM for president. KS has probably been a red state since its inception. And this goes for any state that isn't a swing state and has been dominated by GOP or DEM for decades if not since inception as well. EC really kills voter turn out if you are in the minority of your states political leaning.

 

[Jhhnn]

Think about it this way: voting matters on the whole, but whether or not you personally vote is functionally irrelevant. Why? Because others don't choose to vote based on what you do, and your vote is one of thousands if not millions.

This same thought is true for everyone else too. In the aggregate votes matter but it is individually economically irrational to vote.

It's not economically irrational to vote at all, certainly not in states with extended voting days/ hours or mail in ballots.

 

[Jhhnn]

I think doing away with the EC and going straight popular vote would bring out a lot more voters as well. I have no incentive where i live for example to vote DEM for president. KS has probably been a red state since its inception. And this goes for any state that isn't a swing state and has been dominated by GOP or DEM for decades if not since inception as well. EC really kills voter turn out if you are in the minority of your states political leaning.

There's a lot more to an election than choosing the chief executive.

Repubs used the 2010 election to take more statehouses, gerrymander the shit out out of states they controlled, thus shaping Congress for at least a decade.

 

[fskimospy]

It's not economically irrational to vote at all, certainly not in states with extended voting days/ hours or mail in ballots.

It really is, I've never seen an argument for how the time investment is even remotely close to the probability of affecting the outcome.

 

[nickqt]

Think about it this way: voting matters on the whole, but whether or not you personally vote is functionally irrelevant. Why? Because others don't choose to vote based on what you do, and your vote is one of thousands if not millions.

This same thought is true for everyone else too. In the aggregate votes matter but it is individually economically irrational to vote.

Again, when you point out my specific vote, you are pointing out every vote, since they are all equal. Saying that I could stay home and it wouldn't matter means that everyone who voted could have stayed home and it wouldn't matter. Which is clearly false.

In terms of economic irrationality, tell that to the people who pay 14% income tax on hundreds of millions of dollars of income. Watch them laugh and laugh and laugh. And then thank you for not voting for your economic self-interest, while they make sure that they do.

 

[Jhhnn]

It really is, I've never seen an argument for how the time investment is even remotely close to the probability of affecting the outcome.

That's not the point. When too few people vote, it gives the advantage to the demagogues of the Right whose cadre votes every time, every election, come Hell or high water. It's why they give us the whole "They're all the Same!" song & dance to promote apathy. It's also why they make it harder to register & vote, why they cut back on extended voting.

Low turnout actually denies politicians a true mandate, something Repubs don't respect in the slightest.

You also moved the goalposts from economically disadvantageous to not worth the time because of allegedly negligible effect.

 

[fskimospy]

That's not the point. When too few people vote, it gives the advantage to the demagogues of the Right whose cadre votes every time, every election, come Hell or high water. It's why they give us the whole "They're all the Same!" song & dance to promote apathy. It's also why they make it harder to register & vote, why they cut back on extended voting.

Low turnout actually denies politicians a true mandate, something Repubs don't respect in the slightest.

You also moved the goalposts from economically disadvantageous to not worth the time because of allegedly negligible effect.

My goalposts have always been exactly the same. When I'm talking about economic utility I'm talking about the benefit an individual gains vs. the effort expended. My argument is that in terms of electing someone the individual gain from voting is effectively zero. The math is pretty clear on it.

 

[Jhhnn]

My goalposts have always been exactly the same. When I'm talking about economic utility I'm talking about the benefit an individual gains vs. the effort expended. My argument is that in terms of electing someone the individual gain from voting is effectively zero. The math is pretty clear on it.

You're starting to think like a right winger. Why talk about politics at all if you don't vote & if you have no intention of influencing other peoples choices?

How economically inefficient is it to do that?

 

[fskimospy]

Again, when you point out my specific vote, you are pointing out every vote, since they are all equal. Saying that I could stay home and it wouldn't matter means that everyone who voted could have stayed home and it wouldn't matter. Which is clearly false.

