Voting is a complete fallacy

[Coolydudey]

"Oh you have to vote to express your opinion. It's the right thing to do"

It completely startles me how many intelligent people think they should vote. It really, really defies my understanding. It simply won't make any difference.

EDIT: skip this bit and read my later post, much more interesting and enlightening

To give you an idea through a couple of personal examples: if I voted in the UK election where I was entitled to, I had a pretty good chance of making a difference. "Only" 70,000 odd people voted for an MP, and the two lead candidates were very close in popularity, with one eventually winning by 1500 votes. Beforehand, looking at polls, my chances of making a difference would have been roughly 0.03%. But even then, that's one of 600 MPs, and it would've made no difference to the national government (although a little to the regional one).

That situation is far better than in Greece, where I am also entitled to vote. In Greece, votes are pooled across the country, and the leading party gets +50/300 seats to help form a government. So my chance of making a meaningful difference to the government (which depends on which party garners the most votes) is the chance of the two main parties having exactly the same number of votes except mine - which with polls predicting equal percentages (as they did), the best case scenario, is roughly 0.0004%.

Both England and Greece are relatively small countries compared to say America, where people vote particularly religiously.

So there you have it, voting is pointless. Rant over :P

 

[Tannhauser]

Exactly. Whenever I tell people I'm not voting, Im getting the usual "but what if everyone thought like that?". But they don't. All the other voters are acting independently of me. And if I choose to vote, I will always be in a fight with millions of other fools.

 

[Coolydudey]

To think about this one in a more interesting way.

Suppose one electoral result means you die instantly, while the other means you live a prosperous 50 years. Let's assume you have a generous 0.001% chance of making a difference to the national government, based on polls showing equal percentages. Then, assuming the whole voting process takes 3 hours of your time (including choosing which party to vote for), the expected happy prosperous lifespan you gain from voting is 4.38-3=1.38 hours.

So, if you're lucky enough to live in a small place, with a very close election, and the whole process of voting only takes you three hours, and it's a life or death situation, it's just about worth your time to do it. Failing any of those conditions, you might as well skip it and enjoy yourself instead :P

 

[Coolydudey]

Exactly. Whenever I tell people I'm not voting, Im getting the usual "but what if everyone thought like that?". But they don't. All the other voters are acting independently of me. And if I choose to vote, I will always be in a fight with millions of other fools.

If enough people thought like that, it would be worth your while to vote. There is a logical stable equilibrium somewhere, just now we're at an emotional one

 

[Brontosaurie]

It's gonna be interesting to see if anyone here is willing to defend voting as a rational activity.

I agree fully with you and Tannhauser. Nothing more needs to be said.

 

[Tannhauser]

If enough people thought like that, it would be worth your while to vote. There is a logical stable equilibrium somewhere, just now we're at an emotional one

Yes. If one is actually interested in influencing an election, one has to influence large groups of people. For example spending 10 minutes making a youtube clip or something about your thoughts on politics is probably more than a million times as effective as voting.

Although that will require actual thoughts on things, which I suspect most voters don't have.

 

[Pizzabeak]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXEUcyQaGEU

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Voting may seem pointless, but political activity itself isn't.

Explaining and propagating knowledge, understanding and ideas to people around you, helps establish new trends or build support. More people become resistant to populism and stupidity and a fraction of them passes the knowledge to even more people.

So instead of choosing to go to polls, spending that time creating a compelling argument in favour of what you were going to vote for and fighting ignorance is a better time investment.

If at some point you see there's a significant divide in public opinion, go to vote and encourage your ideological minions disciples to do the same.

Otherwise you are better off investing your time into constructing a vanguard, joining terrorist organisations, campaigning in the media or lobbying, assassinating key figures, and so on and so forth.

The most active voting demographic are elderly teethless zombies, so motivating the young progressive changers to act out is more valuable than it seems, but it needs to be built on a foundation of understanding of the stupid system.

 

[Absurdity]

Obviously voting is pointless for voters.

Voting only matters if you're running. It's a relatively interesting game to try and play.

 

[onesteptwostep]

Voting only really matters for the people who are in power, or groups who want to see a change. The younger generation still don't have power, but that will change within a decade or so, when the people born in the 80s take over new businesses and leadership. While it's true that voting does not matter at the moment, the perspective will change when the voter demographics shifts.

I also disagree on Americans voting 'religiously'. The voter turnup in America isn't that high when you look at the statistics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_the_United_States_presidential_elections

Statistically speaking the UK apparently has a higher vote turnout than the US. http://www.ukpolitical.info/Turnout45.htm

 

[Coolydudey]

Indeed, as many people pointed out, and I myself once said in a conversation, the only worthwhile thing is trying to influence large groups of people. Even then though I think it's marginal if you look at the stats, you'd have to be a very good convincer and reach a large audience for it to be worth your time.

