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.
Try reading again.
I didn't say that your vote affects other's actions. If few enough people vote, then it's worth it for you to vote again, because it means your vote has a high enough probability of mattering, not because your vote would encourage people to vote or some bullshit like that.
Other people's actions affect your decision to vote. The other way around is not true.
On March 02 2012 11:17 dAPhREAk wrote:has your logic failed you?
No, I can explain how burden of proof works, but it's pretty obvious that you're just trying to waste my time.
If you're really so retarded that you don't understand why its necessary to prove that things exist, not disprove them, then feel free to use Google to look up burden of proof and Occam's razor.
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.
Great, you're personally attacking me because I don't agree with you. I read his blog posts. The costs associated with voting are non-existent and purely an intellectual wank. It takes 30 minutes to vote, and for me the process is enjoyable. Also I enjoy participating in how my country is governed and in general care for the society that I live in.
Your argument (and also the academics) now hinges on one point, your personal belief(s) and value in voting, which is clearly different to mine. Awesome! Voting is worthwhile.
Now think about:
On March 02 2012 11:06 sunprince wrote: ... 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. ...
Now I challenge you to think about the benefits of voting and weigh that up with those costs you listed. a) takes hardly any time in Australia, b) and c) are not issues because you can postal vote in Australia (and apparently you can in USA as well http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postal_voting#United_States), and d) well, you're quite clearly interested enough in politics (and I'd wager most adults are as well) to do this in your spare time.
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.
if it's not worth anyones time to vote, then in a logical world: no one would vote. but then it would suddenly become logical to vote, so they would vote. but then it's not logical to vote, so they wouldn't. but then...
i think you can see where this is going.
That's cute and all, but it doesn't change the fact that you won't affect anything.
see, you missed the point. my vote may not affect the outcome, but that is not what makes it worth it. what makes it worth it is the value of that vote to me. i value my vote very highly, therefore, it is worth it for me to vote.
On March 02 2012 11:17 dAPhREAk wrote:has your logic failed you?
No, I can explain how burden of proof works, but it's pretty obvious that you're just trying to waste my time.
If you're really so retarded that you don't understand why its necessary to prove that things exist, not disprove them, then feel free to use Google to look up burden of proof and Occam's razor.
you make assumptions and state them as truth, but refuse to answer my question about why you made the assumption. yeah, i am the retard....
I think that people who don't vote and then complain are just wrong.
Look at Lupe Fiasco. Writes 100 songs about how corrupt government is but doesn't get off his ass and vote to make his voice heard and try to change the political system.
I think that people nowadays have this false idea that people have no voice in the government. People do have a voice. For example, same sex marriage was banned in many states, but now that people have risen up, it's slowly changing. Same with SOPA and other bills of that nature.
Heck, I think that if enough people got off of their asses, we can protest NDAA and other horrible laws and get them changed for the better. Now, it may not always work (people protested the Iraq War at the start and we had been there for nine years after) but I think that there is no harm in not trying.
What is happening in this thread...it's like a religion debate on who has the burden of proof T.T
I vote because it is the lesser of two evils. I recognize the marginal impact my vote has on an election, but I still vote because it stil has that marginal impact. Also the vote signifies my belief that the current voting scheme (albeit not the best) is a legimate measure of election. Not voting does absolutely nothing. Thus the lesser of two evils.
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.
Try reading again.
I didn't say that your vote affects other's actions. If few enough people vote, then it's worth it for you to vote again, because it means your vote has a high enough probability of mattering, not because your vote would encourage people to vote or some bullshit like that.
Other people's actions affect your decision to vote. The other way around is not true.
If other's actions affect my decision to vote, then how the hell does my decision on whether to vote not affect the others?
On March 02 2012 11:21 sc2superfan101 wrote:if it's not worth anyones time to vote, then in a logical world: no one would vote. but then it would suddenly become logical to vote, so they would vote. but then it's not logical to vote, so they wouldn't. but then...
i think you can see where this is going.
It's not a logical world. As this thread proves, most people are subject to cognitive biases and vote even though it's irrational.
On March 02 2012 11:21 sc2superfan101 wrote:see, you missed the point. my vote may not affect the outcome, but that is not what makes it worth it. what makes it worth it is the value of that vote to me. i value my vote very highly, therefore, it is worth it for me to vote.
If we broke down that value to some sort of number, say an estimated vaule of its monetary cost (e.g. how much would someone have to pay you not to vote), then we could easily plug it into the equation and prove that the costs still exceed the benefits for most people, including probably you.
On March 02 2012 10:42 BluePanther wrote: I vote because I care.
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"?
What do you think about changing your voting system; watch these series of youtube videos
On March 02 2012 11:24 BluePanther wrote:If other's actions affect my decision to vote, then how the hell does my decision on whether to vote not affect the others?
Are they not people like me?
Not everyone acts rationally. As this thread proves, most people engage in cognitive biases where they think voting is worth it, even though it's been academically proven that it is not. Most people have a very poor grasp of probability, statistics, and economics.
On March 02 2012 11:24 BluePanther wrote:If other's actions affect my decision to vote, then how the hell does my decision on whether to vote not affect the others?
Are they not people like me?
Not everyone acts rationally. As this thread proves, most people engage in cognitive biases where they think voting is worth it, even though it's been academically proven that it is not. Most people have a very poor grasp of probability, statistics, and economics.
