|
On March 02 2012 03:16 KwarK wrote:
Statistically no one vote ever makes a difference, no major election is decided by a single vote. The argument "but if everyone thought like that then..." is meaningless because there is no connection between your choice to vote and anyone else's, if you go into the ballot room and spoil your ballot then nobody else will do anything different because of it. There is absolutely no value to voting beyond any personal gratification you get out of it.
So what you are saying is that votes should not be held at all? Or that they should just see where the election seems to be headed and then elect whoever is first?
Sure your vote specifically will not make any difference in the end BUT if you do not vote then you can't be mad when the wrong president/party is elected since you didn't even give enough shit to vote for what you believe in, and that's why you vote.
If you don't give a shit either way, just give a blank vote. I don't know what numbers are exact but according to wikipedia your turnout for the last election was 63%. Is that a fucking joke? You let 63% of the people that are able to vote decide for the remaining 37% and adding to that those that are not eligible to vote?
I would not be comfortable knowing that I let others choose how I should be governed when I could have done something about it.
Sure you're never going to get near 100% but two thirds of the voting population giving a shit about how they are governed in the most powerful country in the world? I don't know if I should laugh or cry honestly...
|
On March 02 2012 09:29 Xcobidoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2012 03:16 KwarK wrote:
Statistically no one vote ever makes a difference, no major election is decided by a single vote. The argument "but if everyone thought like that then..." is meaningless because there is no connection between your choice to vote and anyone else's, if you go into the ballot room and spoil your ballot then nobody else will do anything different because of it. There is absolutely no value to voting beyond any personal gratification you get out of it. So what you are saying is that votes should not be held at all? Or that they should just see where the election seems to be headed and then elect whoever is first? Sure your vote specifically will not make any difference in the end BUT if you do not vote then you can't be mad when the wrong president/party is elected since you didn't even give enough shit to vote for what you believe in, and that's why you vote. If you don't give a shit either way, just give a blank vote. I don't know what numbers are exact but according to wikipedia your turnout for the last election was 63%. Is that a fucking joke? You let 63% of the people that are able to vote decide for the remaining 37% and adding to that those that are not eligible to vote? I would not be comfortable knowing that I let others choose how I should be governed when I could have done something about it. Sure you're never going to get near 100% but two thirds of the voting population giving a shit about how they are governed in the most powerful country in the world? I don't know if I should laugh or cry honestly...
It's the two-party system that's done this to us. If you don't like either major candidate, you're sunk. Since third-party candidates have essentially no chance of winning, people either vote for the lesser of two evils, or they don't vote at all, since they don't feel strongly.
Lobbying and campaign finance doesn't help either, but since that causes other problems than just low voter turnout, I think it's a different can-o-worms.
|
On March 02 2012 09:17 Amlitzer wrote:
You just sound uneducated and lazy to be honest, in other words the typical American non-voter. So what if your state is lopsided in federal elections? You do realize that there are only two parties which means that those two parties have lots of different viewpoints within them right? In most states it is your local and state government that affect you far more than the federal government does, yet you willingly choose to ignore those fields completely. I can tell you just don't want to invest a lot of time and effort into understanding and influencing the issues and would rather do nothing so you can bitch on the sideline how "nobody listens to you". You are basically everything that is wrong with modern democracy. The system has flaws, but you only have yourself to blame for that.
This is one of the more offensive posts yet, and misinformed.
OP clearly states, sentence one, national offices only. I have already said many times it is easy to see an individual impact at a local level.
I never mention 'nobody listening to me'. I state my feelings that regardless of who wins in an election, the government is run by a wealthy few.
Please be nice if you want to discuss, and keep your hot-headedness to a minimum.
|
On March 02 2012 02:53 LaSt)ChAnCe wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2012 02:47 mynameisgreat11 wrote:
Only considering national elections. President, senator, etc.
I live in the USA, and I have never voted, though I've been of age for the last three presidential elections. At first it was because I lived in a state which has always been completely lopsided for one party. I felt like my vote didn't matter, which I realize is a point that many will argue. But, fu, the fact is that my state would elect republicans for national offices no matter what, period.