As for voting in America - sorry, just got the wrong impression it seems. Perhaps it's just that some people vote more religiously than in other places, but that would just be American enthusiasm

 

[Seteleechete]

I can see voting as a way of showing 'of the choices I have, these views represent mine the best‘ a way of forcing myself to think what I stand for on a societal level were compromises on views have to be made. Also commiting to those by actually voting for them(otherwise I would just do the normal nihilistic none of them represent me ect.) Which I will probably still end up doing.

 

[Sinny91]

In a rational society, voting would be a rational endeavor.

Obviously we're living in an irrational society, where our state of affairs are perverted and backward.

For example the Bush and Clinton family have each had members opposing the other in numerous United States Presidential Elections, each representing either Democrat or Republican, however each family is also part of the nefarious Skull and Bones society where powerful poeple meet to share their own personal experiences and ideologies. Each family has demonstrated their ultimate loyalty to the society rather than the American People, and have each has been placed in the utmost political offices where they have the agency to implement their own personal ideologies. We also have Obama recieving the Novel Peace prize for dropping 'bombs of freedom'.... Whilst meanwhile in the UK, Tony Blair 'Iraqi Destroyer' and harbinger of the New World Order has been shuffled over to PEACE ambassador, and a good portion of our Elite handlers have been discovered to sick sick pedophiles.

This is why I endeavor to attack the system from the top down - rather than bottom to top, the latter is a fruitless endeavor.

Everyone busy fighting the symptoms and not the cause.

 

[Yellow]

It's gonna be interesting to see if anyone here is willing to defend voting as a rational activity.

I'll bite..

The voting system is a formal public poll that obliges the government to honor the will of the people reflected in the outcome.

Of course, your vote constitutes a nearly insignificant proportion of the populace vote. However, to use that fact as an excuse to not vote is childish at best. It isn't about you. It isn't about you getting your way. It's about presenting accurate data for the governing body to use and act upon.

One of the biggest issues that come up for empirical studies is samples. You can never be sure that your study sample is a perfect representative of the whole. That's why larger sample sizes are ideal.

With voting, we have the researcher's dream. A system in place that eliminates the potential for sample error. Every single individual can become a part of the study. The data can be perfect. PERFECT.

Except, we seem to have people who fail to understand how badly they are skewing the data. People who have an opinion and refuse to register said opinion in the venue provided, ruin this opportunity for perfect data. Stop it.

Spoiler

For the record, I don't vote either, but not for the reasons stated by OP.

 

[kora]

^

Agree with this, I also think voting should be made compulsory with citizenship. There's always white votes for people who want to say fuck it, plus that way your fuck it counts a bit more.

 

[emmabobary]

Dear Coolydudey (nice name by the way):
I thought you were going to say that voting is a fallacy because democracy has become useless XD
Now, I have a question, can in politics not exist fallacies? I mean WTF. Aren't all different ways of government a desperate attempt to keep a crazy population, who can't keep the sofistication of civilization without laws punishments an measures, together? .
So in the big effort to keep the crazy ones together under a same sky (read as regime) is not strange that the system gets corrupted, changed, or bugged in the best of cases. The meanings democracy uses to empower the people are not 100% infallible. So obviously you won't be always listened.
Related to this, did you know Bolivia had a 94% of voter turnout in the last generals 2014? Against 44% in Spain for European Parliament. 2014.
Whenever I have to vote I don't think if my vote will ever count, I wonder who can i support given the situation, after questioning really hard what can I gain from answering-an incoming-referendum or from choosing a candidate over the other (it could be the side I prefer, or the side I despise. It depends on what the preliminaries say) even if its a meaningless support. *besides if you don't vote you get a 56$ fine* XD

 

[Coolydudey]

I'll bite..

The voting system is a formal public poll that obliges the government to honor the will of the people reflected in the outcome.

Of course, your vote constitutes a nearly insignificant proportion of the populace vote. However, to use that fact as an excuse to not vote is childish at best. It isn't about you. It isn't about you getting your way. It's about presenting accurate data for the governing body to use and act upon.

One of the biggest issues that come up for empirical studies is samples. You can never be sure that your study sample is a perfect representative of the whole. That's why larger sample sizes are ideal.

With voting, we have the researcher's dream. A system in place that eliminates the potential for sample error. Every single individual can become a part of the study. The data can be perfect. PERFECT.

Except, we seem to have people who fail to understand how badly they are skewing the data. People who have an opinion and refuse to register said opinion in the venue provided, ruin this opportunity for perfect data. Stop it.

Spoiler

For the record, I don't vote either, but not for the reasons stated by OP.

