• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 06:29
CEST 12:29
KST 19:29
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
TL.net Map Contest #21: Voting10[ASL20] Ro4 Preview: Descent11Team TLMC #5: Winners Announced!3[ASL20] Ro8 Preview Pt2: Holding On9Maestros of the Game: Live Finals Preview (RO4)5
Community News
Chinese SC2 server to reopen; live all-star event in Hangzhou4Weekly Cups (Oct 13-19): Clem Goes for Four0BSL Team A vs Koreans - Sat-Sun 16:00 CET6Weekly Cups (Oct 6-12): Four star herO85.0.15 Patch Balance Hotfix (2025-10-8)80
StarCraft 2
General
Chinese SC2 server to reopen; live all-star event in Hangzhou The New Patch Killed Mech! Team Liquid Map Contest #21 - Presented by Monster Energy herO joins T1 Weekly Cups (Oct 13-19): Clem Goes for Four
Tourneys
SC2's Safe House 2 - October 18 & 19 INu's Battles #13 - ByuN vs Zoun Tenacious Turtle Tussle Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament $1,200 WardiTV October (Oct 21st-31st)
Strategy
Custom Maps
Map Editor closed ?
External Content
Mutation # 496 Endless Infection Mutation # 495 Rest In Peace Mutation # 494 Unstable Environment Mutation # 493 Quick Killers
Brood War
General
BSL Season 21 Is there anyway to get a private coach? OGN to release AI-upscaled StarLeague from Feb 24 BW caster Sayle BW General Discussion
Tourneys
[ASL20] Semifinal B [Megathread] Daily Proleagues SC4ALL $1,500 Open Bracket LAN Azhi's Colosseum - Anonymous Tournament
Strategy
[I] TvZ Strategies and Builds [I] TvP Strategies and Build Roaring Currents ASL final Current Meta
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Path of Exile Nintendo Switch Thread Dawn of War IV ZeroSpace Megathread
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion LiquidDota to reintegrate into TL.net
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Deck construction bug Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread SPIRED by.ASL Mafia {211640}
Community
General
Russo-Ukrainian War Thread US Politics Mega-thread The Chess Thread Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine Men's Fashion Thread
Fan Clubs
The herO Fan Club!
Media & Entertainment
Series you have seen recently... Anime Discussion Thread [Manga] One Piece Movie Discussion!
Sports
2024 - 2026 Football Thread Formula 1 Discussion MLB/Baseball 2023 NBA General Discussion TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
SC2 Client Relocalization [Change SC2 Language] Linksys AE2500 USB WIFI keeps disconnecting Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List Recent Gifted Posts
Blogs
Certified Crazy
Hildegard
The Heroism of Pepe the Fro…
Peanutsc
Rocket League: Traits, Abili…
TrAiDoS
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 1545 users

Go Vote - Page 7

Blogs > itsjustatank
Post a Reply
Prev 1 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next All
Varanice
Profile Blog Joined June 2011
United States1517 Posts
November 06 2012 05:02 GMT
#121
I felt like I should add in my opinion on this as well. Unfortunately, I'm only sixteen so I cannot vote, but I have been doing some volunteering, and talking to several people, in an attempt to make some degree of an impact.
But regarding the "my one vote won't matter statement" we had a public school tax increase that did not pass by ONE vote a couple years ago. (There was like 5,000 total votes or so, which is like 45~% of the people who could have voted by my estimation.), I felt pretty special because I had a long discussion with my friend's parents about their/my opinions about it and I actually caused them to change their opinions regarding it, resulting them to vote the other way. Which for me was pretty special to know that I was able to impact the city in some small way, even without being able to vote.
www.twitch.tv/varanice
Ettick
Profile Blog Joined June 2011
United States2434 Posts
November 06 2012 05:17 GMT
#122
I am voting tommorow. For who? I am still deciding between Jill Stein and Obama
EatThePath
Profile Blog Joined September 2009
United States3943 Posts
November 06 2012 05:17 GMT
#123
On November 06 2012 14:01 soon.Cloak wrote:
Show nested quote +
On November 06 2012 13:55 EatThePath wrote:
On November 06 2012 13:48 soon.Cloak wrote:
But as was said before, your vote doesn't matter. At all. Even quoting the 2000 Florida example is still not helpful, as that was decided by more than 1 vote. My one vote is completely meaningless. Why should I waste the gas to drive to the polling station (especially as I live in NY )?