In the past few years, however, my reasons have changed a bit. Now I realize that I just have no faith in the electoral system. As much as I hate sounding like a long-boarding, clove-smoking,, hipster douche, I feel like the fact of the matter is that the wealthy elite of the country really do control everything. Business moguls and celebrities become senators, governors, and president. Our laws, regulations, and taxes are thought up and created by people who are wealthy and powerful. They've proven time and time again that they're willing to use their position to advance their own ends.
And of course, lobbyists. Whatever company, group, or individual has the most money can trade that cash in for political influence. Oil companies wine, dine, and bribe for the rights to drill in previously protected environmental areas. Religions collect hundreds of billions annually, tax-free mind you, and then turn around and pump that money right back into congress to support bills that they find morally correct.
I know that this is nothing new. Classes have existed since the beginning of civilization. What's infuriating is that Democracy is touted as a government of the people, where decisions and policies are made based on the will of the general public.
It's not. That's why I don't vote.
Is this a blog? this is actually a very accurate representation of how i feel, too
Me as well. Reading about how electoral colleges work, it becomes clear(if i read it right) That america is a fail of a voting system to the average thinking person
|
On March 02 2012 09:39 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2012 09:29 Xcobidoo wrote:On March 02 2012 03:16 KwarK wrote:
Statistically no one vote ever makes a difference, no major election is decided by a single vote. The argument "but if everyone thought like that then..." is meaningless because there is no connection between your choice to vote and anyone else's, if you go into the ballot room and spoil your ballot then nobody else will do anything different because of it. There is absolutely no value to voting beyond any personal gratification you get out of it. So what you are saying is that votes should not be held at all? Or that they should just see where the election seems to be headed and then elect whoever is first? Sure your vote specifically will not make any difference in the end BUT if you do not vote then you can't be mad when the wrong president/party is elected since you didn't even give enough shit to vote for what you believe in, and that's why you vote. If you don't give a shit either way, just give a blank vote. I don't know what numbers are exact but according to wikipedia your turnout for the last election was 63%. Is that a fucking joke? You let 63% of the people that are able to vote decide for the remaining 37% and adding to that those that are not eligible to vote? I would not be comfortable knowing that I let others choose how I should be governed when I could have done something about it. Sure you're never going to get near 100% but two thirds of the voting population giving a shit about how they are governed in the most powerful country in the world? I don't know if I should laugh or cry honestly... It's the two-party system that's done this to us. If you don't like either major candidate, you're sunk. Since third-party candidates have essentially no chance of winning, people either vote for the lesser of two evils, or they don't vote at all, since they don't feel strongly. Lobbying and campaign finance doesn't help either, but since that causes other problems than just low voter turnout, I think it's a different can-o-worms.
Don't you have blank votes though? I know it's hard for people to justify doing that when it's basically not voting but if, say, 10-20% of the people took the time to go and vote for the fact that none of the options are any good then they would have to take notice.
|
no president has any impact on my life so no reason to vote. it's all the same shit
|
|
|
On March 02 2012 09:53 sunprince wrote:
The fact that Americans vote despite the extreme irrationality of doing so
im gonna read the articles and see if they answer my question, but i want to know from you first. how is voting irrational?
edit: it did not answer my question... it just said that our singular vote can make no difference and therefore it is irrational to vote. but let's take this completely unlikely scenario and see what happens:
let's say that 1% of the people who would have voted decides that this article is correct, all on their own without consulting anyone, and says "well, it's irrational, i'm not voting."
let's say that by miracle chance, that 1% is made up entirely of republicans.