Again, is not your vote a tiny insignificant part of the statistical sample? It doesn't make the slightest bit of difference whether you vote in front of the millions of other votes

 

[Yellow]

Again, is not your vote a tiny insignificant part of the statistical sample? It doesn't make the slightest bit of difference whether you vote in front of the millions of other votes

If the difference between perfect data and imperfect data is important, then each vote is important. It is a poll of millions of single votes. Each vote is an equal contribution to the plural data. One missing vote may not alter the outcome of an election, but it will skew the data. Again, it is downright silly to abstain from voting simply because you can't guarantee that you'll get your way.

Will no one think of the data?!

 

[Haim]

That is ignoring we are social/group creature.
How many time did anyone asked you who you voted for or you said it?
For every time like that you had an influence as people do what other people do,when you say you don't vote that is increasing the odd for the hearer to not vote(To read in this thread case)
even more then that,people tend to vote for the same kind of government,"Hey I voted for x last year let's do it again" they would not remember why,they just want easy decision,they count on their own previous decision,they don't think.
More than that,their voting choice will also affect others.
So even seamlessly tiny thing can cause huge change by time via chaos theory/butterfly effect.
Let's say someone's voting or not have 1% chance to change someone's vote for 10 elections.
Every success to change vote will cause ten more chances.
You also have 1% for not voting and that might be a lose of 10 chances.
Several years of not voting can have big effect in several years.

The observer biggest flow is forgetting the he is being watched also.

 

[Brontosaurie]

^

Agree with this, I also think voting should be made compulsory with citizenship. There's always white votes for people who want to say fuck it, plus that way your fuck it counts a bit more.

Why does that fuck it count more? Not participating in the system at all counts more to me.

 

[emmabobary]

Ok, that's delusional: you are still counting for the 'system' vote or not.
You wanna get out of the system? You'll have to live like a radical hermite anarchist, away from civilization.

 

[Brontosaurie]

Ok, that's delusional: you are still counting for the 'system' vote or not.
You wanna get out of the system? You'll have to live like a radical hermite anarchist, away from civilization.

I'm talking about the voting system, not some vague singular "System" stemming from angst-ridden projection. I don't belong to the "The world is, like, so fucked up and that's called Capitalism" crowd.

 

[emmabobary]

You're still counting. :v have you heard of voter turnout? :v
Because those who are voting are still as if they were the 100% of population. The less people participate the more value has voting for those who do vote.
It's like being about to be raped and the only thing you aim to do is going to your happy place in your dreams.
It's happening, with or without you, you're helping to choose your authorities vote or not.

 

[Brontosaurie]

You're still counting. :v have you heard of voter turnout? :v
Because those who are voting are still as if they were the 100% of population. The less people participate the more value has voting for those who do vote.
It's like being about to be raped and the only thing you aim to do is going to your happy place in your dreams.
It's happening, with or without you, you're helping to choose your authorities vote or not.

How would being a hermit change that then?

I haven't claimed to place any value or hope in giving a "fuck-it" with my voting or not. Naturally any single non-vote is equivalent in its miniscule importance to any single vote. I simply pointed out that not voting must be considered a bigger "fuck-it" to voting than voting for nothing. The reason not to vote is simply that there's no point in doing it.

Your ability to complicate things is a great asset, but it falls flat and bites its tail here.

 

[emmabobary]

How would being a hermit change that then?

I haven't claimed to place any value or hope in giving a "fuck-it" with my voting or not. Naturally any single non-vote is equivalent in its miniscule importance to any single vote. I simply pointed out that not voting must be considered a bigger "fuck-it" to voting than voting for nothing. The reason not to vote is simply that there's no point in doing it.

Your ability to complicate things is a great asset, but it falls flat and bites its tail here.

Pfffft
Hahahaha
You're certainly funny.
Voting has it's point: choosing your authorities, making big changes without bureaucratic processes. Think just about the idea, not what happens in your reality, it's the best way to empower the people, and that's what democracy looks for.
So maybe what ruins all this good idea is the fact that democracy has already been so corrupted, not only in the ideological way, but in the actual reality; that has become useless, a useless form of government. That's far too different from "voting has no sense"
To me that's just such a lame, lazy, passive attitude.
That's why I encourage you to go live a radical anarchist Hermite life. Believe me, you would make a bigger difference that way than just not voting and complaining about people who does.
PS. I'm not trying to complicate things, this is my point of view, you have yours; own it.

 

[Brontosaurie]

Pfffft
That's why I encourage you to go live a radical anarchist Hermite life. Believe me, you would make a bigger difference that way than just not voting and complaining about people who does.

I agree.

Living life truly makes a bigger difference than voting, just like it makes a bigger difference than not voting.

The rest of what you wrote has been covered in OP already.

 

[emmabobary]

I agree.

Pffffft included?


Cheers ^^

 

[Brontosaurie]

Pffffft included?

Cheers ^^

I respect your pffft

 

[redbaron]

It's a similar logic that people use to justify not doing other things as well. Not recycling and not being vegetarian are the two main ones I cab think of. In matters so vast an individuals impact is so heavily diminished and minor that it appears to not be impactful at all. But it really is.

