Trunk - first of all an election is not a statistical sample. It’s an absolute count of votes, not some sort of representation of population opinion. It does however have a margin of error - not due to sampling error, but due to errors in counting which are largely due to antiquated voting methods. Theoretically that counting error can probably be eliminated (through electronic voting booths, for example) and mathematically it’s totally unrelated to the errors you see in polls.
That’s neither here nor there, really since given the current reality of counting errors, an election that comes down to a single vote will certainly buy you a recount, and will probably require a revote - unless we’re talking about a small town voting, or some similar situation.
So in principle you have a point, that your single vote is highly unlikely to matter. The problem is you could use the same argument for not recycling, or for peeing in a reservoir, or stealing from a large retail chain. Your single act has no discernible impact on the common good, but if everyone behaved that way there’d be a large impact, so we all recognize our individual obligation to behave in a way that collectively works for the common good.
Lastly, and most importantly, the OP’s argument and your argument have nothing in common. You’re arguing that a vote doesn’t matter - which has some connection with reality. He’s arguing that POLITICS doesn’t matter. That it doesn’t matter who’s president and that it doesn’t affect him. *That’s * what I object to. It’s just wrong. Otherwise I really don’t care if he votes - particularly since he’s so ignorant - I figure his vote would contribute nothing to the common good.
I’m getting even more confused here. What is your actual argument? Is it that –
Elections have no effect on the lives of individuals.
Whether or not an individual chooses to vote can have no effect on the outcome of an election.
The proportion of people who do vote is a sample that accurately reflects the opnions of the public at large and, thus, we do not need more people to vote.
It seems to me that these are three completely different points, each one of them requiring more support than you have offered.
Furthermore, if your argument is No. 3, it seems to me it is irrelevant to the question of whether one believes that citizens have a moral duty to stay informed and vote.
As for your argument about the democratic ideal - no I don’t believe it’s about the will of 100% of the people. It’s about the will of the voters. Children don’t vote, for instance - because we figure they’re not competent to vote. Anyone who doesn’t care or is uninformed shouldn’t vote either, IMHO.
I believe is mostly true. But, in a deep way. As in: does the results of the election effect my happiness, my ability to enjoy life. And I certainly haven’t offered (nor do I wish to) enough support for it, nor have I tried to.
I believe the individual has SO LITTLE effect as to make actually going to the polls worthwhile, particularly when considered in the context of “1”.
Is related to ‘2’. And, I believe it is true.
2 & 3, I believe that I have here, and elsewhere here offered sufficient arguments for.
See, I consider voting through a strictly utilitarian framework. I believe you need to define the goals of voting, ask whether your participation can realitstically effect those goals, and then vote depending on your answer. I’ve defined my position on those issues.
I don’t think that there’s a question or morality or ethics involved at all. It’s simply a question of utility of the vote to me.
For instance: let’s say you were going to the polls at 7:59 at night, and you just heard on the radio that every issue had been decided by more votes than remained registered voters who hadn’t voted yet.
I believe that some people would still go vote.
I also believe that that’s insane.
Conversely, if I was sitting on the couch and I heard on the radio that every person in my district had voted except one, and an issue that concerned me was deadlocked, I would go vote. I’m not opposed to voting. I just don’t think its useful.
FINALLY, I think I have taken this in a direction other than the OP intended. I thought I was extending it, but I guess not. Sorry to him for that.
On preview, I see that some of my points have already been made by others, but I’d still like a response, so I’ll repeat them.
Depending on what we’re voting on, it either directly determines public policy, or it appoints someone to make/shape public policy.
If what you’re saying is that, ideally, everyone would vote, I’d agree.
An election is not the same as a poll. In an election, the “sample size” is the entire population of voters. When you sample 100% of a population, your margin of error is zero. A poll, on the other hand, samples from the population of eligible voters, which is distinct from the population of people who actually voted. The less overlap there is between the two populations, the less reason to believe that a study of one is indicative of anything in the other.
