if your votes cancel each other's out, should you go anyway?

[OpalCat]

So I'm about to move to Ohio, see, where I will be moving in with my boyfriend* (with the intention of eventually getting married.) He's a Republican. I'm Democrat. So here is what I'm wondering... if we know we disagree politically and that we'll be voting for opposite things, should we both go vote anyway, or just decide to stay home and neither of us vote?

(I realize there are often lots of other things to vote on on the ballot, but honestly half the time I haven't studied up and don't know the issues, so I tend to not vote on those things anyway.)







*technically, we'll both be moving into a new place together.

[pinkfreud]

A family member of mine once proposed a pact in which both of us would abstain from voting for President (the relative is a staunch Democrat, I'm an equally staunch Republican). While this would have been convenient, I turned it down. It just didn't feel right to me to become part of the nonvoting majority.

[OpalCat]

That's my dilemma. I hate the idea of wasting my time, but I also don't want to feel like one of the nonvoting slackers.

[Zebra]

You have to go, just to cancel each other out.

[chrisk]

Originally Posted by OpalCat

So here is what I'm wondering... if we know we disagree politically and that we'll be voting for opposite things, should we both go vote anyway, or just decide to stay home and neither of us vote?

Only if there's a serious reason that voting would inconvenience you, I think.

Reminds me of a story my dad used to tell about similar deals in the houses of parliament. If there was going to be a vote on a certain bill really late at night, after all kinds of incredibly boring speeches and so on, sometimes one of the representatives found find another on the other side of the issue.

"I'll definitely be voting 'for' no matter what, and you're a die-hard 'against' man, so what say we just skip the vote and grab a nice dinner down at the pub?"

(Having dinner with your opposite number is key, otherwise someone sneaky could try the 'we'll only cancel each other out anyway' trick with several of his or her opponents.)

[brownie55]

Originally Posted by OpalCat

So I'm about to move to Ohio, see, where I will be moving in with my boyfriend* (with the intention of eventually getting married.) He's a Republican. I'm Democrat. So here is what I'm wondering... if we know we disagree politically and that we'll be voting for opposite things, should we both go vote anyway, or just decide to stay home and neither of us vote?

(I realize there are often lots of other things to vote on on the ballot, but honestly half the time I haven't studied up and don't know the issues, so I tend to not vote on those things anyway.)







*technically, we'll both be moving into a new place together.

Thare may be other races or bond/charter issues where you agree on either the Dem or Pub side. You must vote in every election.

[pinkfreud]

Originally Posted by chrisk

Only if there's a serious reason that voting would inconvenience you, I think.

Considering how easy it is to obtain an absentee ballot by mail, I don't think such a reason exists, unless a person is incapable of reading, writing, or opening an envelope. I voted once from a hospital bed in the ICU.

[OtakuLoki]

This pact seems to assume that you'll always be at loggerheads even on local issues. I think that the real reason to vote isn't the national elections, but the local ones. Even though you seem to have some major ideological differences, I suspect, given that you agree enough on some things to want to move in together, that you'd find that there are local issues you will both agree upon. Even if you get to that decision point through very different decision trees.

I'd say keep voting.

[AuntiePam]

Same situation at my house. In 2000, my husband said we shouldn't bother to vote. I agreed. Both of us sneaked to the polls. In 2004, he told me I had convinced him to vote Democrat. He admitted later that he lied. I guess he just wanted me to shut up.

I can't not vote. It's like a rejection of democracy or something.

[TheLoadedDog]

Originally Posted by AuntiePam

I can't not vote. It's like a rejection of democracy or something.

Neither can I - but it's compulsory here.


(I'd vote even if it weren't)

[Plan B]

Before the 2004 election I suggested this timesaver to one of my tennis buddies. He was going to Ohio to campaign for Kerry and I was going to PA to campaign for GWB, both of us going for the final three days. I said why don't we both just go to a tennis camp for the weekend. He absolutely did not get my point. As it turned out both of us lost our states. So it goes.

