|
On March 04 2012 00:51 Krikkitone wrote: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"
Are you seriously insisting that an electoral college system does not increase the likelihood that your vote will be wasted?
On March 04 2012 00:51 Krikkitone wrote: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".
In a parliamentary system, the opposition has a voice and parliamentary functions, much like the minority in American Congress still has a voice and certain powers. Your argument is baseless because by the same token, it would be pointless in America to vote for the Republican party when the Democrats are likely to gain a sizable majority in Congress, and vice versa.
In reality, as long as your candidate of choice is elected (regardless of whether you have a parliamentary system or not), then they can voice themselves in political decisions and occasionally . By contrast, if your vote can't even affect who gets into Congress, then you have zero influence on the political process. Your vote matters more if you can actually affect who ends up in office, so consequently there is more value to voting in a parliamentary system.
On top of that, there is also the possibility of a coalition government in a parliamentary system, which again increases the likelihood that your vote will matter.
|
I don't often vote, but when I do i vote for nader.  most interesting voter in the world
|
Sunprince, I have been following your posts but I still am not sure what exactly your position actually is. Are you saying voting in the US is always a waste of time? Your vote matters for nothing, ever, period?
|
I'm moving to a country that has proportional representation. It at least makes me feel like my vote means something.
(to answer the OP's question, given that there is no one candidate that fits anything even close to my political beliefs, I have chosen not to exercise my right to vote)
|
Stopped reading at: "I hate sounding like a long-boarding...douche". Not cool man.
Also you can't just say in your first line: "Look guys, here's why I don't vote. Now, I know that's not a good reason, but "fu", it's my reason anyway." Wtf? Not a very cogent argument, sorry. Also if you have totally lost faith in the entire country, simply walking away from the problem and saying "fu im not voting" isn't very constructive. Blog indeed
|
On March 04 2012 02:16 sunprince wrote:
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.
You can write that, doesn't make it true.
Those that vote mostly do it because they believe it is their civic duty. That you don't believe it to be so, doesn't invalidate their belief.
http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=res&dir=rec/part/tud&document=civic&lang=e
I understand that you believe voting is pointless. And not something to feel good about. Etc.
However, what you fail to understand, is that the majority disagrees with you and feel that it's their civic duty, and they feel good about doing it. And they certainly gain the right to say they did their civic duty. It's after all what they did. And why they did it.
|
On March 04 2012 02:35 dp wrote:Sunprince, I have been following your posts but I still am not sure what exactly your position actually is. Are you saying voting in the US is always a waste of time? Your vote matters for nothing, ever, period?
No, I'm stating that voting is usually not worth it. In some cases, it is worth it, typically due to a small electorate or a close election. However, in most cases, the vote is far enough apart that the expected benefits of voting [(probabilty of vote affecting the outcome) * (personal benefit of different outcome)] are outweighed by the costs of voting.
In other words, if you used the following formula, the expected value is usually negative:
Expected Value of Voting = (Probability of changing outcome to win rather than lose * Benefits of winning versus losing ) - Costs of voting
|
On March 04 2012 02:42 aebriol wrote:However, what you fail to understand, is that the majority disagrees with you and feel that it's their civic duty, and they feel good about doing it. And they certainly gain the right to say they did their civic duty. It's after all what they did. And why they did it.
What you fail to understand is that this is a logical fallacy. It's an argumentum ad populum.
Let me put it this way, if most people thought it was their civic duty to murder their first-born child if the child isn't a son, does that make it rational to do so? What about if most people think it's their religious duty to slaughter non-believers, does that make it rational? Hint: both of these have been true at some points in history.
|
On March 04 2012 02:43 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2012 02:35 dp wrote:Sunprince, I have been following your posts but I still am not sure what exactly your position actually is. Are you saying voting in the US is always a waste of time? Your vote matters for nothing, ever, period? No, I'm stating that voting is usually not worth it. In some cases, it is worth it, typically due to a small electorate or a close election. However, in most cases, the vote is far enough apart that the expected benefits of voting [(probabilty of vote affecting the outcome) * (personal benefit of different outcome)] are outweighed by the costs of voting. In other words, if you used the following formula, the expected value is usually negative: Expected Value of Voting = (Probability of winning * Benefits of winning versus losing ) - Costs of voting
And the problem of course is no two people value the benefits and cost of voting to be the same
|
On March 04 2012 02:48 1Eris1 wrote:And the problem of course is no two people value the benefits and cost of voting to be the same
Yes, but the idea is that the probability of affecting the outcome is so small that the benefit is usually very close to zero. When you usually multiply the benefits by a probability approaching zero, then the expected value is usually negative.