On November 06 2012 12:24 EatThePath wrote:
On November 06 2012 04:07 ninazerg wrote:
What if, say, I happened to be a Republican in a state which votes overwhelmingly Democratic, or vice-versa? Even if I was like "Romney, fuck yeah!" and totally ignorant about the electoral college, my state would be won by Barack Obama regardless.

Also, why should I be pressured into voting if, as an American, I have the personal freedom to abstain from voting if I feel that neither candidate is qualified for holding public office?

It's your duty as a citizen to vote. If you've considered each item and your choice is to abstain, that's cool. But it seems unlikely that you would examine every issue and end up neither opposed nor in favour of all of them.


I didn't sign up for the obligation to vote. How is it my duty? Who decided that?

You also didn't sign up to be born, and yet you have moral obligations as a rational being during your short time here. Nothing forces you to mind the obligation but it's there all the same. Inaction is opposition to someone, there is no such thing as "not participating" in the universe.


First of all, the comparison is weak. I didn't sign up to be born, and thus, I don't have any obligation to live- as in, I have the right to commit suicide. But once I'm born, I have certain restrictions, not obligations. That's different than saying I have an obligation to vote.

Next, you assume i have a moral obligation to vote. But if it won't make a difference, I don't hear the argument that I can be obligated to do it, as a "matter of principle"

Also, once again, you are assuming I have a moral obligation to do anything. I don't generally agree with the idea of objective morality, so I still don't hear your argument.

I'm not sure I could make it clearer within the scope of a discussion centered on voting. If you don't agree with me about those things, I won't try and persuade you otherwise. About voting, I already acknowledged that nothing can force you. If you have beef with the system, inaction may be your only recourse. I'm not sure what system is better than democracy, though, so it seems more responsible to improve the culture of the system than detach from it and thereby undermine it.
Comprehensive strategic intention: DNE
babylon
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
8765 Posts
November 06 2012 05:23 GMT
#124
On November 06 2012 14:17 Ettick wrote:
I am voting tommorow. For who? I am still deciding between Jill Stein and Obama

It's kind of bullshit that Obama and Romney are the only "real" candidates when you think about it. :/
Ettick
Profile Blog Joined June 2011
United States2434 Posts
November 06 2012 05:50 GMT
#125
On November 06 2012 14:23 babylon wrote:
Show nested quote +
On November 06 2012 14:17 Ettick wrote:
I am voting tommorow. For who? I am still deciding between Jill Stein and Obama

It's kind of bullshit that Obama and Romney are the only "real" candidates when you think about it. :/

Yeah it really sucks lol
I kind of almost feel wasteful not voting for either of them since it's pretty much guaranteed that one of them will win
Anyways, after researching a bit more I think I've decided on Stewart Alexander
JieXian
Profile Blog Joined August 2008
Malaysia4677 Posts
November 06 2012 05:55 GMT
#126
On November 06 2012 12:04 itsjustatank wrote:
Show nested quote +
On November 06 2012 11:54 thedeadhaji wrote:
Already mailed mine in!

As a California resident, my presidential vote is basically moot, but it was important for me to vote for the propositions!


Yeah, California voters (and voters in other jurisdictions which have ballot initiative and referendum) have a lot more responsibility because of that.

Listing the things voters are responsible for in California initiative ballot:
  1. Sales tax rates
  2. Income tax rates
  3. Funding for education and healthcare programs
  4. Labeling of genetically-modified foods
  5. Car insurance regulation
  6. The ability of corporations and unions to donate to candidates in political office with funds gained through payroll reductions
  7. Effective repeal of the Three Strikes Law
  8. Repeal of the death penalty
  9. Increasing penalties for human traffickers (and forcing them to register as sex offenders
  10. The way corporation tax is handled for multistate businesses
  11. The way districts are drawn (who represents you in State legislature).


Low turnout for these critical decision points is simply unacceptable.