In terms of economic irrationality, tell that to the people who pay 14% income tax on hundreds of millions of dollars of income. Watch them laugh and laugh and laugh. And then thank you for not voting for your economic self-interest, while they make sure that they do.

You're avoiding the central flaw in your logic. The events of each person's choice to vote are not linked. Therefore the argument "if everyone stayed home then X" doesn't matter because you staying home won't make anyone else stay home. Playing the lottery is also economically irrational but I'm not going to buy a powerball ticket tomorrow because I think no one else will.

If you're going to make that argument you have to be able to show how me not voting makes everyone else not vote either. (Or at least some large number of other people not vote) If you can't do that it is impossible to say your vote counts in terms of electing someone. Assuming you're a relatively average American, then you should see the same holds true for everyone else.

I don't see any mathematical or logical way around this. If you've got one, show me. Go from A -> B -> C explicitly. Tell me hoe your personal choice leads to your preferred candidate losing.

 

[fskimospy]

You're starting to think like a right winger. Why talk about politics at all if you don't vote & if you have no intention of influencing other peoples choices?

How economically inefficient is it to do that?

I have a personal interest and I work in public policy analysis. Policy analysis isn't for influencing individual voters.

As for me 'thinking like a right winger', that seems like short for 'disagreeing with you'. If you want to vote thats great. Lots of people vote because it makes them feel good or to avoid public sanction or out of a sense of civic duty. I fully understand that.

None of that in any way changes the logical and mathematical facts here. Your vote is so incredibly unlikely to decide an election that virtually any effort you might expend doing it is an overall loss if electing someone is what you care about. That's just math. It's not right or left wing. It's just what is.

 

[Vic]

Your vote = 1/n where n = number of voters

 

[Vic]

My goalposts have always been exactly the same. When I'm talking about economic utility I'm talking about the benefit an individual gains vs. the effort expended. My argument is that in terms of electing someone the individual gain from voting is effectively zero. The math is pretty clear on it.

It's not economically efficient to tip at a restaurant that I never plan on returning to, but I still do.

 

[fskimospy]

It's not economically efficient to tip at a restaurant that I never plan on returning to, but I still do.

Most definitely. That seems to fit into one of the several other categories I outlined though, doesn't it?

Voting for individuals can have a number of beneficial functions to that person, electing the person they are voting for into office just doesn't happen to be one of them.

 

[soulcougher73]

It's not economically efficient to tip at a restaurant that I never plan on returning to, but I still do.

I think that would fall under what Eskimo was saying about civic duty basically. It makes you feel good and its socially accepted, so you do it.

 

[dank69]

I have a personal interest and I work in public policy analysis. Policy analysis isn't for influencing individual voters.

As for me 'thinking like a right winger', that seems like short for 'disagreeing with you'. If you want to vote thats great. Lots of people vote because it makes them feel good or to avoid public sanction or out of a sense of civic duty. I fully understand that.

None of that in any way changes the logical and mathematical facts here. Your vote is so incredibly unlikely to decide an election that virtually any effort you might expend doing it is an overall loss if electing someone is what you care about. That's just math. It's not right or left wing. It's just what is.

The benefits of voting are indeed minimal, but the damage done by everyone that thinks this way are not insignificant. Every person that doesn't want to spend the 10c on gas and the half-hour or less of time it takes to vote weakens the institution. Remember, there are other benefits to your vote other than deciding the outcome. Again minimal individually but collectively it adds up to a lot.

 

[fskimospy]

The benefits of voting are indeed minimal, but the damage done by everyone that thinks this way are not insignificant. Every person that doesn't want to spend the 10c on gas and the half-hour or less of time it takes to vote weakens the institution. Remember, there are other benefits to your vote other than deciding the outcome. Again minimal individually but collectively it adds up to a lot.

Sure, but that seems more like an argument for changing incentive structures for voting on a policy level as opposed to an argument for why individuals should vote.