|
On March 03 2012 09:11 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +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.
I don't want to mess too much with the quote tags so ...
1) I don't disagree that people in general have a poor grasp of probability, but you see the same pattern in all western democracies, so there's nothing unique about the US when it comes to this. Since I live in Norway, and here people aren't very religious, we do believe in evolution, and people in general are at least decently educated (and the higher the education, the more likely you are to vote)....
I dispute your idea that it's because people don't 'understand' that their single vote doesn't matter that they vote.
I believe that people vote for other reasons than believing their single vote counts.
And I believe that reason is being able to discuss politics, economics, the world, how things are going, etc etc etc, without having to lie, because you 'did your part'.
2) You are stating that people have negative expected value from voting.
I dispute that.
I would say that if lying bothers you, then voting enables you for the near future (1 - 4 years) to discuss what is going on, while knowing you 'did your part'. And it makes you feel good about having done it.
I have always voted. I know why I vote. And it's not because I am stupid enough to believe my vote matters. It's because I discuss politics quite often, seriously or not, I don't like lying for no reason, and I like being able to say I voted.
My expected value from voting is being able to feel better about my arguments when discussing politics for the near future, instead of meeting the irrefutable argument 'well you didn't vote, so you chose to not let your opinion matter, shut the f up'.
Again - if lying doesn't bother you, then I agree. However, lying bothers a lot of people. And the more educated people are, the more likely the are in my opinion to casually discuss politics, the economy, etc, and the more real benefit there is from having voted. Which is why those people are more likely to vote.
3) You compare it to playing the lottery.
It's worth making a note of the fact that the minority regulary plays the lottery, while the majority votes, that there is an inverse relationship between who is more likely to vote (better educated, richer, part of the majority group), than those that play the lottery (poorer, less educated, minorities).
That's because the first group are more likely to weight the benefits over time and the likelyhood of those occuring, while the second group is more likely to not considering the probability, and chose a short term benefit (I can afford it right now, and I can afford it right now next week, and the week after, and the week after - not taking into account the total cost), while voting is a little cost right now, for an expected value over time that is returned over a longer period of time (until the next election).
|
On March 03 2012 09:08 aebriol wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Rational and rational, rational choice theory isn't concerned about your feelings in the way you prescribe them. That is, however, one of the biggest reasons people actually vote - to feel that they are contributing to society and being a "good person".
As far as "ONLY WINNING MATTERS!!" goes, that's bullshit. There's almost always support voting for one of the smaller parties from one of the bigger parties out of the two blocks here in Sweden in every election, that is, votes that would be cast on the biggest party (or one of the bigger smaller parties) are placed on the smallest one to make sure that it stays in parliament (and receives funding). Biggest motivator here is that people feel that the other party's views are an important part of Swedish politics, for balance's sake. Obviously this doesn't, and can't, apply to American politics. But then I've never understood why such an undemocratic system is still deemed legitimate by the people. Maybe the answer is the insanely strong patriotism/nationalism that transpires American society, maybe it's something else. I'm really curious though, haven't gotten a good explanation from any source so far.
|
On March 03 2012 09:19 MyHero[bNy] wrote:
Its a disgrace that you dont use your voting rights in USA, did you ever think about how many lives have been sacrified for the right of voting?
Seriously a disgrace and disrespectful!
I'll put it very simple, if you dont vote then you dont have a opinion.
That is rhetoric.
Nobody has denied the main points of my OP. Instead, it has been totally ignored, and instead I've gotten the same emotional message over and over: If you don't vote, your opinion doesn't matter. Soldiers died so sniveling little shits like you could have that right.
Whether or not I vote is not the issue. The issue is, that no matter who I vote for, no matter who wins, money is the bottom line. Period. It doesn't matter if I vote blank, GOP, or independent. It doesn't matter who wins. Powerful, wealthy people will always be the ones deciding who gets what. It is a separate issue from voting.
|
On March 03 2012 09:35 HellRoxYa wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 09:08 aebriol wrote: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. Rational and rational, rational choice theory isn't concerned about your feelings in the way you prescribe them. That is, however, one of the biggest reasons people actually vote - to feel that they are contributing to society and being a "good person".
Well, I consider it rational to do something with my time that doesn't cost me any money, and I can expect makes me feel overall better than if I didn't.
Voting is one of those things.
