| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
AnachronisticAnarchy
United States2957 Posts
On March 02 2012 09:15 1Eris1 wrote: And yet the source of a lot of those problems are simply people not bothering to vote against them. It's called a cycle I can't vote against corporations or the voters. There are no candidates who strike me as actually honest people and not as a politician. | ||
|
[UoN]Sentinel
United States11320 Posts
On March 03 2012 06:01 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote: I can't vote against corporations or the voters. There are no candidates who strike me as actually honest people and not as a politician. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/9XrlD.jpg) There's no such thing as an "honest person". Everyone lies. If you say you don't, you are lying. This is especially true when you have power (power corrupts?) When there's no honest person to choose, choose from the pool who strikes you as most honest. If you live in a state with open primaries this is even better since instead of choosing from two candidates from the two major political parties, you can choose from a lot more. Five major ones for this election (four GOP's + Obama), and six from 2008 (four GOP's + Obama + Clinton). If you don't... well, you still have a choice, or vote for the independents/third parties. There's a lot of people out there too. And you still have congressmen and state governments to pick. | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
What the fuck are you talking about? The fact that voting rarely has any effect isn't QQ, it's a statement of fact. No, it isn't, it's childish QQ. It's very simple. Extend your statement of fact to every voter, individually, and there is no voting. No voting would mean the democratic system wouldn't be able to function. So, it's a statement of very simple fact that voting does have an effect. What the fuck are you talking about? The fact that voting rarely has any effect isn't QQ, it's a statement of fact. How in the world did you decide that I'm support an "ideology out of power", when I don't identify with any political party? What "ideology" did you somehow conclude that I support? Your entire argument is the QQ of an ideology out of power. What ideology in particular doesn't really matter, it could be any ideology without mainstream support. Ideology is also not a synonym for political party, sorry. Did you confuse me for someone else? When did I ever complain that the system was unfair? No one in power cares about the opinions of the populace, beyond the ability of those opinions to threaten their power, Although that part was more a general observation, not specifically aimed at you. the entire reason the electoral college system was set up was for the elite to make sure that the lower class citizens would be able to change nothing. the more you know. Actually, that would be the reason for the electoral franchise only being extended to property owners during early America. What you were responding to is accurate. Smaller states were highly concerned that national affairs, particularly tariffs, would be dominated by larger, more populous states, which would enact national policies and regulations to the benefit of those large states at the expense of the smaller states. This is why each state has 2 senators, and why the president is elected by the electoral college and indirect popular vote, not direct popular vote. If he [Lincoln] were president today... Actually the anti-Republican press of the day focused on all those things, and in a far more coarse and brutal fashion than any cable news commentator would in the present. The man was regularly called a baboon, among other things. | ||
|
seppolevne
Canada1681 Posts
On March 03 2012 04:21 Kaitlin wrote: By, "but actually don't" you obviously mean "but whose opinion differs from my own because only my opinion is the correct one", correct ? Haha, one day you will learn that some opinions are wrong. Them being wrong != him being right. Can you please take a step back and see that maybe you just need to think a little longer? | ||
|
[UoN]Sentinel
United States11320 Posts
Actually the anti-Republican press of the day focused on all those things, and in a far more coarse and brutal fashion than any cable news commentator would in the present. The man was regularly called a baboon, among other things. I thought it was "gorilla", but it was a long time ago I read about that so I may be mistaken. But I don't think anyone gave him crap about the theater bit after the civil war was over. | ||
|
1Eris1
United States5797 Posts
On March 03 2012 06:01 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote: I can't vote against corporations or the voters. There are no candidates who strike me as actually honest people and not as a politician. Thats just because you're only looking at Democrats or Republicans. And you can always try to run yourself you knew. There are a lot of people in this thread who share a similar opinion to yours, that should tell you something. And lets please stop this politician auto=bad person. Contrary to popular belief, some of the guys in our governements are actually trying to help people | ||
|
snakeeyez
United States1231 Posts
I think the government has grown out of control over the decades and just represents them not the people anymore. Nothing they do works or makes any sense. | ||
|
sunprince
United States2258 Posts