For example in Australia, we've actually had a couple of parties make a rise and although not winning elections any time soon, get a significant number of votes to have some political pull. That's built on individual votes.

Voting here is also compulsory here, and at the very least it provokes me to do some small amount of background research on what I'm participating in, which is good I think.

To be clear though I don't think voting is an efficient way of effecting change in the world. There's better avenues for that but that doesn't make voting fallacious.

 

[emmabobary]

Happens then same to me

Related to this, did you know Bolivia had a 94% of voter turnout in the last generals 2014?
Whenever I have to vote I don't think if my vote will ever count, I wonder who can i support given the situation, after questioning really hard what can I gain from answering-an incoming-referendum or from choosing a candidate over the other ( It depends on what the preliminaries say) even if its a meaningless support. *besides if you don't vote here, you get a 56$ fine* XD

 

[Alias]

It would be illogical to not vote in a country where voting actually worked, yeah. The US has close to no sense of democracy.

 

[420MuNkEy]

How has no one mentioned the ridiculousness of the electoral college or the FPTP voting system or gerrymandering or any of the other reasons why voting is rendered practically meaningless? At the very most, in the US, your vote for president is part of a collective suggestion of who should be president. The electoral college elector can literally just vote however they want.

In terms of a presidential election, you shouldn't bother voting if:

• Your political views differ from the average of the electorate in the district you happen to be grouped in
• Your political views differ from the average of the state you happen to be in
• Your political views differ from the the two major parties
• You have anything more entertaining you could be doing with your time

I'd vote if we went to straight up popular vote using IRV rather than FPTP. No vote weighting. No electoral college. Since that's not likely to happen in my lifetime, I doubt I'll ever vote.

 

[Reluctantly]

"Oh you have to vote to express your opinion. It's the right thing to do"

It completely startles me how many intelligent people think they should vote. It really, really defies my understanding. It simply won't make any difference.

EDIT: skip this bit and read my later post, much more interesting and enlightening

To give you an idea through a couple of personal examples: if I voted in the UK election where I was entitled to, I had a pretty good chance of making a difference. "Only" 70,000 odd people voted for an MP, and the two lead candidates were very close in popularity, with one eventually winning by 1500 votes. Beforehand, looking at polls, my chances of making a difference would have been roughly 0.03%. But even then, that's one of 600 MPs, and it would've made no difference to the national government (although a little to the regional one).

That situation is far better than in Greece, where I am also entitled to vote. In Greece, votes are pooled across the country, and the leading party gets +50/300 seats to help form a government. So my chance of making a meaningful difference to the government (which depends on which party garners the most votes) is the chance of the two main parties having exactly the same number of votes except mine - which with polls predicting equal percentages (as they did), the best case scenario, is roughly 0.0004%.

Both England and Greece are relatively small countries compared to say America, where people vote particularly religiously.

So there you have it, voting is pointless. Rant over :P

I get what you're saying, but that only really applies when there is a low percentage of people not voting. When almost half a country doesn't vote, the elected may not truly be representative of what the majority wants. Though I don't agree with "majority rules" either, but I guess it's the only way to get some kind of closure when masses of people agree to disagree.

It also doesn't help when third parties can take votes away from the bigger parties. Depending on how many votes they take, it could sway the results a lot.

Politics is annoying.

 

[Hadoblado]

I pay a fine almost every election for not voting.

I haven't bothered explaining that my vote isn't worth anything, but I've tried explaining that I don't like the system, and don't want my vote to be complicit with its perpetuation. I've also tried explaining that if I had faith in democracy I still wouldn't vote, because I'm uninformed and thus it would be irresponsible.

I don't think voting is rational (unless you get fined for not doing it ), but I do think encouraging people to vote, or acting as if you vote in order to get other people to, is. If only people who assume voting is worth something vote, then the actual outcome of an election could be impacted. It's actively selecting against critical thought. So I'd encourage you all to vote!

 

[Yellow]

^^ I don't vote for similar reasons.

In local elections, I believe I have no right to vote. Until quite recently, I've never been in a position to anticipate remaining in a district long enough to see the decision in question come into effect. It would be stating my opinion on decisions that I don't have to live with, which is inconsiderate.

National elections present a completely different issue. I've never had an opportunity to vote for a candidate for senate, congress, or president. Of course, I've been given a short list of people to choose from (two or three usually), but I've never seen one that I would want in that position. So, I refuse to pretend that I'm being presented with any viable options. I don't see why we are expected to play along as if this is a democratic process.

 

[Auburn]

Spoiler

Voting may seem pointless, but political activity itself isn't.

Explaining and propagating knowledge, understanding and ideas to people around you, helps establish new trends or build support. More people become resistant to populism and stupidity and a fraction of them passes the knowledge to even more people.