Alternately, if one wants to consider those who actually vote to be a sample of the population of eligible voters, your sample suffers from selection-bias: its members are self-selecting and are thus not necessarily a representative sample of the population as a whole.
I don’t claim that voting is a perfect reflection of what the country wants; it is, however, probably the best means we have of determining what the country—at least, those in the country motivated enough to voice their opinions—wants.
Zero; see above.
If my vote is one in 110,000,000, then my vote is 1/110,000,000 of the collective voice expressed in that election. Note that 1/110,000,000 is greater than zero.
I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here; could you clarify?
This again assumes that the populations of voters and eligible voters are the same and that there is no selection bias
Are you saying that voting is meaningless because there is too much error present in counting the votes? If not, what do you mean?
Why not? What is a bloc but a collection of individual votes? If one vote = 0, how are ten thousand votes > 0?
Why discount local elections?
Tell me, what exactly is going on?
I’m interested in the mathmatics you’re using. How many times must one add zero to zero to get a non-zero sum? PeterWiggen,
Actually, I agree with you right up to that last word. I don’t support making voting manditory; you certainly have the right not to vote, and I have no interest in denying you that right. I believe that it is in your interest to vote, and that a greater degree of public political dialogue, accompanied by improved voter education and turnout, is in the interest of the nation. However, I cannot mandate self-interest, nor would I try. Similarly, I cannot through coercion cause you to act for the public good. As for whether refusing to act for the public good (but not acting against it) is immoral or amoral, that’s something I’ll have to think about.
If your local member doesn’t impress you, do you mean that you don’t vote at all? Or simply that you go to the polling booth and then don’t actually fill in the ballot paper? If you don’t vote at all, do you pay the fine each time or try to argue your way out of it?
I’m sorry you feel that way, but there’s no way you’re going to convince me that ONE person’s vot–who doesn’t care one way or another who’s in office–is going to effect the whole outcome of this nation and everything in it, and make it better or worse or way better or way worse. You can say I’m very apathic, you can call me a lazy bum, you can even call me self absorbed…but applying the fact that what I said was BS just for the reasons you stated and saying I don’t give a shit about this country is, in itself, BS. I don’t see the connection. I don’t see how you or anyone for that matter can say “You don’t vote, so therefore you don’t care about this country at all.”
I know those weren’t your exact words. But it certainly seems like the basics of what your opinion seems to be. While I can respect your opinion that I should vote…and that you feel strongly about that issue, I can’t just take you saying I don’t think squat about this nation. I do not think that my not voting (again, mine) would directly effect that majorly on the destruction or degregation of this nation. I’d like to think that no matter who president is, he’d always have the nations best interest at heart, and if he really doesn’t…well, what is my one vote going to do anyway?
Now, yes, I know that in cases like 8 years ago when the whole Florida thing happened, it seemed like every vote counted…and yes, I even know that “If everyone like you chose not to vote, then it WOULD make a difference”. But see, that isn’t happening, as far as I know. Most people do seem to vote, and by the replies in this thread, they seem to vote enthusiasticly.
And no, my whole point is not “votes do not matter”. They do. I’m just saying that I don’t care to vote, since I just think MY one vote does not matter.
And yes…that is another reason before someone comes aloing and quotes that and says “but didn’t you say back here you don’t vote because it doesn’t affect you in any way?”. There are many reasons, those just leading the top tier.
I know this was to PeterWiggins, but let me just say that I actually see the sense behind this and do understand it. Me, I don’t complain. I figure, like my friend says, if I don’t vote, then I can’t rightly complain that the current president is doing a bad job, now can I? Well, I can, like stated, but I can’t expect anyone to have sympathy or take me seriously. After all…I did give up the right to vote. Catalyst:
Like I said above, I can’t see how me not casting my one vote would effect the world in ways that are unbearable and non-liveable. But that’s just me, I guess.
No, I wouldn’t. I’d say that man didn’t care about his dog at all. This is not abusing anything in any way. This is not doing something that you, solely, are responsible for to another thing that is soley connected to you so that he/she/it may live. This is something that is a right. The right to vote. Just like the right to remain silent when and if you’re arrested. And me, I just choose to give up that right.