There are a lot of really bad arguements for voting which make the arguement sound terrible but you guys have go to care stuff like that.
Please send me a PM of any song you like that I most probably never heard of! I am looking for people to chat about writing and producing music | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noD-bsOcxuU |
Torte de Lini
Profile Blog Joined September 2010
Germany38463 Posts
November 06 2012 07:39 GMT
#127
American Citizen, haven't registered yet or voted ever ): I'm stuck in Canada and I think I might get my driver's license before I register.
https://twitter.com/#!/TorteDeLini (@TorteDeLini)
itsjustatank
Profile Blog Joined November 2010
Hong Kong9157 Posts
November 06 2012 07:44 GMT
#128
On November 06 2012 16:39 Torte de Lini wrote:
American Citizen, haven't registered yet or voted ever ): I'm stuck in Canada and I think I might get my driver's license before I register.


Not even sure how voting works for expats, but I would assume you would end up voting on the state ballot from which you last resided.
Photographer"nosotros estamos backamos" - setsuko
Torte de Lini
Profile Blog Joined September 2010
Germany38463 Posts
November 06 2012 07:47 GMT
#129
I believe I currently reside in two states: New Jersey and North Carolina
https://twitter.com/#!/TorteDeLini (@TorteDeLini)
Sabu113
Profile Blog Joined August 2009
United States11070 Posts
November 06 2012 08:01 GMT
#130
On November 06 2012 16:47 Torte de Lini wrote:
I believe I currently reside in two states: New Jersey and North Carolina



Ooh one swingstate. Your vote is potentially worth something.
Biomine is a drunken chick who is on industrial strength amphetamines and would just grab your dick and jerk it as hard and violently as she could while screaming 'OMG FUCK ME', because she saw it in a Sasha Grey video ...-Wombat_Ni
Daigomi
Profile Blog Joined May 2006
South Africa4316 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-11-06 09:37:48
November 06 2012 09:33 GMT
#131
On November 06 2012 11:55 sc2superfan101 wrote:
Show nested quote +
On November 06 2012 11:47 itsjustatank wrote:
On November 06 2012 11:41 sc2superfan101 wrote:
On November 06 2012 11:28 itsjustatank wrote:
On November 06 2012 11:23 sc2superfan101 wrote:
On November 06 2012 11:20 itsjustatank wrote:
On November 06 2012 11:19 sc2superfan101 wrote:
On November 06 2012 11:10 itsjustatank wrote:
On November 06 2012 11:07 sc2superfan101 wrote:
On November 06 2012 11:05 itsjustatank wrote:
[quote]

I would prefer that 'majority rule' actually constitutes a majority. When you see that the number of people who could have voted but did not dwarfs the popular vote totals of the two main party contenders consistently, it isn't actually majority rule.

but for what purpose, other than to satisfy the rather vague principle of "majority should mean majority", would we actually encourage voter turnout? if it does not lead to objectively better results than why should it be called the objectively better system?


If your preferences are served by continuing with the status quo, your argument is rational on a personal advocacy level. The problem is that for many people in this majority of non-voters, the current political order does not suit them, but they do nothing to change it. If we are going to call this a democracy, more votes and more turnout make it more legitimate. If that isn't a respectable goal to you, then we once again are at a point of departure. Rule by a minority elite is not true democracy.

how does higher turnout make it more legitimate?

is the systems legitimacy not based on the actual benefit of the system to the citizen? why would it's legitimacy be based on how many people decide to take part in the voting, and not on how free and prosperous those people are?

"true democracy" is a very strange term, again much discussed in Buckley's work, Up From Liberalism (I highly suggest you read it). one should assume that democracy, in truth, is a system by which one votes for ones government. a populace of three thousand where only two people choose to vote is as much a "true democracy" as any other in that sense.


Not everyone in this country is 'free and prosperous.' Especially not the second part of that slogan.

of course not, but how would increasing the turnout of the vote alleviate this problem?

also, I would argue that the majority of the country are free and prosperous enough to grant the system a great degree of legitimacy. one cannot simply point to the exception and call it the rule. generally, the US population is free and prosperous by any standard which maintains historical relevance.


Because of the majoritarian voting systems in the United States, and the construction of its institutions in the Constitution, low turnout is simply unacceptable. A voting system that relies on 50% +1 winner takes all with a poor turnout rate isn't legitimate.

