PSA: Voting

[GWestphal]

If you vote primarily on A) abortion or B) religious tenets, then you're doing it wrong.

There are a lot more critical issues to worry about before you start worrying about other people's business or pushing your business on others.

 

[IronWing]

Good luck with your thread and may God have mercy on your soul.

 

[dank69]

Thus spake the serpent.

 

[fskimospy]

If you vote, you're doing it wrong.

 

[IronWing]

If you vote, you're doing it wrong.

Romney took Iowa by eight votes. Sometimes, your vote matters.

 

[fskimospy]

Romney took Iowa by eight votes. Sometimes, your vote matters.

Nope, it sure didn't. Had Romney won by either 7 or 9 votes that would have changed absolutely nothing.

 

[SandEagle]

Romney took Iowa by eight votes. Sometimes, your vote matters.

only a fool would believe that. the polls were rigged. RP won.

 

[fskimospy]

only a fool would believe that. the polls were rigged. RP won.

Not only did Ron Paul win Iowa, he has won every election in America over the last 20 years, even the ones he wasn't running for.

 

[Macamus Prime]

If you vote primarily on A) abortion or B) religious tenets, then you're doing it wrong.

There are a lot more critical issues to worry about before you start worrying about other people's business or pushing your business on others.

Sweet Christmas, this is so true.

However, America is too worried about what two or ten people do in the privacy of their own homes.



The American public is controlled by fear.

 

[airdata]

only a fool would believe that. the polls were rigged. RP won.

Secret tally location, missing ballots... hmmm smells like florida.

 

[cybrsage]

If you vote primarily on A) abortion or B) religious tenets, then you're doing it wrong.

There are a lot more critical issues to worry about before you start worrying about other people's business or pushing your business on others.

So you are saying that since you do not feel these issues are critical issues no one should...

 

[cybrsage]

If you vote, you're doing it wrong.

Romney took Iowa by eight votes. Sometimes, your vote matters.

Nope, it sure didn't. Had Romney won by either 7 or 9 votes that would have changed absolutely nothing.

If 10 people did not hold the idiotic position that their vote does not matter, the outcome would have been different.

 

[woolfe9999]

If you vote, you're doing it wrong.

That's highly debatable. Not on whether your vote makes a difference or not. But the value to the individual of voting. It makes people feel good about themselves because they're being civic minded and participating in the process. You can't put a price tag on that, but the act of voting usually requires minimal time, trouble and expense. The feeling of making a difference is illusory, but a placebo effect is an effect nonetheless. We fritter away hours of our time with escapist entertainment just to make ourselves feel good. Voting is like, what, 20 minutes of your year?

In any event, trying to puncture the illusion does no one any good. Low voter turnouts are bad for the functioning of a democracy, particularly this one. Yeats was correct: the best lack all conviction, and the worst are filled with passionate intensity. With a low turnout, the worst of us will inevitably determine who is in power. While the value of voting to the individual may be debatable, what isn't debatable is the negative value of telling people that voting is not rational. No good can ever come of that. Democracy is predicated on preserving the illusion that the individual can make a difference at the ballot box. Accordingly, I'm not really sure why you feel the need to make this argument.

- wolf

 

[Jaskalas]

If you vote, you're doing it wrong.

Should we grab our guns instead? Voting is the ONLY way to do it. (Civilly)

If you vote primarily on A) abortion or B) religious tenets, then you're doing it wrong.

Ummm... yeah? Welcome to P&N, where you'd be talking in agreement with 99% of us.

There are a lot more critical issues to worry about before you start worrying about other people's business or pushing your business on others.

Now speaking of pushing your business on others, what about the individual mandate? Seems the fascists merely disagree on what they need to be pushing onto others.

 

[fskimospy]

If 10 people did not hold the idiotic position that their vote does not matter, the outcome would have been different.

Ahh, so your argument is that if something that didn't happen had happened then I would be wrong. Great job as usual.

In the last hundred years of the United States (the part we have reliable electoral records for) only 8 elections of state legislature or higher have been decided by a single vote. 7 of these were state legislatures, 1 a federal congressman. This is out of around 60,000 or so such elections that have taken place. There has never been a single case of a statewide election such as the one that just took place that has been decided by a single vote. Ever.

So you have about a .013% chance of participating in an election that is decided by a single vote, and basically only half the time would your vote be a contributor to your preferred outcome as the other half your guy lost. That means you have a .0065% chance every time you go to the ballot box (in state legislature elections that have very small turnouts!) of casting that deciding vote. It's impossible to calculate the odds for these type of elections because such a thing has simply never occurred here.

If you believe that it is a good idea to participate in somewhere between 5,000 and 10,000 elections before your vote matters towards a relatively powerless office, then by all means your vote matters. You will of course need to find some longevity elixer however, as the time required to participate in all these will be considerably longer than a normal human life span.

But yeah guys, totally go vote.

 

[airdata]

So you are saying that since you do not feel these issues are critical issues no one should...

Those are issues that should not effect who leads our country.

 

[cybrsage]

Ahh, so your argument is that if something that didn't happen had happened then I would be wrong. Great job as usual.