1% of ~150,000,000 is 1,500,000
and let's say, again by miracle chance, that these people are spread throughout the nation in various districts. this could WILDLY change the nature of an election. a landslide victory for a republican could turn into a landslide loss.
the argument you'll probably give me now is: "but that is irrelevant to you! your vote wouldn't have changed that, cause those people would have done that anyway!"
in which case i will say: "that was the excuse every one of those 1,500,000 people used. and because of them, their guy lost."
idk, it definitely seems to me like voting is important. even if my 1 vote doesn't "matter".
|
there is nothing irrational in voting; the only irrationality is thinking your vote will actually change the result of the election.
|
On March 02 2012 09:56 dAPhREAk wrote:there is nothing irrational in voting; the only irrationality is thinking your vote will actually change the result of the election.
The irrationality is in undertaking an action where the benefits (in this case, infintestimally close to zero) is outweighed by the costs (in this case, usually minor but still greater than the benefits).
|
On March 02 2012 09:48 Xcobidoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2012 09:39 Millitron wrote:On March 02 2012 09:29 Xcobidoo wrote:On March 02 2012 03:16 KwarK wrote:
Statistically no one vote ever makes a difference, no major election is decided by a single vote. The argument "but if everyone thought like that then..." is meaningless because there is no connection between your choice to vote and anyone else's, if you go into the ballot room and spoil your ballot then nobody else will do anything different because of it. There is absolutely no value to voting beyond any personal gratification you get out of it. So what you are saying is that votes should not be held at all? Or that they should just see where the election seems to be headed and then elect whoever is first? Sure your vote specifically will not make any difference in the end BUT if you do not vote then you can't be mad when the wrong president/party is elected since you didn't even give enough shit to vote for what you believe in, and that's why you vote. If you don't give a shit either way, just give a blank vote. I don't know what numbers are exact but according to wikipedia your turnout for the last election was 63%. Is that a fucking joke? You let 63% of the people that are able to vote decide for the remaining 37% and adding to that those that are not eligible to vote? I would not be comfortable knowing that I let others choose how I should be governed when I could have done something about it. Sure you're never going to get near 100% but two thirds of the voting population giving a shit about how they are governed in the most powerful country in the world? I don't know if I should laugh or cry honestly... It's the two-party system that's done this to us. If you don't like either major candidate, you're sunk. Since third-party candidates have essentially no chance of winning, people either vote for the lesser of two evils, or they don't vote at all, since they don't feel strongly. Lobbying and campaign finance doesn't help either, but since that causes other problems than just low voter turnout, I think it's a different can-o-worms. Don't you have blank votes though? I know it's hard for people to justify doing that when it's basically not voting but if, say, 10-20% of the people took the time to go and vote for the fact that none of the options are any good then they would have to take notice.
The question is: Who will take notice? In recent elections in Denmark, about 10% of the votes are declared illegitimate and it is not a topic at all in the media. People choosing the sofa, however, is getting far more attention. Last election, some candidates and parties chose to drive people to the election no matter what they voted for, just to keep the numbers up. Denmark and Sweden are almost identical in election-systems, participation and so on, so I do not think it will matter that much that people vote blank. The media does not care. It is just a bleb in the postelection-data!
|
On March 02 2012 10:01 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2012 09:56 dAPhREAk wrote:there is nothing irrational in voting; the only irrationality is thinking your vote will actually change the result of the election. The irrationality is in undertaking an action where the benefits (in this case, infintestimally close to zero) is outweighed by the costs (in this case, usually minor but still greater than the benefits).
you may think that sounds smart, but it doesnt. when you vote realizing that its the cumulative effect of votes that sway the election, you are not acting irrational.