I can understand it being irrational if it means you have to take time off work, or something similar, but for most people, it's simply a decision to spend a little time doing that, instead of some other non-revenue earning activity, and chosing to vote, instead of watching TV, reading a book, whatever, is chosen because you can expect it to make you feel better than spending the same time on whatever other activity you would have spent it on.
|
On March 03 2012 09:33 aebriol wrote:1) I don't disagree that people in general have a poor grasp of probability, but you see the same pattern in all western democracies, so there's nothing unique about the US when it comes to this. Since I live in Norway, and here people aren't very religious, we do believe in evolution, and people in general are at least decently educated (and the higher the education, the more likely you are to vote)....
In Norway, you have a multiparty system and no electoral college system. Because of that, it actually makes a lot more sense to vote in Norway than it does in the United States.
In other words, voting in Norway has far better expected value than voting in the United States.
On March 03 2012 09:33 aebriol wrote:I would say that if lying bothers you, then voting enables you for the near future (1 - 4 years) to discuss what is going on, while knowing you 'did your part'. And it makes you feel good about having done it.
Except that you didn't really "do your part", except to people who don't know any better.
It's not about lying. You're assuming that "you didn't vote so shut the fuck up" is an irrefutable argument, but it's just a logical fallacy. If anyone says that, then I'm not going to bother conversing with them, because they're morons.
I vote in elections where my vote actually has a reasonable impact (e.g. close local elections, state referendums, etc.), but I'm not afraid to admit that I don't bother voting when it doesn't matter (voting for President is pointless because I live in a safe state rather than a swing state).
On March 03 2012 09:33 aebriol wrote:It's worth making a note of the fact that the minority regulary plays the lottery, while the majority votes, that there is an inverse relationship between who is more likely to vote (better educated, richer, part of the majority group), than those that play the lottery (poorer, less educated, minorities).
I gave playing lottery as a single example of irrationality, but there's many more: people make poor investment decisions of all sorts, people gamble in casino games that are always -EV, people buy Apple products when they're overpriced compared to similar-quality devices, products. The only point I'm making here, is that while people aren't generally morons, they also don't always make the best decisions, due to cognitive biases and poor information.
|
I implore you all to watch the South Park episode "Douche and Turd" (season 8 I think). I found it to be a hilarious and apt reflection on voting in political elections.
Most often the choices you have are between a douche and a turd. Politicians aren't like most of us. They have gotten to where they are because they are adept at manipulating groups of people to further their own goals. They don't need to be educated, but they are very skilled at using tactics that give the illusion of education or reason. They are good at convincing people that they share your ideals, but when elected they will use their power to do what is best for them or what they think is best for the country. When staying in power is the best for them, they will throw out "popular" policies that would garner support among people, but eventually might not be the best choice to make in the end.
That doesn't mean you shouldn't vote. The political system may be disgusting, but you should consider yourself fortunate that you live in a democratic country where you are able to have a say in things, no matter how small. If you do not like things the way they are, you can vote in someone who you think can make things better. Not doing so will not solve the problem. Also, aside from voting, there are a lot of other things you can do to get involve in the political process, from protesting to running for office yourself. Even trying to convince your group of friends that he is wrong is something. It can turn your seemingly insignificant 1 vote to a seemingly more significant 5-6 votes.
Voting also makes you feel part of something important. Maybe that warm fuzzy feeling won't get back the short amount of time it takes or pay for the gas needed for transportation, but it is still worth something. I know I probably repeated multiple things already stated within this thread, but once a thread gets to 30 pages, ideas tend to get repeated.
|
i just vote for what i consider to be the lesser of two evils, both parties in this country really arent that different though...
|
On March 03 2012 09:45 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 09:33 aebriol wrote:1) I don't disagree that people in general have a poor grasp of probability, but you see the same pattern in all western democracies, so there's nothing unique about the US when it comes to this. Since I live in Norway, and here people aren't very religious, we do believe in evolution, and people in general are at least decently educated (and the higher the education, the more likely you are to vote).... In Norway, you have a multiparty system and no electoral college system. Because of that, it actually makes a lot more sense to vote in Norway than it does in the United States. In other words, voting in Norway has far better expected value than voting in the United States. Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 09:33 aebriol wrote:I would say that if lying bothers you, then voting enables you for the near future (1 - 4 years) to discuss what is going on, while knowing you 'did your part'. And it makes you feel good about having done it. Except that you didn't really "do your part", except to people who don't know any better. It's not about lying. You're assuming that "you didn't vote so shut the fuck up" is an irrefutable argument, but it's just a logical fallacy. If anyone says that, then I'm not going to bother conversing with them, because they're morons. Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 09:33 aebriol wrote:It's worth making a note of the fact that the minority regulary plays the lottery, while the majority votes, that there is an inverse relationship between who is more likely to vote (better educated, richer, part of the majority group), than those that play the lottery (poorer, less educated, minorities). I gave playing lottery as a single example of irrationality, but there's many more: people make poor investment decisions of all sorts, people gamble in casino games that are always -EV, people buy Apple products when they're overpriced compared to similar-quality devices, products. The only point I'm making here, is that while people aren't generally morons, they also don't always make the best decisions, due to cognitive biases and poor information.
