PSA: Voting

[fskimospy]

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

Oh my god. You're doing this again.

You made an argument based on an imagined outcome that has never occurred in all of US history, and then tried to use that imagined outcome as a reason to vote. My math showed you why what you were saying was dumb, but now you're doubling down on it... again.

Is this the sort of thing that got you banned from those other sites?

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.

Where did you get the idea that I was upset? I agree that you should always go vote, the more time you spend outside the less time you will have to make insipid posts on here. The electoral outcome will be identical, and the internet will be ever so slightly less stupid. I, on the other hand will continue to engage in activities that may actually affect policy, shaping that policy in my direction far more than you ever will.

 

[fskimospy]

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

Plenty of countries have laws that require people to vote, it's the obvious solution to the fundamental irrationality of individual voting but the collective good that we get from it.

There are most certainly democratic reforms that make individual participation in elections more 'profitable' for each individual voter, winner take all elections are actually uniquely bad in that respect. (more proportional representation, greater numbers of elected representatives, etc) They might never cause participation benefits to become great, but they could certainly be much better than they are.

 

[cybrsage]

Oh my god. You're doing this again.

You made an argument based on an imagined outcome that has never occurred in all of US history, and then tried to use that imagined outcome as a reason to vote. My math showed you why what you were saying was dumb, but now you're doubling down on it... again.

You said math. Make up your mind. Is it math or not? You disputed that ten times one is ten, after all.

Where did you get the idea that I was upset? I agree that you should always go vote, the more time you spend outside the less time you will have to make insipid posts on here. The electoral outcome will be identical, and the internet will be ever so slightly less stupid. I, on the other hand will continue to engage in activities that may actually affect policy, shaping that policy in my direction far more than you ever will.

Nah, I will continue to help shape the government.

I do agree you should never vote, though. It is for the best of everyone if your views are minimized on the national scene. We definately agree with each other on that. We agree you are meaningless and insignifcant and do not matter.

 

[fskimospy]

You said math. Make up your mind. Is it math or not? You disputed that ten times one is ten, after all.

No, I sure didn't. I'm not going to engage in this with you more. You were proven wrong, it's up to you to put your ego aside long enough to learn something. You have a lot of growing up to do.

Nah, I will continue to help shape the government.

I do agree you should never vote, though. It is for the best of everyone if your views are minimized on the national scene. We definately agree with each other on that.

lol. Again, I highly encourage you to keep voting. I also encourage you to undertake other activities that would lead you to post here less.

 

[cybrsage]

No, I sure didn't. I'm not going to engage in this with you more. You were proven wrong, it's up to you to put your ego aside long enough to learn something. You have a lot of growing up to do.

You claimed math, not me. You are now claiming you did not? Seriously?

lol. Again, I highly encourage you to keep voting. I also encourage you to undertake other activities that would lead you to post here less.

It is not often we agree, but I am happy we agree that you are meaningless, insignificant, and do not matter. I find it sad you view yourself this way, but that is neither here nor there.

 

[fskimospy]

You claimed math, not me. You are now claiming you did not? Seriously?

No, you idiot. You claimed that because if 10 other people had voted and changed the outcome, that meant that not voting was idiotic. I showed you through basic math how exceedingly unlikely that scenario was, which is why that did not support your argument about not voting being idiotic. This is not difficult to understand, you just have to remember that it's ok to be wrong on the internet sometimes.

It is not often we agree, but I am happy we agree that you are meaningless, insignificant, and do not matter. I find it sad you view yourself this way, but that is neither here nor there.

Awww, someone's getting angry. After someone suggested googling you the other day I read about how on other boards you kept getting banned and then registering new accounts because you were so desperate to keep internet arguing. (which then got you banned some more) Did that give you a moment of reflection?

 

[cybrsage]

No, I sure didn't. I'm not going to engage in this with you more. You were proven wrong, it's up to you to put your ego aside long enough to learn something. You have a lot of growing up to do.

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

Hmmm....maybe that is some other eskimospy?

 

[cybrsage]

No, you idiot. You claimed that because if 10 other people had voted and changed the outcome, that meant that not voting was idiotic. I showed you through basic math how exceedingly unlikely that scenario was, which is why that did not support your argument about not voting being idiotic. This is not difficult to understand, you just have to remember that it's ok to be wrong on the internet sometimes.

You are now claiming it is unlikely that 10 people would vote for the same person? You seriously believe this?

Awww, someone's getting angry.