I don't think voting is rational (unless you get fined for not doing it ), but I do think encouraging people to vote, or acting as if you vote in order to get other people to, is.

^ A mix between these two, for me.

It's just as much of an extreme position to say voting doesn't matter, as it is to say it makes all the difference. The reality is somewhere in between.

A vote may mean nothing if the landscape is already carrying insurmountable inertia. I agree that the most relevant thing to do is to actually change the opinions of people - neighbors, coworkers - through debates, spreading awareness, etc.

But after you do that, and after your activism has succeeded in getting many people to change their minds, ...well it's just a matter of casting that vote. It'd be silly not to have a group vote after having gained mass momentum. It's the cherry on top; like turning in a finished assignment. What would all that activism mean if it wasn't represented somehow in the political process?

 

[rainman312]

Voting would be considerably more meaningful if governments didn't insist upon using such horrible voting systems which end up producing governments barely representative of what the public wants, if representative of it at all.

 

[al.otakupunk]

How has no one mentioned the ridiculousness of the electoral college or the FPTP voting system or gerrymandering or any of the other reasons why voting is rendered practically meaningless? At the very most, in the US, your vote for president is part of a collective suggestion of who should be president. The electoral college elector can literally just vote however they want.

In terms of a presidential election, you shouldn't bother voting if:

• Your political views differ from the average of the electorate in the district you happen to be grouped in
• Your political views differ from the average of the state you happen to be in
• Your political views differ from the the two major parties
• You have anything more entertaining you could be doing with your time

I'd vote if we went to straight up popular vote using IRV rather than FPTP. No vote weighting. No electoral college. Since that's not likely to happen in my lifetime, I doubt I'll ever vote.

Voting would be considerably more meaningful if governments didn't insist upon using such horrible voting systems which end up producing governments barely representative of what the public wants, if representative of it at all.

These two posts are pretty much my exact view on voting. It seems as if individual votes really would make a difference if the vote couldn't be completely overridden by a handful of powerful people.

However, at the same time, voting in and of itself still presents the problem of "majority rules;" any decision made through a majority vote must be adhered to, even if it isn't right for everyone, and the majority is unlikely to change their minds. It's like that one saying goes (for which I sadly cannot remember the originator): "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner."

 

[420MuNkEy]

These two posts are pretty much my exact view on voting. It seems as if individual votes really would make a difference if the vote couldn't be completely overridden by a handful of powerful people.

However, at the same time, voting in and of itself still presents the problem of "majority rules;" any decision made through a majority vote must be adhered to, even if it isn't right for everyone, and the majority is unlikely to change their minds. It's like that one saying goes (for which I sadly cannot remember the originator): "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner."

Question the sheep and wolves on how sustenance is obtained prior to awarding them the right to vote.

If that's too cryptic: perhaps we should make the right to vote contingent upon political awareness. If individuals don't know the different positions on a given issue, they should just fuck off.

 

[Ophion]

I'm going to address the big issue here, which seems to be the argument "my vote doesn't matter because one vote isn't going to swing the election". This argument shows a fundamental lack of perspective.

Every single vote doesn't matter, that's true. What matters is voter turnout (as was mentioned by several people). But an individual can't directly influence the total voter turnout except by voting. You see, one must think of elections as a large-scale, sociological event, not just from your own perspective. When over 40% of the population doesn't vote, then the election is a farce, and not at all representative of the preferences of the people. How can you, the individual, influence this? Vote. It is an irresponsible citizen that doesn't vote, because even if you don't like ANY of the options, there is always the lesser of all the evils. Abstaining is just as good as voting for the worst candidate, because invariably, the worst candidate has the loudest, stupidest, angriest constituents, and loud, stupid, angry people are the most likely to vote.

Someone mentioned political activism as far more valuable than voting. This is technically true, but let's examine that. What's the point of political activism? To promote awareness for a cause? Sure, but that's not the most important thing. What's the point of awareness if nothing gets done? So...what's the point of political activism? To change minds? That's ridiculous. People make their minds up about a subject pretty soon after becoming aware of it, and it's extremely hard to change most people's minds through activism. Only education does a very effective job of that. So...what's the point of political activism? It's to get people to vote, because getting large numbers of people to vote is how we ensure the right people get elected. How hypocritical would it be for anyone who believes in political activism not to vote?

Is the system corrupt? Of course. But it's not like we actually live in a fascist state, no matter how loudly the blowhards on the right like to yell that we do. And if the system is so corrupt that the vote doesn't get taken into account, there will be a bloody revolution. Votes get counted and they matter, no matter how cynical you are. It's better to vote and afterwards, be reaffirmed in your belief that it wouldn't have mattered if you didn't than NOT to vote and afterwards realize that you should have. If you don't vote, you're part of the problem with what used to be a democracy. If we want democracy back, VOTE!