On March 03 2012 06:26 DeepElemBlues wrote:No, it isn't, it's childish QQ. It's very simple. Extend your statement of fact to every voter, individually, and there is no voting. No voting would mean the democratic system wouldn't be able to function. So, it's a statement of very simple fact that voting does have an effect. Again with the logical fallacies. Whether a decision is +EV for you or not does not mean that everyone else would make the same decision, even if it would be +EV for them. Consider the following parallel. Let's say that the stock price for Company X is currently $90, but an objective calculation of its value suggests that it is $100. That means that it is +EV to buy the stock. Yes, if every single investor did the same thing as you, then the stock price will rise, and it will not be +EV to buy it anymore. So what? We're not talking about the hypothetical decisions of everyone else here, we're only talking about yours. There's tons of reasons why other people might not sell, starting with the fact that most people have no idea how to calculate the value of a company. It's ridiculous to assume "if everyone did the same thing"; it's a bullshit "what if". On March 03 2012 06:26 DeepElemBlues wrote:Your entire argument is the QQ of an ideology out of power. What ideology in particular doesn't really matter, it could be any ideology without mainstream support. Ideology is also not a synonym for political party, sorry. No, it isn't. My statement is the objective science of academics, that has been well-established for decades. You're assuming that simply because I pointed out something that it means I have a problem with it. False dichotomy. Imagine a Starcraft commentator pointed out that Scouts are useless when someone builds them. Is he QQing about it? No, he's just saying building Scouts are usually a bad idea, not asking for a balance patch. | ||
|
Xapti
Canada2473 Posts
On March 02 2012 22:20 sunprince wrote: Personally, I find it disgusting when people cast a worthless vote and congratulate themselves for doing something meaningful. Revolutions don't happen because people throw away their votes. Revolutions happen when people actually, y'know, revolt. Casting worthless votes is just a BS way to feel good about yourself without actually making sacrifices to do something real. No one in power cares about the opinions of the populace, beyond the ability of those opinions to threaten their power, and in the American electoral system, third parties are incapable of threatening them. Thus, expressing your opinion in this manner is worth nothing. You're far too optimstic in believing that showing the opinions of the population will achieve anything meaningful. I know this sounds depressing, but such is the cold, hard reality of politics. You sound as ignorant as someone who's only taken elementary school politics classes, and as pessimistic as a conspiracy theorist. You're not backing up any of what you say by facts or anything else, you're just outright denying things, that doesn't get you anywhere for a position of credibility. | ||
|
sunprince
United States2258 Posts
On March 03 2012 08:22 Xapti wrote:You sound as ignorant as someone who's only taken elementary school politics classes, and as pessimistic as a conspiracy theorist. I actually have a degree in political science from a top 10 public university in the US, thanks. On March 03 2012 08:22 Xapti wrote:You're not backing up any of what you say by facts or anything else, you're just outright denying things, that doesn't get you anywhere for a position of credibility. In a forum thread, it makes more sense to explain thing in a more accessible way for most people, and provide links as sources for people who care to read more. Try actually reading the links I've repeatedly posted which provide more detailed, academic support as well as sources for my positions. You can also use Google to quickly find that there is no academic support for the notion that the benefits of voting usually outweigh the costs, but plenty of support for the opposite from the fields of political science, economics, and pyschology. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_voting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_choice_theory http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200911/why-do-people-vote-i http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200911/why-do-people-vote-ii http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200911/why-do-people-vote-iii | ||
|
Xapti
Canada2473 Posts
On March 03 2012 08:29 sunprince wrote:Try actually reading the links I've repeatedly posted which provide more detailed, academic support as well as sources for my positions. You can also use Google to quickly find that there is no academic support for the notion that the benefits of voting usually outweigh the costs, but plenty of support for the opposite from the fields of political science, economics, and pyschology. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_voting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_choice_theory http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200911/why-do-people-vote-i http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200911/why-do-people-vote-ii http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200911/why-do-people-vote-iii I already read some of that, You mention stuff like the paradox of voting as if it's an absolute truth that applies to everyone in all circumstances or that everyone (or majority of people) actually agrees on it applying to the real world.. For one, it's generally looking at the factor of who wins, not the bigger picture, such as expressing popular opinion, or obtaining a vote threshold (5%) for a certain party to give them more funding. Secondly, it's assuming egoist/selfish human behavior, to which voting is obviously not designed for. Voting is an inherently selfless thing, so it's no surprise to have a paradox involving a bunch of selfish people voting. Not everyone is a selfish person just caring about their own actions in tunnel vision, instead of looking at the wider picture of their actions. Rational choice theory does not address the role of an individual's sense of morals or ethics in decision-making, and is not something that is exclusively used by everyone to gauge outcomes or behaviors accurately. The first Psychology Today article mentioned a fallacy of "magical thinking" which I can only assume they meant "Post hoc ergo propter hoc", since I haven't heard of called "magical thinking". The