It may work, and the results might be pretty (to you, or the minority who benefit), but calling it democracy is insidious.

but you've yet to show me why low turnout is unacceptable when higher turnout has no foreseeable benefit to the populace as a whole. if the higher turnout led to more prosperity or could be shown to have a positive effect upon the citizen or society as a whole, than perhaps it could justify itself. however, without some benefit, there is nothing to justify a higher turnout. one cannot say that the justification for a higher turnout is the fact of a higher turnout.

democracy has almost never been universal (or never?) and we should resist any effort to redefine the word so as to mean something which it has never meant before. democracy is simply a system by which the majority opinion of the voting populace is followed. whether the majority of the populace is actually voting or not is irrelevant. Greece was a more pure democracy than almost any we have now, and even they excluded the vast majority of their populace from voting.


Your arguments are rooted in the belief that things are fine now and they work for you. This may or may not be necessarily true for the people underrepresented in the current voting system. The foreseeable benefit to the populace as a whole is the fact that more of the populace as a whole has a say in how they are governed.

I am not satisfied with something we term democracy but is actually rule by a minority, when the only barrier to achieving higher turnout is education. It is pure laziness on the part of society to accept the way things are now.

you are neglecting the fact that the only reason those people are "underrepresented" is because they choose to be underrepresented.

once again you have used the fact of higher turnout as justification for higher turnout. if it has no foreseeable benefit other than itself than I don't think it can be described as very necessary.

This sums it up pretty well in my opinion. So far, you've given no real reason why increasing the turnout is a good thing other than vaguely referring to how a democracy works. To me, if the results of 1,000,000 people voting is identical to the results of 150,000,000 people voting, the democracy is equally effective in both situations. Having a 100% turnout might make us feel better about the legitimacy of the voting, but it generally has no real effect. A perfectly random sample of 1m voters will give the same result (at least on the presidential level) as a sample of 150,000,000 voters every time. To give you the maths: The odds of a candidate who is preferred 50.5% to 49.5% losing in the popular vote when 1,000,000 people vote is 0.000000000000000000000000027 (or about once in every septillion years). Obviously things get more complicated once you add the electoral vote and municipal votes in, but a perfectly random sample of 5,000,000 voters will result in both preferred president and local politicians winning for as long as a the US exists.

As I mentioned in my previous post, the only real reason why it could be good for more citizens to vote is if the voting population is systematically biased. However, assuming a statistical bias exists, it still leaves us with a multiple problems. Firstly, as was pointed out, the reason for a systematic bias is because certain groups of people choose to be underrepresented. It is perfectly democratic to choose not to vote and we shouldn't force these people to choose (that would be the same as having a scientific poll without a "none of the above"/"I don't know" option, which, without fail, biases the results). Secondly, as has been argued, if the current elections are biased, they are biased towards people who care and are informed about politics. This should result in an election which is biased towards the better presidential candidates, not worse, and as such is a good thing. Democratic elections are a means to an end and should not be confused with the end. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, motivating the average person to go vote will have no effect on fixing a systematic bias, should one exist. If the method of drawing a sample is biased, increasing the sample size won't decrease the bias. To fix a systematic bias, the causes of the bias must be identified and addressed.

From what I can see, motivating the average person to vote will have no effect on any election, local or national. In fact, it will probably harm the country more than it benefits it. In the UK, every day where the general population doesn't work costs the country 2.3bn GBP. In the US, considering the size of their economy, increasing the participation rate by 30% will cost the country roughly 7.5bn USD. That's a lot of money for no tangible benefit.
Moderator
synapse
Profile Blog Joined January 2009
China13814 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-11-06 10:19:05
November 06 2012 10:14 GMT
#132
i wish my voting place was at my college campus rather than some school a mile away

@Daigomi: i don't think most people choose to take leave from work to vote. polls are always busiest at around 6,7pm when everyone's gotten home from work.
:)
Froadac
Profile Blog Joined July 2009
United States6733 Posts
November 06 2012 10:53 GMT
#133
On November 06 2012 19:14 synapse wrote:
i wish my voting place was at my college campus rather than some school a mile away

@Daigomi: i don't think most people choose to take leave from work to vote. polls are always busiest at around 6,7pm when everyone's gotten home from work.

mine is 40 yards awat
Gheed
Profile Blog Joined September 2010
United States972 Posts
November 06 2012 11:00 GMT
#134
On November 06 2012 11:00 Brindled wrote:
If you don't vote, you have no right to complain.

