EPTBut 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.
Go Vote - Page 7
| Blogs > itsjustatank |
|
Varanice
United States1517 Posts
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. | ||
|
Ettick
United States2434 Posts
| ||
|
EatThePath
United States3943 Posts
On November 06 2012 14:01 soon.Cloak wrote: 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. | ||
|
babylon
8765 Posts
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
United States2434 Posts
On November 06 2012 14:23 babylon wrote: 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
Malaysia4677 Posts
On November 06 2012 12:04 itsjustatank wrote: 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:
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. | ||
|
Torte de Lini
Germany38463 Posts
| ||
itsjustatank
Hong Kong9178 Posts
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. | ||
|
Torte de Lini
Germany38463 Posts
| ||
|
Sabu113
United States11087 Posts
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. | ||
Daigomi
South Africa4316 Posts
On November 06 2012 11:55 sc2superfan101 wrote: 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. | ||
|
synapse
China13814 Posts
 @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
United States6733 Posts
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
United States972 Posts
On November 06 2012 11:00 Brindled wrote: If you don't vote, you have no right to complain. I LIKE IKE, 2012. | ||
|
Daigomi
South Africa4316 Posts
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. | ||
|
Tobberoth
Sweden6375 Posts
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
United States972 Posts
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
Netherlands45349 Posts
| ||
|
Gheed
United States972 Posts
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
United Kingdom2102 Posts
On November 06 2012 18:33 Daigomi wrote: 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. | ||
| ||
)?
