EPTThank you.
Why do people in the US vote? - Page 18
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Jerubaal
United States7684 Posts
Thank you. | ||
|
Xcobidoo
Sweden1871 Posts
Times millions = >0 Just like one drop of water does not make an ocean or a handful of sand does not make a desert. Not every atom in the world is useful but that does not make it nothing, sorry. | ||
|
Wfat
Australia108 Posts
On March 02 2012 10:31 Jerubaal wrote: All I have to say to all the people giving reasons why they don't vote/the U.S. political system is awful, please continue abstaining from participating. Thank you. Your society would be better if they did vote, as your politicians would need to be more universally appealing. Rick Santorums and Sarah Palins would never be viable without a small and fanatical voting base. | ||
|
Probulous
Australia3894 Posts
The fact is that ultimately your vote is worth the same as anyone elses. Yes your vote alone may not make a difference but who is to say you will be alone. There is that old saying about speaking up for others so they can speak up for you. Well if you don't excercise your right to vote you have no right to complain. It is a privilege to be able to excercise some form of control over your government. Even a minor one such as a single vote. Sitting back and blaming those "passionate" enough to influence government is weak. Lobbying BTW is not restricted to big bad business. Community groups, patients advocates, environmental organisations are all lobbyists to some degree. We can all agree that money has too much power, but the only way to balance that is to get out there and do something about it. I love voting, even if the people who get elected are derps. People fought tooth and nail for your right to vote, an apathetic dismissal of the system does them no justice. | ||
|
Wfat
Australia108 Posts
On March 02 2012 10:38 Probulous wrote: Wow, so many jaded individuals. The fact is that ultimately your vote is worth the same as anyone elses. Yes your vote alone may not make a difference but who is to say you will be alone. There is that old saying about speaking up for others so they can speak up for you. Well if you don't excercise your right to vote you have no right to complain. It is a privilege to be able to excercise some form of control over your government. Even a minor one such as a single vote. Sitting back and blaming those "passionate" enough to influence government is weak. Lobbying BTW is not restricted to big bad business. Community groups, patients advocates, environmental organisations are all lobbyists to some degree. We can all agree that money has too much power, but the only way to balance that is to get out there and do something about it. I love voting, even if the people who get elected are derps. People fought tooth and nail for your right to vote, an apathetic dismissal of the system does them no justice. Yeah man, spot on! | ||
|
1Eris1
United States5797 Posts
I'd take it you would support a monarchy/anarchy then, as you obviously don't value the right to vote. | ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
That said, out of curiousity, if you could change the voting system, what would you change and why? How? Should government structure be changed? I ask these questions since I am legitimately interested in constitutional reform in the US. It's often talked about, but everyone seems afraid to lift a finger and make a push for it (for letigimate political reasons). I intend to run for office in '14 (although not sure which seat at this time, I will probably hold off a federal run until at least '18), and would love to push this agenda. I know most here aren't registered to vote in the US, but what do you percieve to be flaws and why would you have them changed? And most importantly, which changes would be accepted by the public and which would you consider to be "untouchables"? | ||
|
sunprince
United States2258 Posts
On March 02 2012 10:07 dAPhREAk wrote: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. That would be the magical thinking fallacy. The fact that voting is the cumulative effect of votes doesn't change the fact that the probability of your vote making a difference is virtually null. Further, your vote or lack thereof does not affect whether other people will or won't vote. When I use the term "rational", I'm using the term under the umbrella of rational choice theory. | ||
|
sc2superfan101
3583 Posts
no it's a fact that the combined votes of the population decide elections. | ||
|
sunprince
United States2258 Posts
On March 02 2012 10:16 Wfat wrote: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. Try actually reading. The problem isn't just that the benefit is close to zero. If that were the only case, then you would still vote because a tiny benefit is better than zero. However, there are also costs associated with voting, which outweigh the tiny benefits. | ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
On March 02 2012 10:43 sunprince wrote: That would be the magical thinking fallacy. The fact that voting is the cumulative effect of votes doesn't change the fact that the probability of your vote making a difference is virtually null. Further, your vote or lack thereof does not affect whether other people will or won't vote. When I use the term "rational", I'm using the term under the umbrella of rational choice theory. please use smaller words, i am but a mere mortal. | ||
|
sunprince
United States2258 Posts
On March 02 2012 10:47 sc2superfan101 wrote:no it's a fact that the combined votes of the population decide elections. That doesn't affect the cost-benefit equation for you, which still ends up showing that your benefits are close to zero. | ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