Also, the comment about the electoral college? The statement "the elector can just vote for whoever they want", while technically true, shows a huge misunderstanding of how it works. The electors are pledged to vote for a certain candidate, and the people's vote decides which electors get to vote. Essentially, we elect people to elect the president for us - so our vote still counts, even when it's for the president. There has literally never been a single instance of what's called a "faithless elector" (a person who either votes against a candidate they pledged to vote for or abstains from voting) changing the outcome of a presidential election. Never. Not once. And instances of faithless electors are exceedingly rare.

The only reasons not to vote are laziness, cynicism, ignorance, and apathy. None of those are good reasons.

 

[Seteleechete]

Every single vote doesn't matter, that's true. What matters is voter turnout (as was mentioned by several people). But an individual can't directly influence the total voter turnout except by voting. You see, one must think of elections as a large-scale, sociological event, not just from your own perspective. When over 40% of the population doesn't vote, then the election is a farce, and not at all representative of the preferences of the people. How can you, the individual, influence this? Vote. It is an irresponsible citizen that doesn't vote, because even if you don't like ANY of the options, there is always the lesser of all the evils. Abstaining is just as good as voting for the worst candidate, because invariably, the worst candidate has the loudest, stupidest, angriest constituents, and loud, stupid, angry people are the most likely to vote.

A single vote is still extremely unlikely to influence voter turnout. And I am very much thinking from my own perspective, if I don't vote and 40% of the population also doesn't, my single vote counts only minuscule more than if everyone voted but me. The election is usually still a farce. The preference of the people doesn't mean much if everyone is just lying in your face to look good. "Being a responsible citizen" is just another tool of control. Validating the lesser of two evils is still validating evil.

And if the system is so corrupt that the vote doesn't get taken into account, there will be a bloody revolution.

Probably won't.

Votes get counted and they matter, no matter how cynical you are. It's better to vote and afterwards, be reaffirmed in your belief that it wouldn't have mattered if you didn't than NOT to vote and afterwards realize that you should have. If you don't vote, you're part of the problem with what used to be a democracy. If we want democracy back, VOTE!

Democracy is to often just used to give the illusion of choice, to justify whatever the people in power wants to do, not the people and to make people feel good on that baseless belief. I prefer people see the reality of it than live in dream land.

The only reasons not to vote are laziness, cynicism, ignorance, and apathy. None of those are good reasons.

Why aren't they good reasons? I find them quiet acceptable myself.

Laziness- Comparing the minimal amount of effort I would need to vote with my chance of influencing anything I find that the even that effort would not be enough.
Cynicism- I prefer to call it realism, something I always support.
Ignorance-If you don't know what you are voting for, you are just likely to be swayed by empty lies and pretty words (likely to happen anyway).
Apathy-If you don't really care for the outcome or have some personal value to vote(which I have personally, see my previous post) on principal, what's the point of voting?

 

[Rowboat]

Are your opinions even good enough to you to be paired with resolve?

 

[420MuNkEy]

because even if you don't like ANY of the options, there is always the lesser of all the evils

This is known as tactical voting and is one of the biggest problems with a FPTP voting system. Engaging in tactical voting is a tacit endorsement of current system by not only acknowledging the faults, but actively participating in them.

So...what's the point of political activism? To change minds? That's ridiculous.

If it were ridiculous, lobbyists would be out of a job. They get a fuck of a lot more done politically than any vote ever could.

And if the system is so corrupt that the vote doesn't get taken into account, there will be a bloody revolution.

The Democratic People's Republic of Korea gets to "vote" too, and they're much worse off than the US. Where's their revolution? If it's inevitable, when's it going to happen? Next 20 years? 50? 100? In the mean time, it's probably not worth voting.

Votes get counted and they matter, no matter how cynical you are. It's better to vote and afterwards, be reaffirmed in your belief that it wouldn't have mattered if you didn't than NOT to vote and afterwards realize that you should have.

Yes, votes get counted... but a high-pass filter is applied to the results on multiple occasions. Those that made it through the series of high-pass filtering processes get globed down into a single vote and then weighted. As was mentioned before, who's votes get filtered out during the high-pass filtering can be controlled with gerrymandering. This is not anywhere near an honest process.

If you don't vote, you're part of the problem with what used to be a democracy. If we want democracy back, VOTE!

There's an important distinction between to be made between a democracy and a representative democracy. I, for one, would not want to live in a society of pure majority rule, given how often the majority is dead wrong. "Universal truth is not measured in mass appeal" - Immortal Technique.

Also, the comment about the electoral college? The statement "the elector can just vote for whoever they want", while technically true, shows a huge misunderstanding of how it works. The electors are pledged to vote for a certain candidate, and the people's vote decides which electors get to vote.