argument made in the article was not actually a logical fallacy, but that doesn't mean it's not somewhat incorrect. If everyone acted the in the way where they don't think their vote would make a significant difference they wouldn't vote, it doesn't necessarily mean no one would vote, but there would have to be very small voter amounts and/or a close race for more than just a small number of people to vote. While more than zero people would be voting, it would still be a very insignificant amount of people, such as maybe 10% of the population or less. The issue is that if people were voting for who they wanted, there would be an additional 9 fold increase in opinion, completely crashing the original 10%'s opinion. It's about acting as a collective — humans are not solitary, completely selfish, beings; We're gregarious beings who use teamwork to achieve goals, that's the whole point of elections, and it's why getting everyone to vote is important. All sorts of great feats were achieved through teamwork throught human civilization | ||
|
sunprince
United States2258 Posts
On March 03 2012 08:51 Xapti wrote:I already read some of that, You mention stuff like the paradox of voting as if it's an absolute truth that applies to everyone in all circumstances or that everyone (or majority of people) actually agrees on it applying to the real world. 1. The irrationality of voting is a tendency, not an absolute. As I've stated multiple times in this thread, it is sometimes rational to vote (typically when the electorate is small and/or the vote is close), but usually not. 2. Whether people agree on it applying or not is irrelevant. Most Americans don't believe in evolution, but that doesn't change the fact that it exists. It just means that a lot of people suffer from cognitive biases and aren't properly informed, and that applies to the rationality of voting as well. On March 03 2012 08:51 Xapti wrote:For one, it's generally looking at the factor of who wins, not the bigger picture, such as expressing popular opinion, or obtaining a vote threshold (5%) for a certain party to give them more funding. No, the bigger picture is who wins. Expressing popular opinion or obtaining more funding for a party that will never matter are tiny details. On March 03 2012 08:51 Xapti wrote:Secondly, it's assuming egoist/selfish human behavior, to which voting is obviously not designed for. Voting is an inherently selfless thing, so it's no surprise to have a paradox involving a bunch of selfish people voting. Not everyone is a selfish person just caring about their own actions in tunnel vision, instead of looking at the wider picture of their actions. Since when was voting inherently selfless? People vote for selfish reasons all the time! Why do you think that people are always pushing to cut taxes and increase spending while creating massive deficits? Because they're "looking at the wider picture of their actions"?  On March 03 2012 08:51 Xapti wrote:Rational choice theory does not address the role of an individual's sense of morals or ethics in decision-making, and is not something that is exclusively used by everyone to gauge outcomes or behaviors accurately. When did I ever claim that rational choice theory is used by everyone to determine their behavior? I've repeatedly asserted that most people act irrationally, and that's why they vote! Stating the fact that voting is -EV doesn't at all mean that people won't vote, it just means that it's not rationally beneficial for most people to do so. | ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
On March 03 2012 08:22 Xapti wrote: You sound as ignorant as someone who's only taken elementary school politics classes, and as pessimistic as a conspiracy theorist. You're not backing up any of what you say by facts or anything else, you're just outright denying things, that doesn't get you anywhere for a position of credibility. i thought the same thing, and thats why i dont engage with him as well. | ||
|
sunprince
United States2258 Posts
On March 03 2012 09:03 dAPhREAk wrote:i thought the same thing, and thats why i dont engage with him as well. You never did. All you did was spout one-liner troll posts and ad hominems while consistently refusing to acknowledge the actual merits of the case. That's why I stopped bothering to give answers to your questions. | ||
|
aebriol
Norway2066 Posts
On March 03 2012 08:29 sunprince wrote: You can also use Google to quickly find that there is no academic support for the notion that the benefits of voting usually outweigh the costs, but plenty of support for the opposite from the fields of political science, economics, and pyschology. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_voting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_choice_theory http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200911/why-do-people-vote-i http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200911/why-do-people-vote-ii http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200911/why-do-people-vote-iii Too much science, not enough rational thought. People vote because they find it worth their time. They are aware that their single vote isn't likely to make any difference. People in general aren't complete and utter morons. Since the majority still votes, voluntarily, the benefits clearly outweight the costs - for that majority. If you don't understand why people vote - then you just don't understand the real benefit people get from voting. Mainly - the ability to root for their team, and feeling free to complain about the other team, without making up lies and getting a bad conscience for it. How often have you heard phrases like 'I'd vote for him' or 'not my fault, I didn't vote for him' etc ... it's quite simply a way to feel that you have done your part, and are free to complain about everything that happens (because you did your part - voting). If lying doesn't bother you, there's no reason to vote. Lying bothers a lot of people, so they vote. I would be willing to bet that people lie about having voted, but voters don't lie much about not having voted (I guess they might lie about who they voted for ... but not the fact that they voted). | ||