On March 02 2012 10:43 sunprince wrote: That would be the magical thinking fallacy. The fact that voting is the cumulative effect of votes doesn't change the fact that the probability of your vote making a difference is virtually null. Further, your vote or lack thereof does not affect whether other people will or won't vote. When I use the term "rational", I'm using the term under the umbrella of rational choice theory. You are looking at the "mathetmatical" problem wrong. Sure, when you look at the end result of a blowout election you say "my vote didn't make a difference in the election", nothing is technically wrong with that. But if that were true, and nobody voted the oppossite would be true, where one vote makes all the difference in the world, and therefore everyone should be voting. It's logical fallacy that is perpetuated when you look at the problem from only one angle. The truth is that every vote DOES matter, and every vote DOES hold the same weight as any other vote. | ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
On March 02 2012 10:48 sunprince wrote: Try actually reading. The problem isn't just that the benefit is close to zero. If that were the only case, then you would still vote because a tiny benefit is better than zero. However, there are also costs associated with voting, which outweigh the tiny benefits. the costs of putting bush into office was much larger than the cost for me to vote for kerry. [insert random, unnecessary, big word here] | ||
|
sunprince
United States2258 Posts
On March 02 2012 10:49 dAPhREAk wrote:please use smaller words, i am but a mere mortal. Stop trolling. You claimed in another thread to be a lawyer. Surely you can understand the following formula: Reward = (Probability of winning * Benefits of winning versus losing ) - Costs of voting? If you seriously hit your head and became stupid or something, then feel free to educate yourself by doing some googling and reading; I already gave a series of articles written in simple English for "mere mortals",. | ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
On March 02 2012 10:54 sunprince wrote: Stop trolling. You claimed in another thread to be a lawyer. Surely you can understand the following formula: Reward = (Probability of winning * Benefits of winning versus losing ) - Costs of voting? If you seriously hit your head and became stupid or something, then feel free to educate yourself by doing some googling and reading; I already gave a series of articles written in simple English for "mere mortals",. You can't just imagine formula's to be zero sum when they don't take into account all possible factors. Also your formula sucks. If someoen has a 100% chance of winning, the reward for voting would be astronomical when that simply just isn't the case. | ||
|
ElvisWayCool
United States437 Posts
On March 02 2012 02:53 LaSt)ChAnCe wrote: this is actually a very accurate representation of how i feel, too Why would the first post quote the whole OP? I never get why people do this. Obviously the first post is going to be directed towards the OP, there's nothing else for it to be directed towards. Unless, of course, it's off topic, but then you shouldn't be posting at all. ANYWAY.... If you don't vote, that's your decision, but think of the people who CANNOT vote because of some rules their government has (I'm not sure where exactly, but I'm positive there are multiple countries that don't allow women to vote). You have the right, so you should practice it. If you think money is what matters, maybe you should run a campaign with enough logic and power to have yourself elected as an official, without using tons of money, of course, because we want to get rid of that practice. On March 02 2012 10:48 sunprince wrote: Try actually reading. The problem isn't just that the benefit is close to zero. If that were the only case, then you would still vote because a tiny benefit is better than zero. However, there are also costs associated with voting, which outweigh the tiny benefits. What cost of voting outweighs your opinion? Energy? Time? That's like saying when you shouldn't post in a thread with 100 pages because your post is so small and hard to find value in, and the energy of writing the post and the time it takes to write the post outweigh its usefulness. So, either you should stop posting, or start/continue voting. | ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
On March 02 2012 10:54 sunprince wrote: Stop trolling. You claimed in another thread to be a lawyer. Surely you can understand the following formula: Reward = (Probability of winning * Benefits of winning versus losing ) - Costs of voting? If you seriously hit your head and became stupid or something, then feel free to educate yourself by doing some googling and reading; I already gave a series of articles written in simple English for "mere mortals",. you missed the point. people who have valid points rarely rely on using big words to prove them. and, in your case, ineffectually as well considering i read the articles you cited for the words you used and have no idea why you think they apply. try making a point instead of using big words. as they taught us in law school: KISS (keep it simple stupid). | ||
|
sunprince
United States2258 Posts
On March 02 2012 10:51 dAPhREAk wrote:the costs of putting bush into office was much larger than the cost for me to vote for kerry. No, you're failing economics. Affecting who will end up in office is considered a benefit of voting, because when you make the decision of whether to vote or not, stopping Bush from ending up in office is a reason why you would choose to vote. However, what you completely disregarded is the probability that you will affect that outcome, which is close to zero. So even if the personal benefit of having Kerry for President rather than Bush is sizable, the expected benefit of voting to you is very low. | ||
|
sc2superfan101
3583 Posts
On March 02 2012 10:50 sunprince wrote: That doesn't affect the cost-benefit equation for you, which still ends up showing that your benefits are close to zero. ok, well then i won't vote. furthermore, i will convince everyone i know not to vote. i will further convince them to convince everyone they know. this will continue until we reach enough people to sway an election. the fact is, if i managed to convince even ten thousand people to not vote, that could make a huge difference in a presidential election. the cost for me is gas and time. the benefit is knowing that i took part in the effort to get my candidate elected and didn't let my voice go unheard. even if my voice is just a whisper. have you ever heard an entire stadium whisper something? it gets pretty damn loud. now imagine 10,000 stadiums. | ||
| ||