Why do you think I have to be angry to agree with your view that you are meaningless and irrelevant? That would imply you have to be agry to view yourself that way. I think it is sad, but I don't think you are angry.

After someone suggested googling you the other day I read about how on other boards you kept getting banned and then registering new accounts because you were so desperate to keep internet arguing. (which then got you banned some more) Did that give you a moment of reflection?

Aww...you love me enough to google me. That is sweet. I love you too. I recommend you see a doctor about your massively low self esteem, though, it is unattractive.

Banned where, btw? The only place I remember being banned from is from Guru3d, back when the RivaTuner maker got all pissed off about some anti-russia posts made on NVNews and went to war:

NVNews soldiers help an injured boy as his mom's body lies in the Politics and Religion subform, August 22, 2008. A Rivatuner warplane dropped a bomb on the Internet Forum, killing at least 5 people, a Reuters reporter said. The bomb hit NVNews when Rivatuner warplanes carried out a raid against the forum.

The conflict started when Unwinder said:

"New license agreement explicitly restricts publishing any links to RivaTuner on www.nvnews.net homepage or in www.nvnews.net discussion forums. Russian software can not co-exist with the community tolerating anti-Russian nazism."

Requests for clarification as to whether he actually understands what Nazism is have gone unansweredNVNews soldiers help an injured boy as his mom's body lies in the Politics and Religion subform, August 22, 2008. A Rivatuner warplane dropped a bomb on the Internet Forum, killing at least 5 people, a Reuters reporter said. The bomb hit NVNews when Rivatuner warplanes carried out a raid against the forum.

EDIT: Was going to post the picture which went with the article I quoted, but it had blood in it, so I thought I would not.
http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?t=271302

 

[airdata]

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.

For a president, on a scale of 1-10 for priority, abortion and relgion related issues are .25 They're below every other possible priority POTUS has.

With the country in the state it is and people trying to make up lies about iran to start yet another war, the last thing anybody should be talking about is abortion.

 

[fskimospy]

Hmmm....maybe that is some other eskimospy?

Now you don't understand basic english either. I did not dispute 1 x 10 = 10, I used math to show why that was irrelevant.

 

[fskimospy]

You are now claiming it is unlikely that 10 people would vote for the same person? You seriously believe this?

We will add basic logic to the list of things you need to study up on.

It is not if 10 people would vote for someone, it is the probability of that exact number of people will vote for someone in a specific election that leads the outcome to be decided by a single vote in favor of your preferred candidate. Not sure how you didn't understand that.

 

[fskimospy]

Aww...you love me enough to google me. That is sweet. I love you too. I recommend you see a doctor about your massively low self esteem, though, it is unattractive.

So that was you. lol.

 

[Jaskalas]

Its not just abortion or religion. Many, many voters have a "hot button" issue

If I had to choose just one, it'd be state's rights and the decentralization of government. Only through open diversity can peace and progress be achieved.

 

[monovillage]

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.

I'd sure like to hear your alternative.

 

[fskimospy]

I'd sure like to hear your alternative.

My post was simply showing that it is individually irrational to vote. Whether or not I had an alternative shouldn't really matter as I'm just pointing out what's true.

That being said, I think we can all agree that our country needs people to vote in order to function the way we want it to. I would be in favor of an inverse poll tax that requires everyone to vote or to pay a small tax penalty of sorts. (along with ensuring that it is easy for everyone to vote in some way or to obtain an exemption)

That to me appears to be the best way to overcome the individual irrationality problem.

 

[lothar]

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

Romney, Santorum, and Paul all won the same number of pledged delegates from Iowa.
Voting doesn't matter. They all won 7 delegates each.
http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/primaries/state/ia

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

No, it would not.
See above.

 

[fskimospy]

Romney, Santorum, and Paul all won the same number of pledged delegates from Iowa.
Voting doesn't matter. They all won 7 delegates each.
http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/primaries/state/ia


No, it would not.
See above.

Actually those delegates aren't even pledged yet. There are like 3 other layers to go in this incredibly silly process. For example, John McCain came in 4th in Iowa if I remember and yet when the convention came around he got all the delegates even though Huckabee won the state.

 

[cybrsage]

No, it would not.
See above.

It matters for the rest of the primaries. People like to vote for winners, and whoever "wins" will get more vote and more financial support.

 

[cybrsage]

So that was you. lol.

Dunno, I assume you googled cybrsage. I did not see your other post on it.