Again, it's not always irrational to vote, such as when you're voting in a closely contested election, it just usually is.
|
On March 04 2012 02:40 FallDownMarigold wrote:
Stopped reading at: "I hate sounding like a long-boarding...douche". Not cool man.
Also you can't just say in your first line: "Look guys, here's why I don't vote. Now, I know that's not a good reason, but "fu", it's my reason anyway." Wtf? Not a very cogent argument, sorry. Also if you have totally lost faith in the entire country, simply walking away from the problem and saying "fu im not voting" isn't very constructive. Blog indeed
You should probably read it if you're going to criticize it. And those things you've put in quotation marks are not quotes, nor accurate representations of what I said.
Please be more careful in the future.
|
On March 04 2012 02:42 aebriol wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2012 02:16 sunprince wrote:
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. You can write that, doesn't make it true. Those that vote mostly do it because they believe it is their civic duty. That you don't believe it to be so, doesn't invalidate their belief. http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=res&dir=rec/part/tud&document=civic&lang=eI understand that you believe voting is pointless. And not something to feel good about. Etc. However, what you fail to understand, is that the majority disagrees with you and feel that it's their civic duty, and they feel good about doing it. And they certainly gain the right to say they did their civic duty. It's after all what they did. And why they did it.
I believe this is incorrect. Somebody earlier in the thread mentioned that in the US, roughly half of eligible voters vote in national elections.
|
On March 04 2012 02:47 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2012 02:42 aebriol wrote:However, what you fail to understand, is that the majority disagrees with you and feel that it's their civic duty, and they feel good about doing it. And they certainly gain the right to say they did their civic duty. It's after all what they did. And why they did it. What you fail to understand is that this is a logical fallacy. It's an argumentum ad populum. Let me put it this way, if hypothetically most people thought it was their civic duty to murder their first-born child if the child isn't a son, does that truly make it rational to do so?
Let me put it this way: you are an idiot.
I live in the real world. In this world, the majority votes.
Mostly, people that vote, vote because they believe it's part of their civic duty. In short: they feel good about doing 'the right thing' according to their beliefs.
Do you disagree?
Because you keep repeating bullshit about how this is a logical fallacy, etc, but your position isn't clear. You keep repeating the same meaningless stuff about how the individual vote doesn't count. However, that is not why people vote.
Please state your position clearly, and I will pick it apart for you because you clearly cannot defend your position.
1) Why do people vote?
2) Why is it irrational to vote?
(please define the term rational here).
|
On March 04 2012 02:53 mynameisgreat11 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2012 02:42 aebriol wrote:On March 04 2012 02:16 sunprince wrote:
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. You can write that, doesn't make it true. Those that vote mostly do it because they believe it is their civic duty. That you don't believe it to be so, doesn't invalidate their belief. http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=res&dir=rec/part/tud&document=civic&lang=eI understand that you believe voting is pointless. And not something to feel good about. Etc. However, what you fail to understand, is that the majority disagrees with you and feel that it's their civic duty, and they feel good about doing it. And they certainly gain the right to say they did their civic duty. It's after all what they did. And why they did it. I believe this is incorrect. Somebody earlier in the thread mentioned that in the US, roughly half of eligible voters vote in national elections.
Believe all you like.
However, in the REAL WORLD, the majority votes in the US presidential elections.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_the_United_States_presidential_elections
(the % includes people that aren't allowed to vote, so the real % is higher).
|
I know you are just trying to simplify things but that equation is pointless. There are other factors that matter besides being on the winning side. When I hear so many people say "no representative matches my views, so I don't vote" it sounds silly. Why should a representative care about your views when you don't vote?
Its just lazy dribble put out by people so entrenched in the idea of being smarter than everyone else that they don't realize how idiotic it sounds. Old people vote. Can we agree on that? Do you think they vote only for the outcome of any given election? Or do you think they vote because through voting they are able to wield influence over what policies come to pass?
Politicians are not all evil people. They want to keep their jobs. They need to get votes to do so. The people that vote frequently are the ones they will tailor their message towards. If the people of my generation took an hour a year to align their views with the candidates that matched them close enough and voted, soon politicians would have no choice but to begin tailoring their message to influence the youth vote.
Don't vote, and go and complain about how your views aren't represented and your politicians are all crooks. By voting for even a third party/write in candidate, you are making a difference. You are being listened to, since your tendency to vote will be taken into account next election. When you completely ignore the process, the process will ignore you right back.
|
On March 04 2012 02:54 aebriol wrote:Let me put it this way: you are an idiot.