There's a lot of unwed teen mothers who pledged abstinence too. Pledges don't actually matter. The fact that they typically do stick to their pledge isn't proof that they always will. It could very well be the case that they've never really been faced with a situation where they weren't totally okay with the choice their pledge would have them make. We live in a falsely dichotomous left-right political paradigm. When you really look at what the last several presidents have done, there's really very little difference between the left and right besides what actions of theirs are highlighted by the media. Due to tactical voting, the elector is rarely ever going to be faced with a real choice anyway. It's either democrat or republican, which are pretty interchangeable. Campaign promises be damned too, those don't mean a thing either as they're essentially never lived up to.

All of this is to say, if a candidate is outside of the electors comfort zone, they can, will, and have voted however the fuck they wanted regardless of their pledge. It doesn't matter if they've historically changed the outcome - that's your vote NOT COUNTING. Directly. Your vote, ultimately is a suggestion. They can take it or leave it. They usually take it, but chances are this has very little to do with you or your vote, but rather that it was similar enough to their own that they don't mind appearing to take the suggestion. This is the illusion of choice.

 

[Seteleechete]

There's an important distinction between to be made between a democracy and a representative democracy. I, for one, would not want to live in a society of pure majority rule, given how often the majority is dead wrong. "Universal truth is not measured in mass appeal" - Immortal Technique.

I was thinking of mentioning this but refrained because it brings up the problem of 'what should we have instead?'

 

[nanook]

'what should we have instead?'

test people for how many perspectives they can hold in their mind, at their given level of development and give them "as many" votes, so each of their concerns can be represented. we can develop concerns for self, for other, for family, for country, for people of minorities other than our own, for specific areas of life, such as technology, for the environment, for animals, for all countries of the planet, for all the people in all countries. there will be voting rights that you have to deserve in the same way you deserve a level of education. not sure if testing should analyse mental capabilities or actions. perhaps we could say that someone who actually has a family gets a vote for them. but someone who doesn't have a family could be capable of being concerned about the wellbeing of families. he should be able to deserve at least half a vote, if he can express such concern somehow. someone who did a year of international service, servicing third world countries or helping with environmental issues of other countries or the likes, might deserve a vote that represents his concern for foreign affairs or world centricity, as he is not simply a nationalist who wants to eat up the rest of the world.

well, my view on the original subject:

If you have backwards views and live in a place, where there are already more progressive people who vote, because they know they will win, as they won before, then you can actually stay at home, because the amount of progressive voters does not usually decline, unless some catastrophe scared people and made them regress. Which happens frequently.

If you have progressive views and feel that voting is pointless, because in the past the backwards people won all elections, you should go and vote, because obviously other progressives are as discouraged as you, but none of you can know how many people have become progressive during the last four years and this time around there may be enough of you to take over.

So if you understand that politics are a matter of evolution, which means you are progressive, because only progressives can comprehend, what being backwards or being progressive means, you absolutely must vote.

If you falsely assume that left/right is like a typological competition, which it is partially, but not only and not primarily, you should still vote, if you think that your side is any better.

The idea, that the people who choose not to vote are random is highly questionable. The political position of a person does most likely affect whether they are enthusiastic to vote. How it does so can depend on local circumstances. Nationalists may be eager to vote, especially when they feel that there is a thread to the nation going on. Socialists are eager to vote, because they care, it's what socialists do, until they are depressed, because their place is usually overrun by nationalist morons.

Whatever reasoning anyone chooses, to make his choice on whether he votes, is going to be a generic trend of depression or enthusiasm amongst his political peers, it's not unique to him. Therefore it does affect the outcome of the election.

Therefore voting is the better choice, if you don't want to be manipulated by whoever pretends to know the outcome ahead of time and if you believe that there is a difference between what the parties are up to. And there is, obviously. Just because economy is mostly ruled by banks and lobbyists doesn't mean politicians have no ideologically driven power over important issues.

Those who say the system is all wrong and voting the 'lesser evil' means consenting to the system are a minority who express their radically unconstructive political position by not voting. They are not technically people who don't vote, because they do express themselves.

They just can't seem to comprehend, that many people, who also describe all parties as more or less "evil", still agree with the system and choose "tactical voting" to foster the system.

For a progressive, who is mentally ahead of the most progressive party, voting is like encouraging your older more mature child and putting a break on the hubris of the less mature sibling. You don't want to abort the game and kill your children, just because both are somewhat immature. Those who hate the system but lack any perspective are simply a third sibling.

 

[420MuNkEy]

I was thinking of mentioning this but refrained because it brings up the problem of 'what should we have instead?'

The common alternative to a pure democracy is a representative democracy, which is what nearly every western nation has. It's by no means perfect, but it does help minimize the harm a pure majority rule could do.

Those who say the system is all wrong and voting the 'lesser evil' means consenting to the system are a minority who express their radically unconstructive political position by not voting. They are not technically people who don't vote, because they do express themselves.

They just can't seem to comprehend, that many people, who also describe all parties as more or less "evil", still agree with the system and choose "tactical voting" to foster the system.