[OpalCat]

Originally Posted by brownie55

Thare may be other races or bond/charter issues where you agree on either the Dem or Pub side. You must vote in every election.

Well that is what I was addressing when I said that I don't vote on issues I haven't studied up on.

[Leaffan]

Damn it people. Don't you vote for your own reasons? I couldn't care who my wife or anyone else votes for. I want to vote to be engaged and be part of the democratic process. I don't care who else votes for whom.

[matt_mcl]

Originally Posted by chrisk

Only if there's a serious reason that voting would inconvenience you, I think.

Reminds me of a story my dad used to tell about similar deals in the houses of parliament. If there was going to be a vote on a certain bill really late at night, after all kinds of incredibly boring speeches and so on, sometimes one of the representatives found find another on the other side of the issue.

This still takes place and is known as "pairing." In various votes where a member will be unable to attend, he or she can arrange with a member of another party who will be voting the opposite way not to attend either. It is considered a courtesy. The arrangement is registered with the whips of the two parties, who see to it that it is followed.

[WarmNPrickly]

Youre vote is always counted and always means something even if it is "cancelled out" by your boyfreinds vote. You two should both vote.

[Rigamarole]

Go, but find a way to sabotage his ballot. Score +1 for you!

[Noone Special]

Not all ballots are two-party or otherwise binary (yes/no proposals) -- at least not here. In Israeli elections there are generally about 15 different parties vying for our votes. So "canceling each other out" in our context essentially means giving part of my vote to each and every party but the one I would vote for. Not exactly the intended outcome.

Also, what most everyone else has said -- voting is (morally speaking) an obligation, not merely a right. Treat it as just a "right" to be put aside when inconvenient for you, and watch the right disappear when you do want to exercise it....

[Lunar Saltlick]

Well, you could take matt_mcl's pairing right to the extreme. Set up an informal system at work, school, gym, neighborhood, etc., where people pair off not to vote. The final turnout at the polls would be a few thousand people who had no friends, colleagues, social skills or interests. They'd almost certainly vote for independent candidates, the ones who produce home-made signs with crayons, and set up terrifying Web sites. Might be interesting for a while.

[cochrane]

It may be just me, but unless you're the only two voting in the election, your votes aren't going to "cancel each other out." And there are often more than two sides to an issue or candidates for a particular office. I'm not saying your one vote or his one vote would be the margin of victory, but the more people who get out and vote, the more people who actually have a voice in running our society. So, yeah, both of you get out there and cast your ballots.

[FatBaldGuy]

This reminds me of a Dilbert strip from several years ago. Dogbert uses this same logic on Dilbert, that since they disagree on everything they should both stay home from the polls.

The next day, Dilbert says, "Wait a minute, dogs can't vote!" Dogbert replies, "Well, not directly."

[Velma]

I would vote anyway. Maybe he won't punch in his ballot hard enough and his vote won't get counted

I like my candidate to know that he got my vote, even if s/he doesn't win. Maybe the increased numbers will cheer them up, or they will see that x% of people turned out or whatever.

[UncleRojelio]

You should go vote, if nothing else than to get the little "I Voted" sticker to wear the rest of the day.

[Gary "Wombat" Robson]

I simply can't conceive of someone I know voting the opposite of the way I do on every single issue. Even if we were both mindless robots, with one checking all the [D] boxes and the other checking the [R] boxes, what about the initiatives, the bond issues, the primaries, the offices where indies stand a real chance of being elected?

[Blaster Master]

As many have said, and I'll mostly echo, this sort of thought really bothers me. Yes voting is a "right", but it's really a civic responsibility. And I have to wonder... Will you always find EVERY Democratic candidate for every seat preferable to all other candidates from all other parties for the same seat? Will he always feel the same way about the corresponding Republican candidate? What about the elections where one of the major parties isn't even bothering to put up a candidate (because the incumbent is practically unbeatable), but an independent is running; how would the one who's prefered party vote is the independent is Libertarian or Green or Constitution or...?