I LIKE IKE, 2012.


Daigomi
Profile Blog Joined May 2006
South Africa4316 Posts
November 06 2012 11:03 GMT
#135
On November 06 2012 19:14 synapse wrote:
i wish my voting place was at my college campus rather than some school a mile away

@Daigomi: i don't think most people choose to take leave from work to vote. polls are always busiest at around 6,7pm when everyone's gotten home from work.

Wow really? You must have a very good system then. In SA, we have roughly 18m people voting, and election day is a public holiday, and you still end up waiting in queues for 2+ hours. As such, I assumed voting in the US would take most of the day. I guess having more people vote wouldn't be too expensive then.
Moderator
Tobberoth
Profile Joined August 2010
Sweden6375 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-11-06 11:43:49
November 06 2012 11:43 GMT
#136
Question is, do the US system work like the Swedish one, where there's a difference between a deliberate blank vote and a skipped vote? The way it works in Sweden is that when you vote, you can decide to deliberately NOT cast a vote, by writing so on the note. This means, you specifically vote for no one, and no one gets your vote. However, if you simply do not go out and vote, you're put into a mass of "non-voter votes" which are distributed according to a system.

Which basically means, if you do not go out and vote, you're being dumb as shit and it encourages people to actually go vote.
Gheed
Profile Blog Joined September 2010
United States972 Posts
November 06 2012 12:04 GMT
#137
On November 06 2012 20:43 Tobberoth wrote:
Question is, do the US system work like the Swedish one, where there's a difference between a deliberate blank vote and a skipped vote? The way it works in Sweden is that when you vote, you can decide to deliberately NOT cast a vote, by writing so on the note. This means, you specifically vote for no one, and no one gets your vote. However, if you simply do not go out and vote, you're put into a mass of "non-voter votes" which are distributed according to a system.

Which basically means, if you do not go out and vote, you're being dumb as shit and it encourages people to actually go vote.



Not voting and going to vote but not filling out a certain portion of a ballot is functionally the same with regards to the outcome of that particular election. If I wanted to vote for president, but not for my congressman, I would just leave the congressman portion of the ballot blank (there are different types of ballots, but I've never heard of one that forces you to specify that you want to vote for nobody).
Kipsate
Profile Blog Joined July 2010
Netherlands45349 Posts
November 06 2012 12:17 GMT
#138
Just a question, isn't one of the reasons for the fact that the vote turnout in America is low because they live in predominantely Democratic or Republican states? Seeing as its winner takes it all then your vote is effectivly useless in those states if you are on the other side is it not?
WriterXiao8~~
Gheed
Profile Blog Joined September 2010
United States972 Posts
November 06 2012 12:25 GMT
#139
On November 06 2012 21:17 Kipsate wrote:
Just a question, isn't one of the reasons for the fact that the vote turnout in America is low because they live in predominantely Democratic or Republican states? Seeing as its winner takes it all then your vote is effectivly useless in those states if you are on the other side is it not?


This is correct. If all you wanted to do is vote for president, there are very few states where that vote would actually make a difference to the outcome of the election. However, there are many other things being voted on, not only for the national government but also on the local level. Most people tend to be far less interested in those, though.
Deleuze
Profile Blog Joined December 2010
United Kingdom2102 Posts
November 06 2012 14:09 GMT
#140
On November 06 2012 18:33 Daigomi wrote:
Show nested quote +
On November 06 2012 11:55 sc2superfan101 wrote:
On November 06 2012 11:47 itsjustatank wrote:
On November 06 2012 11:41 sc2superfan101 wrote:
On November 06 2012 11:28 itsjustatank wrote:
On November 06 2012 11:23 sc2superfan101 wrote:
On November 06 2012 11:20 itsjustatank wrote:
On November 06 2012 11:19 sc2superfan101 wrote:
On November 06 2012 11:10 itsjustatank wrote:
On November 06 2012 11:07 sc2superfan101 wrote:
[quote]
but for what purpose, other than to satisfy the rather vague principle of "majority should mean majority", would we actually encourage voter turnout? if it does not lead to objectively better results than why should it be called the objectively better system?