For a progressive, who is mentally ahead of the most progressive party, voting is like encouraging your older more mature child and putting a break on the hubris of the less mature sibling. You don't want to abort the game and kill your children, just because both are somewhat immature. Those who hate the system but lack any perspective are simply a third sibling.

There are better alternatives, like IRV, but drastic reform of the voting system isn't really in the interest of politicians, so it's not really brought up. Given that it's never brought up, I think it's disingenuous to say people "agree" with it rather than just being complacent with it and/or ignorant of its shortcomings and alternatives. Furthermore, since it's not a campaign issue, voting, even if it was effective (which, again, it's not), would not be a meaningful path to affect change. Raising awareness about the issue and lobbying for reform (which has actually changed the system in some states/districts, though not for national elections) is far more constructive than voting in the current system ever could be.

I hate the system and have quite a lot of perspective. It's actually because of my perspective that I hate the system. It's because of my perspective that I see it as futile.

Honestly, you may as well be saying "It's because people lack perspective that they don't gamble/play the lottery", when in fact, many people who abstain from those activities do so exactly because they understand what they are.

 

[Grayman]

Most people who say these things think the president is the only vote that matters. The president doesn't even make law. Focus should be in congress and on your reps. In those areas your vote has more power.

 

[Jennywocky]

Most people who say these things think the president is the only vote that matters. The president doesn't even make law. Focus should be in congress and on your reps. In those areas your vote has more power.

President = Heads executive branch. He doesn't make the laws, but he can reject them + he nominates Supreme Court justices (Judiciary) who interpret law and can have a profound effect for cases that fall within their jurisdiction. In the case of the president, your vote helps determine 100% of the president's office, which can then impact x/9 members of the highest judiciary court and also chooses the staffing of the Cabinet who influence policy, etc., and many others. The judges have to be approved by Congress but typically getting to choose who is put forward (out of all the candidates available) is a huge power.

Yes, Congress creates the laws, so in that sense you have more power over someone(s) who will contribute to the actual lawmaking process. However, your vote contributes to 1/100 members of the Senate (1%) and 1/538 (0.186%) members of the Representative body.

So depending on how you look at it, your vote has more power (to contribute to people who create and try to pass laws) or actually far less power than a vote for president. It depends on which part of the law-making process you are focused on.

But there's also a leadership aspect -- the president unfortunately is a figurehead, so then politics and personal affinity and identification come into play more than with other politicians who are more of just a face in a crowd of similar people.

... anyway, if you're going to vote, just educate yourself and vote, regardless.

 

[Ophion]

Look, democracy sucks. That's not the point. The OP was about voting, and voting is every citizen's responsibility. It's selfish of anyone to use anything the government has paid for without voting because that money came from taxpayers and by abstaining from the vote, you declare yourself not a part of this government. If you aren't going to govern as is your right and duty as a citizen of a democracy, then you shouldn't get to take advantage of anything paid for by fellow citizens, like roads, social security, access to law enforcement and fire fighters, any social programs....the list goes on and on.

Here's what it comes down to. You have to do what good you can in the world in which we live. We live in a highly corrupted representative democracy with very few decent prospects for any of the public offices. Refusing to take part because of some moral high ground is incredibly selfish, and actually morally reprehensible. It's much better to try to fight for what's right within the system than to abstain because you think you're better than that. By voting, we stand to make a change. By NOT voting, you're allowing this corrupt bullshit to continue even longer, and not doing anything to stop the things you say you're opposed to. Not voting for those reasons is like standing there watching people get robbed and not stepping in because you're opposed to robbery and don't want to be associated with it. It's bullshit, and anyone who thinks like that doesn't spare much thought for the well-being of others.

Now, if we want to discuss alternatives to democracy hypothetically, that's different. Everyone has a duty to vote in America, but that doesn't mean I like what we have. Even a representative democracy absolutely sucks. I've always been a huge fan of Plato's "Philosopher King" actually. I don't know who said it, but I like that old quote that goes something along the lines of, "I abhor any system of government in which my voice counts as much as that of the village idiot."

 

[nanook]

I don't count pipe dreams as perspective, 420Munkey. I should have formulated more precisely: 'developmental perspective' is what matters. That means foreseeing actual potential developments. As you seem to admit, whatever you dream of is not going to be brought up. What is going to be brought up is fun regressive stuff like teaching genesis instead of evolution at schools, bulding borders everywhere, camps, ghettos, prisons for people who smoke weed and you are doing nothing to prevent that from happening, because you just have to let the whole world know that you are something better. It a most ineffective way of communicating something to your comrades. Nobody looks at the number of people who don't vote and thinks: "gee, so many people who will all be happy to join me in my attempts to give birth to a whole new system. today i will become politically active and change the world."

i actually feel bad for pointing this out, because it's so obvious.