What bothers me slightly more is that this sort of thinking assumes that the independent literally has no chance and never will. As long as this sort of thinking perpetuates, it will, and we may not see some real (and much needed, IMO) change in the two major parties. It also perpetuates the "lesser of two evils" philosophy, with which I vehemently disagree. I did not vote for Bush or Kerry in 2004 because I thought both were unsuitable for the job; I would rather vote for whom I thought would do the best, than for whom I thought would screw up least.

I also have to ask, do you both always vote the straight party ticket? Is it not possible that a member of the opposite party could do a bang-up job? For instance, I live in Northern Virginia, which is about 55-60% Democrats; however, our Congressman is a Republican and was recently re-elected by a huge margin (something like 65-70% of the votes). I have yet to meet a Democrat (even a staunch one) who has not said he's doing a great job; I imagine that's true of many Democrats given that many of them had to have voted for him to have gotten that kind of victory. Now, I'm a Libertarian, and more often than not vote for the Libertarian party, but I voted for him over the Libertarian candidate; similarly, my Democratic mother voted for an equally well respected Republican in the next district over and, other than him, has voted the straight [D] ticket her whole life AFAIK.

Bottom line, there's just too many variables to consider to override my sense of duty with regard to voting, specifically since most ballots have several items for consideration. It is a bit different with the concept of pairing, because all congressional votes are always binary, and I imagine the pairing can be done on a case by case basis; whereas here, it is almost never binary and would not be done on a case by case basis.

[OpalCat]

I asked this more as a philosophical/intellectual question than as me asking for personal advice. I doubt that in reality I'd ever not go vote (though I don't vote in every single local election--for example if I have no knowledge of any of the issues on the ballot, and even in elections that I do vote in, I don't vote on everything, but only on the stuff/peope I know something about or have an opinion on) but I was just sitting around thinking about what things were going to be like when I moved in with my Republican boyfriend and the whole voting thing crossed my mind. I didn't really think it was a 100% solid strategy or anything (and as I said, not one I'd actually be likely to enact) but the idea seemed interesting enough to warrant discussion. It seems to have not really gone so much as a discussion of the concept as I had hoped, though, and seems to be more about people trying to talk me, personally, out of not voting.

So, you can all relax and rest assured that I'm not going to stop voting, ok? The question is more an abstract one than a practical one: given a ballot of two candidates and nothing else on the ballot, and given two people who know they will vote opposite, what reasons are there to vote vs to go camping together instead? Assume these two can be trusted to not go vote behind the other's back.

[Gary "Wombat" Robson]

Originally Posted by OpalCat

(though I don't vote in every single local election--for example if I have no knowledge of any of the issues on the ballot, and even in elections that I do vote in, I don't vote on everything, but only on the stuff/peope I know something about or have an opinion on)

To me, this is the height of civic responsibility. If you know the issues/candidates, then get your butt out there and vote. If you don't know what you're voting on, don't mess up the results by randomly checking boxes.

I would add that I applaud people who take the time to actually read ballot measures before voting on them (I do. I read the text of the proposed law, and all of the for/against arguments), but please read them at home, not while you're standing in the voting booth!

[WarmNPrickly]

Is there some sort of exorcism you could perform on your boyfriend? Maybe if you could use a logical anomaly to imply Reagan was a liberal he'll short circuit. Then you can program him as you will.

[Only Mostly Dead]

The last presidential election proved that Ohio needs every voting Democrat possible, "canceled out" or not.