Actually those of you who are registered to vote, yet rarely/never do it, are the target of the presidential campaigns. Most election strategy hinges on the assumption that the party representative will get the majority of die-hard republican/democrat supporters. With this assumption in hand, the goal of most campaigns is to win the "swing voters" - those being the voters who do not often vote for one party, do not often vote, or never vote but are registered. Your voting demographic is where elections are won, of course your vote matters.
On March 02 2012 11:21 sc2superfan101 wrote:if it's not worth anyones time to vote, then in a logical world: no one would vote. but then it would suddenly become logical to vote, so they would vote. but then it's not logical to vote, so they wouldn't. but then...
i think you can see where this is going.
It's not a logical world. As this thread proves, most people are subject to cognitive biases and vote even though it's irrational.
i just gave you two reasons why it's not irrational. the first being that for every vote that isn't cast, the value of the singular vote goes up. therefore, as people stop voting, it becomes more and more valuable for them to vote. you're basically assuming some kind of balance where it's valuable to vote before but not after. im saying that it doesnt work like that because that is a circular argument, and that balance is impossible to achieve. if people don't vote because it's irrational, it suddenly becomes rational to vote, but then it's not rational because if they vote the value goes down, but then it's rational because they won't vote because of that... it keeps going and going and going. which is why i put the more important second point in there:
If we broke down that value to some sort of number, say an estimated vaule of its monetary cost (e.g. how much would someone have to pay you not to vote), then we could easily plug it into the equation and prove that the costs still exceed the benefits for most people, including probably you.
$1,000,000 could not get me to not vote. i would give up my life to protect my right to vote. i would send my children to war to protect their right to vote. almost nothing could be more valuable to me than my vote. so, this point is also incorrect. we are dealing with values that are higher than money.
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.
If I go into a voting booth, spoil my ballot and leave without telling anyone else that I have done it or acting in any out of the ordinary way then what is different in the world, other than some ink on a page. The world may change down the line but the impact of my choice certainly won't be felt on election day while the ballot is still open. No other votes are changed, no decisions are in any way altered, no actions taken that day are taken any differently to the way they would have been had the ink been placed differently.
I'm missing the whole me voting doesn't affect anything equation, but in regards to the electoral college--it fits well with our representative focused government. A direct democracy would shift candidates away from everywhere but large population centers, and thus disenfranchise the entire Midwest and effectively make the residents of New York, California, and Texas decide the President. With our electoral college smaller populations have influence, still not as much as larger states, but still enough to warrant their desires being catered to. Imagine our Civil Rights Movement of the 60s put up for a direct vote.
I feel the biggest problem facing our government is the money in politics. Its easy for a movement to rise against SOPA, but there are thousands of lobbyist and it would be impossible for anyone with a full-time job to keep completely informed on every little thing they slip into legislation. The money they provide is what candidates use to get elected. Newt Gingrich getting a job with Freddie Mac as a 'historian' for X millions of dollars should be illegal and similar situations. Jack Abramoff's book talks all about buying Congressmen by offering them jobs after their tenure, and it is completely legal. Have a candidate go through some sort of nomination process and then they can tap into a pool to use for their campaigning. Equal money for all candidates. No donations allowed and a very low cap on private funds legally spendable.
Gerrymandering is another huge problem and I'm sure there are some good solution for fixing that. I know must districts are so gerrymandered that there are very few that are actually contested.
I feel term limits and longer terms would help too. The former, I believe, would reduce corruption and allow them to do what is best for the country as a pose to what will get them elected next election, and that latter would allow for more work to actually get done. House of Representative members spend most of their tenure campaigning. Cutting down Congress's vacation time would be a good thing too in that regard.
Finally, I would rather have a bunch of below average people voting than a few educated people. The fact being your representative (senator, president) will hopefully be somewhat educated.
Edit: Also, election days should be Federal holidays and there are plenty of other ways to make voting more accessible.
Here is the problem i feel.. Does our vote really matter? How would we even know if it was so close or not... There is a documentary called ... Hacking Democracy watch that and let me know if u feel so American after that
The US isn't a true democracy by the most literal definition--if it were, everyone would be spending more time voting on things than working. That in mind, when the constitution was being drafted, those present did not have enough faith in the general population to make good decisions on candidates, and so we have our electoral system instead of a popular vote as well as several other changes to our translation of democracy. What they didn't think of, was to have a lack of faith in politicians, as well.
Time and time again the winner of a popular vote loses the election because he's not favored by the current states' administrations. It really has turned into a frustrating system. Both the voting And political party systems, that is.
I feel like the fact of the matter is that the wealthy elite of the country really do control everything.
I'm glad you've become disillusioned. Welcome to the club. I'm not even registered to vote. I just don't care enough. Sure, some shit actually gets done at a municipal level, but meh the further up the level of politics goes, the more full of bullshit and garbage it is. I'd rather not stress out about it and deceive myself I'm significant in a system run by the powerful and influential. I have more important things to worry about anyways.
EPT
I'm not even registered to vote. I just don't care enough. Sure, some shit actually gets done at a municipal level, but meh the further up the level of politics goes, the more full of bullshit and garbage it is. I'd rather not stress out about it and deceive myself I'm significant in a system run by the powerful and influential. I have more important things to worry about anyways.
