|
On March 02 2012 10:56 dAPhREAk wrote: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).
Using simple words also tends to be imprecise. There's a reason why certain language is used in academic research. As a lawyer, presumably well-versed in legal opinions and contracts, I'm sure you understand why.
If you really want a simple version for why voting is irrational, then try this: Your vote probably won't affect the election.
|
On March 02 2012 10:54 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +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",.
And if everyone thought that way, you may as well not have a democracy at all. Might as well just be a monarchy and cut out the middle-man.
|
On March 02 2012 10:58 sc2superfan101 wrote: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.
Convincing other people not to vote =/= the decision to vote yourself.
On March 02 2012 10:58 sc2superfan101 wrote: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.
Again, that's a stupid fallacy. Try it in reverse: if 10,000 stadiums are whispering, will anyone notice if you don't whisper?
Remember, your decision not to vote does not affect other people's decisions.
|
On March 02 2012 10:59 Millitron wrote:And if everyone thought that way, you may as well not have a democracy at all. Might as well just be a monarchy and cut out the middle-man.
Same damn magical thinking fallacy again.
Again, your decision to vote or not does not affect other people's decisions.
If enough people don't vote and/or it's a close election, then the odds of you affecting the election go up to the point where it makes sense for you to vote again.
|
On March 02 2012 11:01 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2012 10:58 sc2superfan101 wrote: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. Convincing other people not to vote =/= the decision to vote yourself.
the point is: if no one votes, the system doesn't exist. if only a tiny minority vote, the system doesn't work. if a majority votes, the system works. i am a minority, but am a piece of that majority.
Again, that's a stupid fallacy. Try it in reverse: if 10,000 stadiums are whispering, will anyone notice if you don't whisper?
yes. someone will notice. you know who?
me.
|
On March 02 2012 10:59 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2012 10:56 dAPhREAk wrote: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). Using simple words also tends to be imprecise. There's a reason why certain language is used in academic research. As a lawyer, presumably well-versed in legal opinions and contracts, I'm sure you understand why. If you really want a simple version for why voting is irrational, then try this: Your vote probably won't affect the election.
You really don't understand much about lawyers, so you should probably refrain from lecturing about it.
|
On March 02 2012 11:01 sunprince wrote:
Remember, your decision not to vote does not affect other people's decisions.
That's a logical flaw. You're assuming something to be true that isn't true.
|
On March 02 2012 10:56 TerlocSG wrote:What cost of voting outweighs your opinion? Energy? Time?
The costs of voting are primarily: (a) time spent on registration, (b) the costs of rearranging your work schedule, (c) the costs of getting to the polls, and (d) the costs of gathering enough information to make informed votes.
On March 02 2012 10:56 TerlocSG wrote: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.
No, it would be like saying that you shouldn't post in a thread if there is a tiny chance that anyone will read your post or respond to it. Since people regularly respond to my posts here, there's obviously value in posting.
By contrast, the odds of my vote mattering are far less than the odds of my post affecting the thread.
|
On March 02 2012 11:05 BluePanther wrote:That's a logical flaw. You're assuming something to be true that isn't true.
The burden of proof is on you to show that it does, not the other way around.
|
On March 02 2012 11:06 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2012 11:05 BluePanther wrote:That's a logical flaw. You're assuming something to be true that isn't true. The burden of proof is on you to show that it does, not the other way around.
i dont have to prove my point, you have to disprove it. OBJECTION! lol
|
On March 02 2012 11:03 sc2superfan101 wrote:the point is: if no one votes, the system doesn't exist. if only a tiny minority vote, the system doesn't work. if a majority votes, the system works. i am a minority, but am a piece of that majority.
You don't get rational choice theory at all. If few enough people vote, then it's worth it for you to vote again.
The point is, that as long as hundreds of millions of other people vote, then it's not worth voting.
On March 02 2012 11:03 sc2superfan101 wrote:
yes. someone will notice. you know who?
me.
That's cute and all, but it doesn't change the fact that you won't affect anything.
|
On March 02 2012 11:02 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2012 10:59 Millitron wrote:And if everyone thought that way, you may as well not have a democracy at all. Might as well just be a monarchy and cut out the middle-man. Same damn magical thinking fallacy again. Again, your decision to vote or not does not affect other people's decisions.If enough people don't vote and/or it's a close election, then the odds of you affecting the election go up to the point where it makes sense for you to vote again.
I didn't say it DID affect other people's decisions. If I vote, and they don't, well then I just picked the president. If I vote, and they do as well, then I did my part to help the guy I voted for get elected. Even if he loses, I at least did my part.
If you don't vote, you have no right to complain when the government sucks. You didn't care enough to try to do something about it when you had the chance, so the only person you have to blame is yourself.
|
On March 02 2012 11:06 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2012 11:05 BluePanther wrote:That's a logical flaw. You're assuming something to be true that isn't true. The burden of proof is on you to show that it does, not the other way around.
I already did early, you just ignored me.
The truth is that every vote does matter because you cannot possibly know who will and will not vote on the day of an election.
The problem is far more complicated than you are proposing it to be, because it's double blind. Neither side of the vote knows who on the other side will and will not show up on the date in question.
|
On March 02 2012 11:08 dAPhREAk wrote:i dont have to prove my point, you have to disprove it. OBJECTION! lol
You fail logic forever.
The burden is always on the person trying to prove something exists. The default assumption here is that your vote doesn't affect other people. The burden is on you to prove that it does, if you want to insist that this is a reason to vote.
|
On March 02 2012 11:10 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2012 11:08 dAPhREAk wrote:i dont have to prove my point, you have to disprove it. OBJECTION! lol You fail logic forever. The burden is always on the person trying to prove something exists. The default assumption here is that your vote doesn't affect other people. The burden is on you to prove that it does, if you want to insist that this is a reason to vote.
why is that the default assumption?
|
i vote for a very simple reason, the ability to bitch about it. if someone is elected that you dont like, and you didnt vote, then you have no reason to bitch about them because you didnt do anything to try to prevent them from being elected. if youre too lazy to go and vote fro something, you shouldnt have the right to complain about the result. thats really the only reason i vote anymore.
|
On March 02 2012 11:10 BluePanther wrote:The truth is that every vote does matter because you cannot possibly know who will and will not vote on the day of an election.
You cannot know precisely, but you can estimate with enough confidence to know that the number will be sufficiently high that your vote is meaningless. Of course, if you have some reason to believe that the number will be shockingly low this time, then it makes more sense to vote.
On March 02 2012 11:10 BluePanther wrote:The problem is far more complicated than you are proposing it to be, because it's double blind. Neither side of the vote knows who on the other side will and will not show up on the date in question.
We have polls all the time to assess the likely number of voters, so that's false.
|
On March 02 2012 11:02 sunprince wrote:
Again, your decision to vote or not does not affect other people's decisions.
On March 02 2012 11:08 sunprince wrote:
You don't get rational choice theory at all. If few enough people vote, then it's worth it for you to vote again.
This does not work in the same theory. Either my action DOES affect other's actions, or it DOES NOT. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
|
On March 02 2012 11:11 dAPhREAk wrote:why is that the default assumption?
Stop trolling.
|
On March 02 2012 11:16 sunprince wrote:Stop trolling.
has your logic failed you?
edit: you also really should learn how to quote properly. it is hard as hell to follow your conversations because you dont quote the entire conversation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