An anecdote from the last elections:
My father felt so compelled in the 2004 election (spurred on, unfortunately, by conservative talk radio that he can't avoid at work) to vote for the first time in in life. He made no attempt to hide he'd vote for Bush when he asked me to help him register online, but I did it, figuring civic participation was worth more than a vote cast for an administration I am embarrassed to have to call my own.
On election day, he voted Bush, and I voted Kerry, which I would have done anyway. I redefined it in my mind as "canceling out" my father, just as my wife considered her Kerry vote to cancel out her mother's Bush vote.
Cut to Thanksgiving dinner 2006, when I am giddy about the solid electoral showing of the Democrats in congressional elections, and he admits that two years after his first vote, he chose to vote Democrats into Congress, embarrassed as he was about voting for Bush in 2004 and seeing some fallout of his decision.

[Omegaman]

Like I tell my dumbass 22 year old friend. He elected GW by not voting at all. THEN he won't shut the hell up about him screwing stuff up. It REALLY is like going from the frying pan to the fire.

Vote or shut the hell up.

[WarmNPrickly]

The last presidential election proved that Ohio needs every voting Democrat possible, "canceled out" or not.

AHA! that's it! Before you lived in Ohio, your boyfreinds vote went unchallenged. Now, you will be in Ohio and you will cancell out his previously uncancelled vote. Since the presidential elections are not done by majority vote, they are run by the electoral college your vote actually counts for more than it did before.

[OpalCat]

Originally Posted by Christopher

AHA! that's it! Before you lived in Ohio, your boyfreinds vote went unchallenged. Now, you will be in Ohio and you will cancell out his previously uncancelled vote. Since the presidential elections are not done by majority vote, they are run by the electoral college your vote actually counts for more than it did before.

He only recently moved to Ohio. The last presidential election he was in Atlanta.

[Blalron]

I honestly don't think I could stand a significant other who is a Republican. Our world view would be so different that I couldn't be in an intimate relationship.

The best strategy: Enter a pact with someone to not vote because "we cancel each other out" then go ahead and vote anyway.

[OpalCat]

I wouldn't have thought I could, either. Turns out it really doesn't come up all that often. It seems like most of the differences fall into the category of having differing views on the importance of money.

[Millit the Frail]

In 2000, my husband (then boyfriend) didn't get his absentee ballot for some reason. His sister never requested one. Their dad came to Chicago, picked up both, and drove all night and day to Michigan and back so that both son and daughter could vote at their local polling place. Dedication!

Husband voted for Gore.
Sister voted for.....
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Gore.

*whew!*

We were very worried she was going to vote for Bush, but he didn't ask her until after she was done voting. She's now very liberal, but she wasn't so much back then. Their dad, a Democrat, knew the chance he was taking, but it was important to see his kids vote anyway, even if their votes canceled. I'll never forget his example.

[WarmNPrickly]

I honestly don't think I could stand a significant other who is a Republican. Our world view would be so different that I couldn't be in an intimate relationship.

Balderdash! Unless one or the other is a close minded idiot, these things don't matter that much. I have Republican freinds, and we get along just fine. People that get too hung up in politics aren't fun to be around. To be honest, I don't think they make very good politicians.

[cantara]

Go vote. There is no cancelling out. They count all the ballots and announce the total for each candidate. If they cancelled them out then the total would only be the difference. I would much rather see results that read:
Candidate A - 1,747
Candidate B - 1,649
than
Candidate A wins with 98
Candidate B

or

Candidate A - 528,747
Candidate B - 528,649
than
Candidate A - wins with 98
Candidate B

Besides that, you could influence the vote by saying the same thing to a number of political contrarians and encouraging them not to vote by the fact that yours will cancel it out.

[Gary "Wombat" Robson]

Originally Posted by Christopher

Balderdash! Unless one or the other is a close minded idiot, these things don't matter that much.

Hear, hear. I used to play poker every week with a group that had (very) mixed political views. Since they were all intelligent people, the few political debates we had were entertaining and educational. And the "world view" of most of my Republican friends really isn't that different from that of most of my Democrat friends. If you took religion out of the equation, the difference would be even less.