The purposeful stupidity is strong in this one.

You know, the nation is better off with you not voting. Please, never vote again.

 

[cybrsage]

Those are issues that should not effect who leads our country.

Sure they are. If they are important to the people the leader represents, they should be important to the leader. That is how representative democracies work.

 

[fskimospy]

That's highly debatable. Not on whether your vote makes a difference or not. But the value to the individual of voting. It makes people feel good about themselves because they're being civic minded and participating in the process. You can't put a price tag on that, but the act of voting usually requires minimal time, trouble and expense. The feeling of making a difference is illusory, but a placebo effect is an effect nonetheless. We fritter away hours of our time with escapist entertainment just to make ourselves feel good. Voting is like, what, 20 minutes of your year?

In any event, trying to puncture the illusion does no one any good. Low voter turnouts are bad for the functioning of a democracy, particularly this one. Yeats was correct: the best lack all conviction, and the worst are filled with passionate intensity. With a low turnout, the worst of us will inevitably determine who is in power. While the value of voting to the individual may be debatable, what isn't debatable is the negative value of telling people that voting is not rational. No good can ever come of that. Democracy is predicated on preserving the illusion that the individual can make a difference at the ballot box. Accordingly, I'm not really sure why you feel the need to make this argument.

- wolf

I'm saying it's inefficient from a time perspective. (oh, and depending on where you live it can take a whole hell of a lot longer than 20 minutes) If you want to say that voting serves a purpose in that it makes people feel good, I guess. I was referring to voting in how it is commonly understood, as an effort to achieve your preferred outcome either in the form of a ballot initiative or a candidate.

I think puncturing this illusion is exactly what is needed as it shows how unrepresentative our current system is for the individual voter and could prompt a shift towards a more democratic system. There are also plenty of policy solutions to low voter turnout that don't involve people believing things that are false.

I am not a fan of Plato's useful fictions.

 

[fskimospy]

The purposeful stupidity is strong in this one.

You know, the nation is better off with you not voting. Please, never vote again.

lol. The guy who doesn't understand basic math accuses other people of purposeful stupidity.

I know you won't address the substance of my argument, because you can't. You'll just do the same dance you always do when you're trying to avoid admitting you're wrong.

 

[cybrsage]

lol. The guy who doesn't understand basic math accuses other people of purposeful stupidity.

I know you won't address the substance of my argument, because you can't. You'll just do the same dance you always do when you're trying to avoid admitting you're wrong.

Your argument is "nuh-uh". If you want me to address it, I will:

I know you are but what am I?

But please continue to not vote. The nation is far better off without you voting and potentially causing your views to win out. I applaud you for helping to ensure that never happens.

 

[fskimospy]

Your argument is "nuh-uh". If you want me to address it, I will:

I know you are but what am I?

But please continue to not vote. The nation is far better off without you voting and potentially causing your views to win out. I applaud you for helping to ensure that never happens.

My argument is math. Your argument is...well... the same bullshit that you always put out. I guarantee you that what I do at my job has vastly more influence over policy than every vote you've ever placed in your entire life. (I'm not under any illusions that my organization has a huge impact on policy, but it has some. Your vote has none.)

 

[cybrsage]

My argument is math.

10 X 1 = 10. Seems to work well. Dunno why you think it is bad.

Your argument is...well... the same bullshit that you always put out. I guarantee you that what I do at my job has vastly more influence over policy than every vote you've ever placed in your entire life. (I'm not under any illusions that my organization has a huge impact on policy, but it has some. Your vote has none.)

I am agreeing with you that you should never vote. I do not understand why you are upset with that. Your view should never be supported via the government, so you not voting helps make sure that happens. I fully support you, and those like you, never voting.

I think you are right, you should not ever vote. You have the right of it, you voting is a dumb idea and you should not do it.

 

[Deeko]

Its not just abortion or religion. Many, many voters have a "hot button" issue, be it abortion, religion, guns, the environment, whatever, and that's entirely what they base their vote on. It doesn't matter what the issue is...if you vote based on one issue, you're probably not voting very smart.

 

[woolfe9999]

I'm saying it's inefficient from a time perspective. (oh, and depending on where you live it can take a whole hell of a lot longer than 20 minutes) If you want to say that voting serves a purpose in that it makes people feel good, I guess. I was referring to voting in how it is commonly understood, as an effort to achieve your preferred outcome either in the form of a ballot initiative or a candidate.

I think puncturing this illusion is exactly what is needed as it shows how unrepresentative our current system is for the individual voter and could prompt a shift towards a more democratic system. There are also plenty of policy solutions to low voter turnout that don't involve people believing things that are false.

I am not a fan of Plato's useful fictions.

There is no democratic reform that will alter the basic fact that the individual vote won't change the outcome of an election. Being "more democratic" is irrelevant if people do not participate. The logical consequence of heeding your advice is that very few people vote, just enough so that each individual can logically conclude that his vote can make a difference. A 1-2% voter turnout makes the most sense if everyone is effectively disillusioned. So far as policy solutions to a low voter turnout, I haven't the foggiest idea of what you're talking about. A law that requires everyone to vote?

- wolf