Fail.
By your logic, what is the minimum threshold for a contribution to matter? Surely ten grand put into a Salvation Army kettle doesn’t do squat, their annual budget is millions. Surely the War Bonds in WW II were a waste of time, the war could have been won without them. None of us should vote because one vote never matters. Until you add them up, just like all the coins in the kettle.
No definite threshhold. “A few cents” does nothing. $100 does something. So it’s somewhere in between.
But it’s a good question. To answer your question with the voting: one vote does nothing. 500 votes definitely have a chance, small, but non-zero, of swinging a federal election. So - somewhere in between.
But since I only control one vote, it means nothing. It’s like if I could only put a penny in the Salvation Army bucket, and not any more.
So, if 500 votes is somewhere in the neighborhood of the threshold to being significant in a Federal election, you must implicitly acknowledge that if 499 of those people didn’t vote (because they believed their single vote would not make a difference), the collection of those decisions does begin to make an impact… right?
It’s like that situation where you have a huge drum full of pennies, and we all agree that it is full of pennies. I take one penny out. Is it still full? Sure. I take another penny out. Is it still full? Sure… at some point it cannot still be full, even though I have only taken out one additional penny. The puzzle is that it isn’t the one penny that makes the container go from full to not full, it’s all the other pennies that have also been removed.
Voting and saying “I voted today”, and stuff like that. I mean voting and not hiding the fact that you voted.
But you throwing that quarter might inspire one or two people more to throw a quarter in, which might inspire a few more that saw them do it, and so on. So throwing in a quarter can be a lot more than just a quarter – it really might lead to a significant benefit that wouldn’t be there if you hadn’t started it.
Again, I am not 499 people. I don’t control 499 votes. I control one. How or why other people vote is completely out of my control.
So the impact over which I have control is one vote’s impact. And one vote’s impact has zero (not miniscule, zero) chance of changing the outcome of a Federal election.
Cite? You know, like an experiment where someone sends in people to throw a quarter in once every 5 minutes to a salvation army guy in ten locations, and not in the other 100 reasonably similar locations. Then count how much money was collected, on the average, in the first ten and in the other hundred (subtracting the “extra” money being thrown in by experimenter, of course).
I thought you posted an instance of a Federal election being decided by one vote, so the chance of one vote deciding an election cannot be zero.
I’m looking, but I was under the impression that this was a pretty well known fact of human psychology. This is what I’ve found so far (not a study, but a foundation states that giving publicly stimulates more giving).
That was in 1910, and the total was 50,000 votes or so. Today that would never happen. 1 vote is below the “fuzziness factor” (or the “margin of error”) in counting votes.
Of course they do. They’re a foundation that exists on donations. They are definitely not citing (or have conducted) any studies. And they are talking about giving substantial amounts. We’re talking about “a few cents” (lance strongarm) or a quarter (BobLibDem and you).
The idea relates to rational ignorance. The cost of becoming informed, or the cost of voting, is so high compared to the essentially non-existent chance of actually influencing policy that there’s no “rational” reason to participate in the political process. So the argument goes.
It convinces some people. You can see the logic in it. I actually accept the main thrust of the argument, unlike others here, but I still don’t accept the conclusion.
First and most obvious, there is not actually a 0% chance of influencing the outcome of an election. It’s very small but not zero.* Second and just as important, the usual analysis tends to restrict the benefits of voting strictly to the personal benefits of getting the right politician in office, like this is some sort of regular market transaction where we can read the invoice clearly. Personal benefits are important, but there’s something broader at stake in an election. People have strong beliefs about how the country should be governed. There’s no market for that, but it still exists.
People vote righteously.
A whole lot of people would give everything we have if we could guarantee that we tip the scale in our side’s favor. That guarantee doesn’t exist, meaning that such an enormous sacrifice isn’t worthwhile. But with the relatively small sacrifice of informing ourselves and visiting the booth every couple years, we might just make a difference. It’s like winning the Powerball, except with a jackpot so enormously high that it actually has a positive expected value. This is what makes political participation worthwhile, even from a strict cost-benefit analysis that excludes other incidental benefits of voting.
*Some people claim that a close enough election will be contested in courts and such, so a one-vote margin will never actually matter. On preview, I see that’s already been brought up in this thread! The “fuzziness factor”. (Damn I’m good.) That might be true, but even so, there must still be some threshold where that interference won’t happen. If the courts would give the office to our political opponent, but ours is the vote that stopped that judicial interference from happening, then our vote still mattered. The vote made a difference. Even given fuzziness, there still exists a threshold of a meaningful win, and consequently the very low but distinct chance of a single vote deciding an election.
“Fail” is not an argument. It’s not even really a comment.
In fact, it’s the most perfectly ironic response you can offer.
If that’s all you’ve got, don’t bother please.
There is a very small but not zero chance of winning a lottery. Buying a lottery ticket is still not a rational decision.
There is a very small but not zero chance that all the air in the room I am in will concentrate in one corner and I will suffocate. That doesn’t mean that carrying an oxygen mask and cylinder everywhere I go is a rational thing to do.
Which is the “warm and fuzzy” factor. If you have that, go vote. I don’t.
It was a one word sentence in response to your one word sentence.
Uh-oh.
Now you’re saying there’s a point at which someone’s personal contribution DOES accomplish something and is worth adding to the pot?
That’s progress.
What if I join with a few friends and pool our money and give $100 - would that make it any different for you? Yet that’s exactly what I do by putting a few cents in the pot, just after I put it in, with people I don’t know.
You haven’t presented a rational basis that the chances are zero, as opposed to minuscule. The chances of winning the lottery are fantastically bad, but that doesn’t mean that they are zero.
Whatever your own preferences for voting are, you’re making a really poorly thought out case for your views on voting in general.
Ah.
Since I offered more than one word in the first place, perhaps you could offer more than a reply to one word.
Of course. And there’s a point (somewhere around 100 votes I would say) where voting becomes a rational decision - if you could vote 100 times (and others couldn’t).