Let me put it another way:
If you are only after benefits and costs that can be clearly measured, there is no real cost to voting for most people. It's time spent doing something offering no real benefits (according to you - according to me it gives real benefits), but the same can be said for most activities people would spend their time doing. If it costs money getting there for you, it may cost something of some very small value, but for a lot of people, nothing really.
Why attack voting when you can do the same for watching TV, reading a book, watching a movie, a tv series, or ... pretty much most things people do except work? It's obviously not a rational way to spend time, since the benefits doesn't exist - correct?
Not voting may in certain circles carry a negative expected social value. If lying doesn't bother you, then it doesn't matter obviously. Unless you can be caught at it (if it's tracked). I know that if we were to discuss politics in real life (not likely, but someone with a similar stance to you, it would among my friends be considered negative to not bother voting and complain about politics and or politicians. If you don't enjoy or like to discuss politics, economics, foreign issues etc, then this probably doesn't matter anyway.
Strictly speaking, if you are going from pure rationality, being bothered by lying wouldn't count since it's not a 'real' benefit, so if that's the only thing you want to argue, I concede that point. Go ahead and lie about having voted all you want, and gain the benefits from doing so, without having done so. If that's your stance, I won't dispute it.
However, in the real world, I say again - there's a real benefit from voting, and that comes from having done your part, and being able to say so, without being bothered by lying, whenever these issues are discussed.
|
On March 03 2012 10:08 aebriol wrote:If you are only after benefits and costs that can be clearly measured, there is no real cost to voting for most people. It's time spent doing something offering no real benefits (according to you - according to me it gives real benefits), but the same can be said for most activities people would spend their time doing. If it costs money getting there for you, it may cost something of some very small value, but for a lot of people, nothing really.
The costs of voting are small, yes. The benefits of voting, on the other hand, are usually infintestimally small. And yes, the -EV is accordingly small enough that it is easy to make that irrational choice (e.g. irrational rationality).
On March 03 2012 10:08 aebriol wrote:Why attack voting when you can do the same for watching TV, reading a book, watching a movie, a tv series, or ... pretty much most things people do except work? It's obviously not a rational way to spend time, since the benefits doesn't exist - correct?
People don't watch TV and then self-righteously claim (erroneously) that they made a difference while deriding people who don't watch TV.
On March 03 2012 10:08 aebriol wrote:However, in the real world, I say again - there's a real benefit from voting, and that comes from having done your part, and being able to say so, without being bothered by lying, whenever these issues are discussed.
You keep missing the point, which is that people are deluding themselves when they claim that they "did their part". They're proud of accomplishing nothing, and it's not a benefit to be a part of that.
It's no different from people who quit Facebook for a day and then claim to have "done their part" in fighting for privacy.
|
On March 03 2012 10:26 sunprince wrote:
You keep missing the point, which is that people are deluding themselves when they claim that they "did their part". They're proud of accomplishing nothing, and it's not a benefit to be a part of that.
They did their civic duty. They are proud of that. They feel good about that. They did do their part. That part doesn't matter much, but it's certainly their part in a democracy - casting their vote.
IF you assume that 'doing the right thing' doesn't matter and shouldn't be counted and being proud of that is deluding yourself, then fine, you win the argument.
I disagree completely with you that feeling good about your actions when you do what you perceive as the 'right thing' isn't a real benefit.
If you don't assume that, then I am not reaching you. In society, there's a perceived social value from having voted and 'done your part' and being a good upstanding citizen. At least in many social circles (in some it's the opposite, but that's not the majority).
That people are proud of 'doing their part' by voting, is simply being proud of doing what they perceive as the right thing to do.
It doesn't have to make a difference anywhere, as long as they do 'their part' - which is voting.
There's an election:
1) You can vote and be honest about it.
2) You can not vote and be honest about it.