Political action, no doubt. I fully understand that and adknowledge it. And I can bet that whether or not I vote, there will always be a president who lets that bill pass in some fashion, even if it’s not as much. If I’m wrong…then I guess I’ll be proved wrong and have to live with it. But I still wouldn’t vote.
Yes, I do. I’ve voted for a lot of things before, and probably will in the future. I even included voting on my Top Things Everyone Should Do list that I posted on here. I just don’t vote for president or anything that has to do with people in politics.
Well, I’m sorry then, but the second half of this quote is untrue as well.
acsenray:
Yes, that is true…I do do what you say in your last sentence. However, as of yet; as of my life and observances so far, who the president has been really hasn’t seemed to effect my life in any way…and this is after 25 years. Granted only 8 years after I was able to do anything about it if I wanted to, though…and I just don’t see it ever making that much of a difference. Again, not in general. Not to everyone else. Just to me. I require very little to be content.
While what you say may be true, I also think it may be also a bit biased based on if you liked or thought that president was doing a good or right job and making right decisions. For example, from reading posts on here, some thing that GWB seems to be the devil. And no, don’t ask me to find that quote I never saw that one specifically…it’s just the feeling I get when I read how much some dislike him. However, on the other end, there has to be some who actually agree with him and what he does and what he’s doing. Does this mean that they’re wrong? Well, maybe to some people…but not to others. I think it’s just all opinion and point of view.
So thousands of people dying violent deaths for no other reason then GWB being president? Some may argue (me not being one of them, but just making a point here) that they agree for the reasons.
Do I? Not really…but you cannot convince me, again, that my one vote would make all the difference…and you’ll NEVER convince me that if I DID vote…and that it did really get changed, that people wouldn’t still die all over the world like that. You seem to be putting all this weight on MY one vote. Like if I had voted, then none of that would have ever happened. Again, you didn’t say this…I know that, but that is what I’m getting from your posts.
I do, actually. I volunteer 3 times a week at the V.A Hospital, however, that was downgraded from 5 days a week. I loved it so much, I used to go every day of the workweek and put in about 10 hours a day. But get this, they actually had to tell me that I couldn’t do it that much. Ha. So I only go 3 days now.
I also do a lot of community service and participate in fundraisers that my local Case Managers office holds monthy.
If you’re well enough to clock forty hours of volunteer time a week, why can’t you get a job? Is it because working makes you a tool of the man? I expect an answer to this.
Jesus Christ, this is IMHO. Sounds like you’re going to BBQ this guy - who’s doing volunteer work, who’s doing fundraisers, and who’s doing a good deal of community service. This thread is about “I don’t vote.” Not about “why can’t you get a job … I expect an answer to this.”
But I’m not - as this is not in the pit. See here’s the thing - this is an ugly topic to confine to IMHO because of the feeling on both sides of the issue. In my FIRST post I mentioned that this baby was going to get lots of response on both sides. It has, and it’s gotten somewhat ugly. We even got the obligatory “tone it down” from the moderators.
However, despite all the rhetoric - and the posters declaiming the OP as apathetic and irresponsible, davenport avenger was the first one to come and start talking about whether the OP should get a job.
IMHO (and that’s where we are), this is absolutely irrelevant, uncalled for, and wrong. The OP’s disability / personal life are out-of-bounds on whether his failure to vote is ok/not ok.
I tried to be tactful about that. I’m sorry that you didn’t see it as such.
Yeah, Ok, fine. They do actually count your vote. You win. :rolleyes:
What are the goals of your going to the poll and does going to the poll and voting actually accomplish that?
Let’s try not to be pedantic.
If your goal is simply to help your man get elected, and help your issues get passed, then your assessment of the power of your vote is COMPLETELY out of whack.
If your goal is to feel good about yourself, and take part in the process, and participate in the priveledge that this country affords you, then goodie goodie for you. Like I said, I don’t think about voting in those terms.