If your preferences are served by continuing with the status quo, your argument is rational on a personal advocacy level. The problem is that for many people in this majority of non-voters, the current political order does not suit them, but they do nothing to change it. If we are going to call this a democracy, more votes and more turnout make it more legitimate. If that isn't a respectable goal to you, then we once again are at a point of departure. Rule by a minority elite is not true democracy.

how does higher turnout make it more legitimate?

is the systems legitimacy not based on the actual benefit of the system to the citizen? why would it's legitimacy be based on how many people decide to take part in the voting, and not on how free and prosperous those people are?

"true democracy" is a very strange term, again much discussed in Buckley's work, Up From Liberalism (I highly suggest you read it). one should assume that democracy, in truth, is a system by which one votes for ones government. a populace of three thousand where only two people choose to vote is as much a "true democracy" as any other in that sense.


Not everyone in this country is 'free and prosperous.' Especially not the second part of that slogan.

of course not, but how would increasing the turnout of the vote alleviate this problem?

also, I would argue that the majority of the country are free and prosperous enough to grant the system a great degree of legitimacy. one cannot simply point to the exception and call it the rule. generally, the US population is free and prosperous by any standard which maintains historical relevance.


Because of the majoritarian voting systems in the United States, and the construction of its institutions in the Constitution, low turnout is simply unacceptable. A voting system that relies on 50% +1 winner takes all with a poor turnout rate isn't legitimate.

It may work, and the results might be pretty (to you, or the minority who benefit), but calling it democracy is insidious.

but you've yet to show me why low turnout is unacceptable when higher turnout has no foreseeable benefit to the populace as a whole. if the higher turnout led to more prosperity or could be shown to have a positive effect upon the citizen or society as a whole, than perhaps it could justify itself. however, without some benefit, there is nothing to justify a higher turnout. one cannot say that the justification for a higher turnout is the fact of a higher turnout.

democracy has almost never been universal (or never?) and we should resist any effort to redefine the word so as to mean something which it has never meant before. democracy is simply a system by which the majority opinion of the voting populace is followed. whether the majority of the populace is actually voting or not is irrelevant. Greece was a more pure democracy than almost any we have now, and even they excluded the vast majority of their populace from voting.


Your arguments are rooted in the belief that things are fine now and they work for you. This may or may not be necessarily true for the people underrepresented in the current voting system. The foreseeable benefit to the populace as a whole is the fact that more of the populace as a whole has a say in how they are governed.

I am not satisfied with something we term democracy but is actually rule by a minority, when the only barrier to achieving higher turnout is education. It is pure laziness on the part of society to accept the way things are now.

you are neglecting the fact that the only reason those people are "underrepresented" is because they choose to be underrepresented.

once again you have used the fact of higher turnout as justification for higher turnout. if it has no foreseeable benefit other than itself than I don't think it can be described as very necessary.

This sums it up pretty well in my opinion. So far, you've given no real reason why increasing the turnout is a good thing other than vaguely referring to how a democracy works. To me, if the results of 1,000,000 people voting is identical to the results of 150,000,000 people voting, the democracy is equally effective in both situations. Having a 100% turnout might make us feel better about the legitimacy of the voting, but it generally has no real effect. A perfectly random sample of 1m voters will give the same result (at least on the presidential level) as a sample of 150,000,000 voters every time. To give you the maths: The odds of a candidate who is preferred 50.5% to 49.5% losing in the popular vote when 1,000,000 people vote is 0.000000000000000000000000027 (or about once in every septillion years). Obviously things get more complicated once you add the electoral vote and municipal votes in, but a perfectly random sample of 5,000,000 voters will result in both preferred president and local politicians winning for as long as a the US exists.

As I mentioned in my previous post, the only real reason why it could be good for more citizens to vote is if the voting population is systematically biased. However, assuming a statistical bias exists, it still leaves us with a multiple problems. Firstly, as was pointed out, the reason for a systematic bias is because certain groups of people choose to be underrepresented. It is perfectly democratic to choose not to vote and we shouldn't force these people to choose (that would be the same as having a scientific poll without a "none of the above"/"I don't know" option, which, without fail, biases the results). Secondly, as has been argued, if the current elections are biased, they are biased towards people who care and are informed about politics. This should result in an election which is biased towards the better presidential candidates, not worse, and as such is a good thing. Democratic elections are a means to an end and should not be confused with the end. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, motivating the average person to go vote will have no effect on fixing a systematic bias, should one exist. If the method of drawing a sample is biased, increasing the sample size won't decrease the bias. To fix a systematic bias, the causes of the bias must be identified and addressed.