[CrankyAsAnOldMan]

Another reason for "cancelled-out" pairs to vote, instead of agreeing to stay home, is that voter participation is tallied. The more people turn out to vote, the more likely candidates (and elected officials) will consider your local area and your local issues worth their time and attention. Yes, the mere two votes of a single pair may not bump the precinct or county or state percentage up much, but the net effect of many pairs staying at home (or not) adds up.

[OpalCat]

Cranky: that's the best reasoning I've heard yet.

[Vinyl Turnip]

Originally Posted by OpalCat

I wouldn't have thought I could, either. Turns out it really doesn't come up all that often. It seems like most of the differences fall into the category of having differing views on the importance of money.

"I think money is extremely important!"
"Well, I think money is very important!"
"You don't know what you're talking about. Very important. Yeah right."
"Go to hell!"

[RickJay]

Originally Posted by Lunar Saltlick

Well, you could take matt_mcl's pairing right to the extreme. Set up an informal system at work, school, gym, neighborhood, etc., where people pair off not to vote. The final turnout at the polls would be a few thousand people who had no friends, colleagues, social skills or interests. They'd almost certainly vote for independent candidates, the ones who produce home-made signs with crayons, and set up terrifying Web sites. Might be interesting for a while.

I really like this idea. I think it'd be great to have a few years where our elected officials were chosen by people who still play dice-based Mechwarrior games, record store clerks, and troubled loners.

[Napier]

1) Nobody "should" vote. You "get to" vote. Candidates tell their audiences that they should vote because the message is plausible and equates to "elect me". But both sides can't be right.

2) Actually, let's amend that. These days, it's ethically incumbent upon us all to vote against Republicans. In fact, it's incumbent upon the OP to make a no-voting agreement with her Republican boyfriend, and also with every other Republican she can find, and to still go vote, and donate heavily to whoever can best compete with Republicans. And dump the boyfriend too (after the election).

[OpalCat]

Wow, that was pretty inappropriate. I'm probably going to *marry* the boyfriend.

[Lord Ashtar]

Originally Posted by OpalCat

(I realize there are often lots of other things to vote on on the ballot, but honestly half the time I haven't studied up and don't know the issues, so I tend to not vote on those things anyway.)

If you can't be bothered to do any research, then I definately think you should just stay home.

[OpalCat]

Some years I keep track, some years I don't, it depends on what is going on. Also depends on where I'm living and how long I've lived there. Just moved to that town? Probably don't know enough to make an informed decision about how it's run yet.

Anyway, thanks for the scolding tone, but I already said that I don't vote on things I haven't read up on.

[WarmNPrickly]

If you can't be bothered to do any research, then I definately think you should just stay home.

She pretty clearly stated that she didn't vote on those things she didn't know about. I don't either so go ahead and scold me while your at it.

[shamrock227]

Every single year my parents go vote together. She's Democrat and he's Republican.

Mom goes first then Dad. As Dad comes out of the booth he always announces "Don't worry folks I've mitigated the damage and canceled out her vote."

All these years and she still goes and votes with him

[scotandrsn]

Don't do it! It's a trap!

As soon as he's sure you're staying home, he'll declare that he's "just going out for some ice cream", and next thing you know, he's in line at the polls!

[Gangster Octopus]

If you re voting because you think it will have an impact on the election and your vote is only meaningful in that way, then if there is a hypothetical cancelling out, don't vote. However, if you vote for some other reason, as most people do (civic duty, pride, purpose, ego, whatever) then you should vote. In other words whether you vote or not in this case is pretty much the same reason as to whether you vote at all.

[Lord Ashtar]

Originally Posted by OpalCat

Anyway, thanks for the scolding tone, but I already said that I don't vote on things I haven't read up on.

A lot of other important things get decided on Election Day other than who will be the next President. But you go ahead and decide not to go because you have to vote Democrat and your boyfriend has to vote Republican and you would therefore "cancel each other out". Because that's all that matters. There's no possibility that you might both want to vote to build a new park or elementary school or something.

But you probably will never know about any of these things, because you can't be bothered to research them beforehand.