In other words, you have no real argument, so you resort to slinging mud and logical fallacies.
On March 04 2012 02:54 aebriol wrote:IMostly, people that vote, vote because they believe it's part of their civic duty. In short: they feel good about doing 'the right thing' according to their beliefs.
Do you disagree?
I agree that most people vote because they believe they're doing the right thing. I disagree that this makes it rational.
Most Americans are Christians, and feel good about following the Bible. That doesn't mean following the Bible is rational.
On March 04 2012 02:54 aebriol wrote:1) Why do people vote?
People vote because others lie to them that their vote makes a difference, that it is important to vote, and that if you vote then you've voiced your opinion. It's a socially reinforced notion that keeps people in line, because if you believe that you have been heard (when in truth no one cares what you think), then you are less likely to actually go out and make a real difference.
On March 04 2012 02:54 aebriol wrote:2) Why is it irrational to vote?
(please define the term rational here).
I define "rational" as acting as if balancing costs against benefits; in other words, something is rational if it is +EV and irrational if it is -EV.
Voting is usually irrational because it is usually -EV, due to the following formula: Expected Value of Voting = (Probability of changing outcome to win rather than lose * Benefits of winning versus losing ) - Costs of voting
|
On March 04 2012 03:09 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2012 02:54 aebriol wrote:Let me put it this way: you are an idiot. In other words, you have no real argument, so you resort to slinging mud and logical fallacies. Show nested quote +On March 04 2012 02:54 aebriol wrote:IMostly, people that vote, vote because they believe it's part of their civic duty. In short: they feel good about doing 'the right thing' according to their beliefs.
Do you disagree? I agree that most people vote because they believe they're doing the right thing. I disagree that this makes it rational. Most Americans are Christians, and feel good about following the Bible. That doesn't mean following the Bible is rational.People vote because others lie to them that their vote makes a difference, that it is important to vote, and that if you vote then you've voiced your opinion. It's a socially reinforced notion that keeps people in line, because if you believe that you have been heard (when in truth no one cares what you think), then you are less likely to actually go out and make a real difference. Show nested quote +On March 04 2012 02:54 aebriol wrote:2) Why is it irrational to vote?
(please define the term rational here). I define "rational" as acting as if balancing costs against benefits; in other words, something is rational if it is +EV and irrational if it is -EV. Voting is usually irrational because it is usually -EV, due to the following formula: Expected Value of Voting = (Probability of changing outcome to win rather than lose * Benefits of winning versus losing ) - Costs of voting
1) Do you think people are more likely to go out and make a real difference if they vote, or if they don't vote?
In the real world, most people that actually make a difference, also vote.
Your statement is a lie.
2) Please explain how it's +EV for you to engage in discussing this on the internet on this forum. Using the same definition.
As I said, and you failed repeatedly to understand: It's +EV for people to vote IF they can expect to feel better by doing so. If you feel better after doing it, then the benefit (feeling better) outweight the cost (the slight inconvenience). That is +EV behaviour, and perfectly rational.
Just as it's perfectly rational to not vote if it's the other way around.
Your formula is a logical fallacy: petitio principii. The conclusion is implicit in your argument, but you fail to demonstrate the truth of the assumption: that the expected value of voting is based on the probability of changing the elelction result. That is not why people vote - people that vote do so for other reasons mostly.
... also, you are an idiot for coming up with the stupidest example possible: that it would be your civic duty to kill your newborn. That is so stupid, you are an idiot for saying it. It's also a logical fallacy - the straw man. So yeah, you go on an on about logical fallacies, and then you use the most well known one ... gratulations? And you may justly call this argument ad hominum, but doesn't change the truth of it.
|
[
People vote because others lie to them that their vote makes a difference, that it is important to vote, and that if you vote then you've voiced your opinion. It's a socially reinforced notion that keeps people in line, because if you believe that you have been heard (when in truth no one cares what you think), then you are less likely to actually go out and make a real difference.
+1
User was warned for this post
|
On March 04 2012 03:09 sunprince wrote:
Most Americans are Christians, and feel good about following the Bible. That doesn't mean following the Bible is rational.
It is rational to follow the bible if you are christian.
If you are an atheist as I am, it is not.
It's also another logical fallacy - the red herring.
|
On March 04 2012 03:34 aebriol wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2012 03:09 sunprince wrote:
Most Americans are Christians, and feel good about following the Bible. That doesn't mean following the Bible is rational. It is rational to follow the bible if you are christian. If you are an atheist as I am, it is not. It's also another logical fallacy - the red herring.
I have a christian background. I think most Christians would say their beliefs are based on faith, not rationality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