[Moderator Underoos on]You expect an answer to a question that has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic at hand? Well, I expect you(and others) to knock it back a notch or three. If you want to criticize another poster, do it in The BBQ Pit, not here. Last warning.[/Moderator Underoos on]
Idle Thoughts: question for you. Right now, somewhat less than half of Americans vote for president. By no means are these a selected group: it is not the smartest 45% of Americans, or the most politically connected, or the most well-informed. In general, it is a cross-section of Americans, weighted a towards the older and the more wealthy.
Let us posit that more and more Americans adoptedyour attitude: the election does not hinge on my solitary ballot, so it doesn’t make any difference, I’m not gonna vote, to the point that only 30%, 15%, hell, let’s say 5% of Americans voted in each election.
Again, there’s no reason to expect that these would be the brightest or most informed 5% of Americans; instead they’d probably be a rough mix of smart and dumb, working class and upper class, etc.
Question: Do you think that the rejection of the voting process by the overwhelming majority of Americans would be a good thing for the country? Or would it be bad? Do you think there is a problem in having the leader of a country of nearly 300 million people being elected with only 6 million total votes? What about 1 million? 10,000 votes?
How so? I don’t claim that my individual vote will decide the election; that’s not how elections work. Rather, the election is decided by the aggregate of your vote, my vote, and his vote. You seem to acknowledge that, say, 10,000,000 votes are meaningful, yet you claim that any one of those 10,000,000 is meaningless. What’s the cutoff? At what point does a handful of meaningless votes become a worthwhile amount? How do you reach that amount except for one vote at a time?
“My vote does not singlehandedly decide the election” != “My vote is worthless.”
I have been absolutely steaming since I read this post. I think mostly because I have a friend who has the same view point on this issue and I just cannot, will not, and do not understand the arguement. Mostly, there are so many wholes in your arguement because you have been lucky enough to not have to deal with the repurcussions of your decision.
First of all, I used to be incrediblely uninformed as well. I complained and thought I had the right to. But I didn’t. Number one I didn’t have the right to because I wasn’t informed. So complaining about a situation that I only knew limited amounts of information about was obsurd. It’s like complaining about food being cold, but having no idea that it took the person an hour to drive the food there and the car broke down and THAT is why the food is cold. You can’t complain about the end result if you have not made any effort to know anything about what has led up to it.
Secondly, saying that whoever is president will not affect you?? I mean, do you really believe this or are you just saying it to make people like myself really go over the edge when reading your arguement? Please say that is it…please. Decisions made by the president/ his cabinent/congress affect every aspect of your life. Decisions made by this president may affect your children and their children. A woman’s right to vote, legalized abortion, freedom of speech, disability benefits, social security reform, wars we fight, fights we pass, on and on and on.
Lucky for you, lucky that you live in a time when these things have either been given to you or have not turned in a direction that affects you negatively. But I think that if you took a few minutes day and educated yourself about some of these people you might have a more vested interest in who wins.
Hell, turn on the Daily Show. It’s funny and not too difficult to understand and you might learn something. But please do something, people with your mentality drive me up the wall…and seriously stress is not good for the body- so please help me help you help me.
But it has had a very major impact on a lot of people around you, including many of the people you encounter at the V.A. hospital. You don’t have an opinion about how government policy has affected them?
No, the point is true whether or not you agree with the president’s policies. And that, in fact, is the point. The president’s policies have resulted in a lot of suffering (from one point of view) and might have resulted in some benefits (from another point of view).
Either way, a responsible, caring person would have some opinion about it, some notion of why government policy is important, and some interest in how it was affecting his or her countrymen and other fellow human beings.
Big things are happening in the world. Either you agree with what’s being done by your government in your name on your behalf or you disagree. But you can’t call yourself a caring person and just not have any opinion about it.
Whatever they think, I should hope that they voted to give their opinion effect.
I never saw that one specifically…it’s just the feeling I get when I read how much some dislike him. However, on the other end, there has to be some who actually agree with him and what he does and what he’s doing. Does this mean that they’re wrong? Well, maybe to some people…but not to others. I think it’s just all opinion and point of view.