|
aebriol
Norway2066 Posts
On March 03 2012 09:00 sunprince wrote: When did I ever claim that rational choice theory is used by everyone to determine their behavior? I've repeatedly asserted that most people act irrationally, and that's why they vote! Stating the fact that voting is -EV doesn't at all mean that people won't vote, it just means that it's not rationally beneficial for most people to do so. It's rational to vote if it makes you feel better about yourself, and you have a reason for believing that voting will make you feel better about yourself. People take the idea of rationality too far, only counting the tangibles but not seeing the whole picture. | ||
|
sunprince
United States2258 Posts
On March 03 2012 09:04 aebriol wrote:People vote because they find it worth their time. They are aware that their single vote isn't likely to make any difference. People in general aren't complete and utter morons. People find it worth their time because they have a poor grasp of probability. People in general aren't complete morons, but are in general prone to cognitive biases and are poorly informed. Again, if you wish to dispute this, consider that a majority of Americans do not believe in evolution. On March 03 2012 09:04 aebriol wrote:Since the majority still votes, voluntarily, the benefits clearly outweight the costs - for that majority. No, tht just means that the benefits outweigh the costs according to their flawed subconscious calculations. A ton of people also buy lottery tickets or make poor investments; that doesn't mean that their choices are +EV. Argumentum ad populum here. On March 03 2012 09:04 aebriol wrote:If you don't understand why people vote - then you just don't understand the real benefit people get from voting. I do understand why people vote. I'm just stating that it's usually -EV to do so. I similarly understand why some noob Starcraft players will 1-base turtle and never expand, I'm just stating it's usually -EV to do so. | ||
|
sunprince
United States2258 Posts
On March 03 2012 09:08 aebriol wrote:It's rational to vote if it makes you feel better about yourself, and you have a reason for believing that voting will make you feel better about yourself. As previously noted, people are uninformed. Voting only makes people feel better about themselves, because they think their vote matters (and why not, since they're repeatedly given the feel-good BS that their vote matters from all directions). That still doesn't make it rational in the strictest sense, since they're only acting that way because they don't know better or refuse to acknowledge the truth. If anything, that just makes it rational irrationality. | ||
|
MyHero[bNy]
4 Posts
Seriously a disgrace and disrespectful! I'll put it very simple, if you dont vote then you dont have a opinion about politics/society. So in fact 45% of USA dont have a opinion when it comes to who is gonna rule the country and that is actually very scary. Again, as long as you dont vote, you dont have a opinion about politics/society. | ||
|
Velocirapture
United States983 Posts
On March 02 2012 03:04 Uranium wrote: I came to the conclusion that I wasn't going to vote this year. At first, I was going to vote for Ron Paul, but after seeing how he's completely sold out in his bid for the Republican party, I've given up. He had to become a staunch bible-thumping anti-abortionist to even be considered as a "real" Republican candidate. Seriously? What happened to separation of church and state? The rest of the Republican candidates are completely repulsive to me, and Obama is just meh. On top of that you have the fact that our nation is a true idiocracy. Just look at our television ads and journalism. Advertisement is utter crap, designed around subliminal messaging to a sleeping populace. Journalism is even worse: pure sensationalism, or in the case of FOX, fabrication. But the fact is, the nation has tons of people that love watching FOX and believe all the drivel that comes out of the reporters' mouths. When you realize that the average IQ is 100, that means that fully 50% of our nation is below that. And these people are allowed to vote. Even more worrisome is I'm not sure if their votes even affect the outcome of the system at all. The electoral college system results in a binary winner-takes-all system in each state, which means that any intelligent people who live in West Virginia might as well not exist for purposes of this election. I guess what I'm trying to say here is that I really just don't care any more. America is fucked up, and I hope it goes down in flames. edit: Holy shit, idiocracy is real. There was even a book written on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve#Policy_recommendations edit2: Hmm... proving Republicans are stupid. The rest of the article is interesting, but you can just skip to the end if you want. http://lagriffedulion.f2s.com/retard.htm Ron Paul has always been a staunch social conservation. He didn't become a creationist/anti-abortionist to get votes, it has just never gotten so much attention because he has never done so well. Imo the point of voting is to be selfish. When you punch that ballot or tap that screen the result should be a direct reflection of your interests. This is important because even if something doesnt pass or somebody doesnt get elected then the vote can still be considered one of the largest and most comprehensive polls on the subject. Im not saying the system is as good as it could be but even if this benefit is extremely small, there is literally no drawback to dissuade me. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
PiGosaur Cup
Replay Cast
Kung Fu Cup
Replay Cast
The PondCast
OSC
Replay Cast
Escore
CranKy Ducklings
Sparkling Tuna Cup
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