From what I can see, motivating the average person to vote will have no effect on any election, local or national. In fact, it will probably harm the country more than it benefits it. In the UK, every day where the general population doesn't work costs the country 2.3bn GBP. In the US, considering the size of their economy, increasing the participation rate by 30% will cost the country roughly 7.5bn USD. That's a lot of money for no tangible benefit.


I'm not arguing with your statistics but querying your final point.

What do you mean by "every day where the general population doesn't work costs the country 2.3bn GBP"? Do you mean to say that having more people wishing to vote would take the day off work and thus cost the country money? In the UK Polling stations open in the evening so people can usually attend these (though sometimes they get full which is another matter), this together with postal voting systems (though possibly subject to manipulation), I do not see how having a higher turn out will directly impact upon a country's daily GDP.

I think the key issue is that by aiming for a higher turnout, it is hoped that the populus will have gained a greater knowledge of politics - as if the imperative 'go out to vote!' will promote an intelligent investigation in to who to vote for - yes, a slim, but a hopeful attempt nonetheless.

But don't lose sight of the fact that the main motivation is that the winning party can claim, whether rightly or wrongly, greater legitimacy for their victory if more people turnout to vote.
“An image of thought called philosophy has been formed historically and it effectively stops people from thinking.” ― Gilles Deleuze, Dialogues II
Prev 1 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next All
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Next event in 31m
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
OGKoka 348
Rex 23
StarCraft: Brood War
Hyuk 2152
Rain 1726
Flash 789
firebathero 776
Horang2 765
Bisu 751
Killer 663
Larva 429
Jaedong 377
actioN 347
[ Show more ]
sSak 274
Soma 235
Light 189
PianO 171
ZerO 157
EffOrt 129
Pusan 95
Rush 39
Sharp 34
Shinee 32
TY 30
Free 27
soO 25
Movie 23
Noble 16
sorry 15
Sacsri 12
Yoon 10
HiyA 8
Bale 7
Mong 1
Dota 2
XaKoH 464
XcaliburYe206
Fuzer 67
Counter-Strike
olofmeister1924
shoxiejesuss967
allub232
zeus56
Other Games
summit1g7331
singsing1231
ceh9519
Pyrionflax331
Happy266
Mew2King71
rGuardiaN46
Trikslyr26
ZerO(Twitch)12
Organizations
Other Games
gamesdonequick639
Counter-Strike
PGL396
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 14 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• LUISG 37
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• iopq 3
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
Dota 2
• WagamamaTV210
League of Legends
• Jankos1963
Upcoming Events
Wardi Open
31m
Wardi Open
4h 1m
PiGosaur Monday
13h 31m
Replay Cast
23h 31m
Tenacious Turtle Tussle
1d 12h
The PondCast
1d 23h
OSC
2 days
WardiTV Invitational
3 days
Online Event
3 days
RSL Revival
3 days
[ Show More ]
RSL Revival
3 days
WardiTV Invitational
4 days
Afreeca Starleague
4 days
Snow vs Soma
Sparkling Tuna Cup
4 days
WardiTV Invitational
5 days
CrankTV Team League
5 days
RSL Revival
5 days
Wardi Open
6 days
CrankTV Team League
6 days
Replay Cast
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

Acropolis #4 - TS2
WardiTV TLMC #15
HCC Europe

Ongoing

BSL 21 Points
ASL Season 20
CSL 2025 AUTUMN (S18)
C-Race Season 1
IPSL Winter 2025-26
EC S1
Thunderpick World Champ.
CS Asia Championships 2025
ESL Pro League S22
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual

Upcoming

SC4ALL: Brood War
BSL Season 21
BSL 21 Team A
BSL 21 Non-Korean Championship
RSL Offline Finals
RSL Revival: Season 3
Stellar Fest
SC4ALL: StarCraft II
CranK Gathers Season 2: SC II Pro Teams
eXTREMESLAND 2025
ESL Impact League Season 8
SL Budapest Major 2025
BLAST Rivals Fall 2025
IEM Chengdu 2025
PGL Masters Bucharest 2025
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.