# Ethical behavior given the Paradox of Voting

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-behavior-given-the-paradox-of-voting/747425>\
**Category:** Politics & Elections\
**Created:** [February 28, 2016, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-behavior-given-the-paradox-of-voting/747425 "2016-02-28T20:27:27Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 17

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\
**Post date:** [March 1, 2016, 5:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-behavior-given-the-paradox-of-voting/747425/17 "2016-03-01T05:33:07Z")

</div>

Here is another place where the issues in the OP arose:

> [@For Sanders fans who plan on sitting out if Bernie is not nominated](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-sanders-fans-who-plan-on-sitting-out-if-bernie-is-not-nominated/746466/3):
>
> I vote as a Californian. You’ll have to work a little harder to convince me that my sitting out the election will give California to the Republicans.
> 
> In 2012, the results were 7,854,285 (60.24%) D, and 4,839,958 R (37.12%).
> 
> If the numbers are at all similar, my little protest would have to be joined by 3,000,000 other people, or 17% of the registered voters in the state (by 2015 numbers), and nearly 25% of the voters who actually turned out for the election; if my math is right, that would be 40% of the Democrats.
> 
> In the unlikely event that 40% of the party’s voters sit out the general election because they don’t like the candidate, the other party deserves to win. But I think my little protest will be consequence-free.

> [@For Sanders fans who plan on sitting out if Bernie is not nominated](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-sanders-fans-who-plan-on-sitting-out-if-bernie-is-not-nominated/746466/58):
>
> Okay, but this cuts both ways. If Bernie is the nominee, your vote is similarly impotent to help him win the general election.

> [@For Sanders fans who plan on sitting out if Bernie is not nominated](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/for-sanders-fans-who-plan-on-sitting-out-if-bernie-is-not-nominated/746466/65):
>
> Yep. Same for senators. I think the idea is to make us vote the more effective, American way, by sending cash to our preferred candidates.

As I understand it, Drake wants to sit out the general election if his guy isn’t nominated by the Dems. I’m saying that whether he resides in a swing state or a quasi-safe state like California doesn’t matter on act utilitarian grounds: he shouldn’t vote either way any day. Following Kant (or as I understand it a “Deontological framework”, a term that I frankly don’t understand) he should vote regardless. And by my 1% criteria, the margin of victory matters even in safe districts. Though I suppose it matters more in some times and places than others.  
This topic comes up a lot. I’m trying to address it methodically here. It’s not so much that you should choose one framework or another; it’s merely that you should understand the set of coherent perspectives if you wish to act on this sort of argument.  
There are also expressive criteria. Is this the way you want to dance? Maybe yes, maybe no. As a caveat, it can be difficult at times to distinguish between principled and petulant behavior, especially when judging oneself.

---

_[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ethical-behavior-given-the-paradox-of-voting/747425)._