 

[monovillage]

My post was simply showing that it is individually irrational to vote. Whether or not I had an alternative shouldn't really matter as I'm just pointing out what's true.

That being said, I think we can all agree that our country needs people to vote in order to function the way we want it to. I would be in favor of an inverse poll tax that requires everyone to vote or to pay a small tax penalty of sorts. (along with ensuring that it is easy for everyone to vote in some way or to obtain an exemption)

That to me appears to be the best way to overcome the individual irrationality problem.

Good answer. I've always been in favor of drafting political officials. The very act of them wanting to run for public office pretty much proves they're unfit for that office.

 

[xBiffx]

Actually those delegates aren't even pledged yet. There are like 3 other layers to go in this incredibly silly process. For example, John McCain came in 4th in Iowa if I remember and yet when the convention came around he got all the delegates even though Huckabee won the state.

This is very true. At the time the delegates were pledged, Huckabee had no chance in hell of winning so it was decided to pledge to McCain. That's one thing people fail to think about with the caucus system, especially Iowa since it is so early. The actual decision can go different than the votes given the length of time between the local caucus and state caucus.

I'm willing to bet when push comes to shove, Santorum gets zero delegates, and rightfully so.

 

[lothar]

Actually those delegates aren't even pledged yet. There are like 3 other layers to go in this incredibly silly process. For example, John McCain came in 4th in Iowa if I remember and yet when the convention came around he got all the delegates even though Huckabee won the state.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...ns-romney-takes-small-delegate-lead/?on.cnn=1

I was under the assumption that there were only 2 layers after I read that article.
Layer #1: Based on caucus/primary vote in the state.
Layer #2: 150 total, with 3 awarded to each states. These are considered "unpledged" because they can always change their votes and are not based on primary or caucus results. Usually awarded to the State party chairman and 2 other people. The article says 1/3 of these delegates are required to cast their convention votes according to their state's primary or caucus results, so really there are actually only 100 "unpledged" delegates?

1,144 delegates are needed to win the nomination.
If there are only 100 "unpledged" delegates(we can also use the "official" 150 number here), that means the remaining are decided by popular vote in state primary/caucus results?

Not sure how this system works.

 

[fskimospy]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...ns-romney-takes-small-delegate-lead/?on.cnn=1

I was under the assumption that there were only 2 layers after I read that article.
Layer #1: Based on caucus/primary vote in the state.
Layer #2: 150 total, with 3 awarded to each states. These are considered "unpledged" because they can always change their votes and are not based on primary or caucus results. Usually awarded to the State party chairman and 2 other people. The article says 1/3 of these delegates are required to cast their convention votes according to their state's primary or caucus results, so really there are actually only 100 "unpledged" delegates?

1,144 delegates are needed to win the nomination.
If there are only 100 "unpledged" delegates(we can also use the "official" 150 number here), that means the remaining are decided by popular vote in state primary/caucus results?

Not sure how this system works.

Oh I meant in Iowa, they have a system that's pretty crazy even by primary standards. The caucuses that just happened technically mean nothing, it's in a way much like we vote for president but we are actually voting for electors.

What people voted for last night was delegates to Iowa county conventions. Once there, the county conventioneers will vote some more or whatever and pick people for the Iowa district conventions. Those guys, after talking some more will pick people for the Iowa state convention, and those guys select the actual delegates that vote for the nominee. EDIT: And none of those delegates are required to vote in the way that people chose last night.

It's like a Rube Goldberg electoral machine.

 

[woolfe9999]

My post was simply showing that it is individually irrational to vote. Whether or not I had an alternative shouldn't really matter as I'm just pointing out what's true.

That being said, I think we can all agree that our country needs people to vote in order to function the way we want it to. I would be in favor of an inverse poll tax that requires everyone to vote or to pay a small tax penalty of sorts. (along with ensuring that it is easy for everyone to vote in some way or to obtain an exemption)

That to me appears to be the best way to overcome the individual irrationality problem.

Interesting idea. I was only vaguely aware that some countries had compulsory voting. Apparently, there are ten that have such laws which are actually enforced, Australia being the only developed country to employ it. The best argument against it is that hordes of uneducated people who do not research the candidates will come to the polls to make arbitrary choices. There are, however, some good arguments in favor of it.

Undecided.

 

[lothar]

When your choice is between tweedledee and tweedledum, there's no point in lining up to vote for hours on end.
Compulsory voting laws are useless.