3) You can vote and lie about it.
4) You can not vote and lie about it.
Expected value of not voting (no cost) and lying about it (no cost, small intangible benefits) wins out, so I assume that's what any rational person would do, right?
IF you perceive lying as wrong, then 'how you feel' matters, and then simply doing 'what is right' which most people perceive as doing their civic duty by voting, wins out unless the cost outweight the benefits for them. But that's intangibles again.
To me you are missing the point.
Either argue that 'feelings' and 'social value' doesn't matter for voting, and if so, clearly, not voting, and lying about having voted, is the best choice. Which is then what you should do.
Or accept that feeling good about what you do is a real benefit, and therefore voting because it makes you feel good about having voted, is a real benefit that for most people outweight the cost.
To me it seems like you are arguing no one should vote.
That is completely missing the point.
Assuming you are the most selfish individual in existence, the best thing in the world would be for 100% of people - except you - to vote, as long as you perceive them to have an ever so slight bias towards the better candidate.
So - from a purely rational point of view - you should not vote, lie about it, and try to get everyone to vote - as long as it doesn't cost you anything.
|
What do you mean?
Voting is not just a right, but a responsibility in a democratic country. How else do you choose leaders?
|
On March 03 2012 10:58 Abort Retry Fail wrote:
What do you mean?
Voting is not just a right, but a responsibility in a democratic country. How else do you choose leaders?
You kind of have to understand how much Americans hate anything political. Most Americans are extremely cynical of the government and don't really care who gets elected to any branch of government at any level, because the assumption is that they'll all do a bad job and fuck you over one way or another.
Me, I tend to think of voting in the US kind of like this:
To vote republican is to vote for moral bankruptcy. To vote democratic is to vote for financial bankruptcy. To not vote is be apathetic toward either form of bankruptcy.
Basically, choose how you want to destroy yourself.
|
I have voted in every election since 1996 even though I am in a state that is consistently contrary to my political leanings. There are numerous examples of very close elections coming down to multiple recounts. Just look at Bush v Gore in Florida, 537 vote margin out of 5,962,657.
The top of the ticket isn't the only office being voted on either. Judges, congress, and state representatives are all elected in the same years as a presidential election, not to mention referendums. Prop 8 in California made same sex marriage illegal(briefly), and it was voted on during the state elections. If you don't vote you miss out on these big issues that are direct mandates.
|
I remember when George Bush Jr was elected. That was enough proof to me that you don't live in a democracy anymore, i.e. when the president is the son of a former president.
|
If voting doesn't matter, you are voting for the wrong people. If there are no right people running..well, now is YOUR chance to make a difference. If you think YOUR cause is right, I'm sure others will agree and vote for you.
|
I vote to have the lesser evil make decisions that will affect me. Also I don't mind paying a whole 1% more taxes 
|
One of the reasons that politics is terrible and polarized in the United States is because some politicians who hold office intentionally create divisions in Congress, while throwing red meat to their base about being some kind of moral crusader. Regular people look at the debacle and reason, pretty fairly through some arguments in this thread, that there's no good reason to vote. This depresses turnout among moderates, who wouldn't vote for said candidate anyways, and increases turnout for their zealous backers. That increases said politican's likelihood of being reelected pretty significantly, which is exactly what they bank on.
I think voting comes down to responsibility. For all its failings, the United States has done me a remarkable amount of good. It's a simple matter of responsibility to do a small piece of what it takes to keep the nation moving. Will this only do 1/350,000,000 of what needs to be done? Sure. But the nation gave me 1/350,000,000 of its opportunity. It ensured I didn't live under some kind of tinhorn dictatorship, ensuring that I had the capacity and the community to go and get an education, etc. Responsibility is rarely personally gratifying.
And whatever you think of their policies, multiple US presidents began their political careers without any kind of big money or inside deals. Having a "hasn't voted in 20 years" stain on your reputation is an easy way for opposing candidates to douse water on a prospective candidacy.
|
On March 03 2012 20:17 SerpentFlame wrote:
Having a "hasn't voted in 20 years" stain on your reputation is an easy way for opposing candidates to douse water on a prospective candidacy.