|
On March 02 2012 09:48 Xcobidoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2012 09:39 Millitron wrote:On March 02 2012 09:29 Xcobidoo wrote:On March 02 2012 03:16 KwarK wrote:
Statistically no one vote ever makes a difference, no major election is decided by a single vote. The argument "but if everyone thought like that then..." is meaningless because there is no connection between your choice to vote and anyone else's, if you go into the ballot room and spoil your ballot then nobody else will do anything different because of it. There is absolutely no value to voting beyond any personal gratification you get out of it. So what you are saying is that votes should not be held at all? Or that they should just see where the election seems to be headed and then elect whoever is first? Sure your vote specifically will not make any difference in the end BUT if you do not vote then you can't be mad when the wrong president/party is elected since you didn't even give enough shit to vote for what you believe in, and that's why you vote. If you don't give a shit either way, just give a blank vote. I don't know what numbers are exact but according to wikipedia your turnout for the last election was 63%. Is that a fucking joke? You let 63% of the people that are able to vote decide for the remaining 37% and adding to that those that are not eligible to vote? I would not be comfortable knowing that I let others choose how I should be governed when I could have done something about it. Sure you're never going to get near 100% but two thirds of the voting population giving a shit about how they are governed in the most powerful country in the world? I don't know if I should laugh or cry honestly... It's the two-party system that's done this to us. If you don't like either major candidate, you're sunk. Since third-party candidates have essentially no chance of winning, people either vote for the lesser of two evils, or they don't vote at all, since they don't feel strongly. Lobbying and campaign finance doesn't help either, but since that causes other problems than just low voter turnout, I think it's a different can-o-worms. Don't you have blank votes though? I know it's hard for people to justify doing that when it's basically not voting but if, say, 10-20% of the people took the time to go and vote for the fact that none of the options are any good then they would have to take notice.
If by blank votes, you mean write-ins, then yes, we do have those.
The thing is, its not that only the Republican and Democratic candidates are on the ballot; there are plenty of third parties on the ballot. The problem is that no one thinks third parties stand a chance, and it's because of that belief that they don't stand a chance. No one votes for them, even if they have a candidate who perfectly represents them, because they would rather vote for the lesser of two evils, and at least keep a guy they absolutely don't want out of office, than vote for someone who in all likelyhood, never even got more than 10% of the vote.
|
On March 02 2012 10:04 radiatoren wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2012 09:48 Xcobidoo wrote:On March 02 2012 09:39 Millitron wrote:On March 02 2012 09:29 Xcobidoo wrote:On March 02 2012 03:16 KwarK wrote:
Statistically no one vote ever makes a difference, no major election is decided by a single vote. The argument "but if everyone thought like that then..." is meaningless because there is no connection between your choice to vote and anyone else's, if you go into the ballot room and spoil your ballot then nobody else will do anything different because of it. There is absolutely no value to voting beyond any personal gratification you get out of it. So what you are saying is that votes should not be held at all? Or that they should just see where the election seems to be headed and then elect whoever is first? Sure your vote specifically will not make any difference in the end BUT if you do not vote then you can't be mad when the wrong president/party is elected since you didn't even give enough shit to vote for what you believe in, and that's why you vote. If you don't give a shit either way, just give a blank vote. I don't know what numbers are exact but according to wikipedia your turnout for the last election was 63%. Is that a fucking joke? You let 63% of the people that are able to vote decide for the remaining 37% and adding to that those that are not eligible to vote? I would not be comfortable knowing that I let others choose how I should be governed when I could have done something about it. Sure you're never going to get near 100% but two thirds of the voting population giving a shit about how they are governed in the most powerful country in the world? I don't know if I should laugh or cry honestly... It's the two-party system that's done this to us. If you don't like either major candidate, you're sunk. Since third-party candidates have essentially no chance of winning, people either vote for the lesser of two evils, or they don't vote at all, since they don't feel strongly. Lobbying and campaign finance doesn't help either, but since that causes other problems than just low voter turnout, I think it's a different can-o-worms. Don't you have blank votes though? I know it's hard for people to justify doing that when it's basically not voting but if, say, 10-20% of the people took the time to go and vote for the fact that none of the options are any good then they would have to take notice. The question is: Who will take notice? In recent elections in Denmark, about 10% of the votes are declared illegitimate and it is not a topic at all in the media. People choosing the sofa, however, is getting far more attention. Last election, some candidates and parties chose to drive people to the election no matter what they voted for, just to keep the numbers up. Denmark and Sweden are almost identical in election-systems, participation and so on, so I do not think it will matter that much that people vote blank. The media does not care. It is just a bleb in the postelection-data!