Of course it does, exactly for the reasons sunprince explained. Repeatedly.
|
On March 03 2012 09:45 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 09:33 aebriol wrote:1) I don't disagree that people in general have a poor grasp of probability, but you see the same pattern in all western democracies, so there's nothing unique about the US when it comes to this. Since I live in Norway, and here people aren't very religious, we do believe in evolution, and people in general are at least decently educated (and the higher the education, the more likely you are to vote).... In Norway, you have a multiparty system and no electoral college system. Because of that, it actually makes a lot more sense to vote in Norway than it does in the United States. In other words, voting in Norway has far better expected value than voting in the United States.
No it doesn't
Proportional (or multiparty) v. Winner take all (or bipartisan) democracy are equaly worthless in terms of voting.
That is because ALL democracy is Winner take all.
A Proprotional representation system still forms ONE government that passes ONE set of laws, the same as a Winner take all system.
In both cases you have millions of different points of view, that have to be condensed to ONE decision (laws passed)
In a proportional representation system, the "winner take all" or "compromise" stage is pushed up to the representative level (and in a parliamentary system with a Prime Minister as the head of government it really is "winner take all".. whoever controls parliament controls the country, although you might have an independent judiciary)
In a winner take all representation system, the "winner take all" or "compromise" stage starts at the level of individual voters (ie you vote for someone you think other people will vote for as well) Now this is true even in "proportional" systems that have a minimum required vote to be a representative. (unless they have some form of second, third choices in the ballot)
In America, a key part of the structure for the Constitution was ensuring that there would be some degree of geographic agreement (a weaker form of the EUs veto power for nations). So individual districts are represented in a winner take all manner, and the electoral college ensures that a President appeals to a majority of people across a majority of the nation.
So when voting for President, it is possible your candidate may not win in your state, in which case your vote is "wasted"... but even in a pure popular vote for a President, if your candidate did not win, your vote is still "wasted"
If you vote for your representative in Congress and they don't win your district, then your vote is "wasted".... but if you vote for a party in Parliament, and that party doesn't get to select the Prime Minister/form the government, your vote is still "wasted".
However, by voting for a losing candidate or a party that ends up in the opposition, you make it known that you ARE willing to vote for XYZ. So XYZ concerns are heard and paid attention to, because the people that are the final "Winner take alls" in any system, know that they/their party have to come up for reelection, and they may not be the winners next time around if even more people are concerned with XYZ.
|
On March 03 2012 10:51 aebriol wrote:I disagree completely with you that feeling good about your actions when you do what you perceive as the 'right thing' isn't a real benefit.
If you don't assume that, then I am not reaching you. In society, there's a perceived social value from having voted and 'done your part' and being a good upstanding citizen. At least in many social circles (in some it's the opposite, but that's not the majority).
You're not reaching me, because I don't find the argument that you "feel good" about doing nothing to be compelling.
Like I said, if someone makes the meaningless sentimental gesture of quitting Facebook for one day and then claim to be fighting for privacy laws, I will simply laugh at them. Did they actually fight for privacy laws? Sure, I guess they made a tiny effort. Did they achieve anything or deserve to feel proud? No.
That's what people are doing by voting and then being proud about it. They are deluding themselves that they are achieving something when they aren't, and being proud is complete hypocritical bullshit. If you really want to make a difference, there's a ton of things you can actually do to make a difference, things that require more effort and sacrifice. Volunteering to help clean up an oil spill = making a difference and something worth feeling proud of. Voting against an oil-company sponsored incumbent with 90% popular support = making no difference and not worth feeling proud of.
On March 03 2012 10:51 aebriol wrote:IF you perceive lying as wrong, then 'how you feel' matters, and then simply doing 'what is right' which most people perceive as doing their civic duty by voting, wins out unless the cost outweight the benefits for them. But that's intangibles again.
I don't know why you keep talking about "lying". I don't know if it's because of a language barrier or something, but you are completely talking about irrelevant point. You keep engaging in an argumentum ad populum, where you assume that voting is a civic duty because most people agree, when that's the whole point under discussion, and then you say that you should vote so that you can honestly live up to social standards. That's equivalent to saying that if you lived in a racist society, you should be a racist so that when people ask you if you've done racist things you can honestly claim "yes" and look good to society. Social standards are bullshit.
The point I'm making is this. If you want to do your civic duty, go out and actually fight for a cause and make a difference. Go out and campaign on close elections, or volunteer to assist a noble cause, etc. Sitting on your ass 99% of the time and going out to cast an irrelevant vote once every few years doesn't give you the right to say that you did your civic duty.
On March 03 2012 10:51 aebriol wrote:To me it seems like you are arguing no one should vote.
I don't think you understand the difference between an empirical statement and a normative statement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