Perhaps it would not be that big of a deal but it would at least give a partial answer why so many people are not voting. The amount of blank votes also indicate how many people that feel that there is no party that suits them and can therefore be used by existing parties to increase their votes.
|
It bothers me that apathy is so pervasive here in the U.S.. If you don't think votes matter tell that to the Senator or Congressman/Congresswoman who have to pander to the retiree/tea party/generally older population to win elections. They get out and vote in their wheelchairs/canes and all and as long as they do they will continue to hold substantial influence in the way elections (at all levels) are decided and sculpt the general culture of the Senate. If you don't think receiving complaints and tons of negative calls about a stance on a certain issue gives a politician pause in considering which way to vote then you are mistaken. If your solution is to simply do nothing and not engage in the political process then that is your prerogative. But why do you think politicians are hesitant at touching issues like entitlement? Because elections have consequences. Yes, lobbying and money influencing politics is a huge problem, but when a substantial proportion of the population sits on the sidelines and does nothing then we will never get what we want if we don't make a stink about it and hold people accountable. This is aimed towards the middle of the country which is not extreme in either way, and more prone to apathy, you need to vote if you disagree with the way the both Houses of Congress conduct themselves. Obviously one single vote will not change an election, but millions of people believing their vote doesn't matter can effect an election. Just look at the primaries where there is a really low turnout, where are all the other Republicans, the youth vote for Ron Paul?, just a lot of people letting other people decide who they want to represent them sitting at home watching CSI.
|
On March 02 2012 09:56 dAPhREAk wrote:there is nothing irrational in voting; the only irrationality is thinking your vote will actually change the result of the election.
Yes.
Why wouldn't you vote? That academic's analysis is flawed because he disregards the 0.00001 fractional probability that an individual has on an election (Which he himself calculated). Sure it's a small value, but that doesn't matter. This is your say in how your country is run, do something about it.
|
On March 02 2012 10:16 Wfat wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2012 09:56 dAPhREAk wrote:there is nothing irrational in voting; the only irrationality is thinking your vote will actually change the result of the election. Yes. Why wouldn't you vote? That academic's analysis is flawed because he disregards the 0.00001 fractional probability that an individual has on an election (Which he himself calculated). Sure it's a small value, but that doesn't matter. This is your say in how your country is run, do something about it.
.00001 = 0
|
On March 02 2012 10:25 mynameisgreat11 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2012 10:16 Wfat wrote:On March 02 2012 09:56 dAPhREAk wrote:there is nothing irrational in voting; the only irrationality is thinking your vote will actually change the result of the election. Yes. Why wouldn't you vote? That academic's analysis is flawed because he disregards the 0.00001 fractional probability that an individual has on an election (Which he himself calculated). Sure it's a small value, but that doesn't matter. This is your say in how your country is run, do something about it. .00001 = 0
Sorry, no.
|
On March 02 2012 10:28 Wfat wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2012 10:25 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On March 02 2012 10:16 Wfat wrote:On March 02 2012 09:56 dAPhREAk wrote:there is nothing irrational in voting; the only irrationality is thinking your vote will actually change the result of the election. Yes. Why wouldn't you vote? That academic's analysis is flawed because he disregards the 0.00001 fractional probability that an individual has on an election (Which he himself calculated). Sure it's a small value, but that doesn't matter. This is your say in how your country is run, do something about it. .00001 = 0 Sorry, no.
it is probably better if he doesnt vote anyways. lol
|
On March 02 2012 10:25 mynameisgreat11 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2012 10:16 Wfat wrote:On March 02 2012 09:56 dAPhREAk wrote:there is nothing irrational in voting; the only irrationality is thinking your vote will actually change the result of the election. Yes. Why wouldn't you vote? That academic's analysis is flawed because he disregards the 0.00001 fractional probability that an individual has on an election (Which he himself calculated). Sure it's a small value, but that doesn't matter. This is your say in how your country is run, do something about it. .00001 = 0
100 000 x .00001 = 1
100 000 x 0 = 0
by your logic, 0 = 1
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
