News Flash: We're ALL throwing our votes away!

Great Debates
21

The big two parties have a vested interest in the big lie that voting for a 3rd party ‘wastes’ your vote. In fact, your vote will have the BIGGEST impact if you vote for a 3rd party. If Ralph Nader or Harry Browne could get 5% of the popular vote, that would create a special interest group big enough for the major parties to pander to, which would help move government in the direction you want it to go.

So if you are generally for less government, you’ll do a lot more good voting for Harry Browne than for George Bush. Harry’s not going to get elected, so you don’t have to worry about some of his more extreme positions, or what kind of leader he’d be, or any other ‘practical’ concerns. What you can use him for is a conduit to get your message through to the people in charge.

The same goes for Nader. If environmental issues are important to you, but you won’t vote for Nader because of some specific reason, you’re still better off voting for him than for Gore, because a vote for Nader indicates a preference for a direction you want the government to move in.

A vote for Gore or Bush indicates that you are happy with the status Quo. If that’s the case, great. But if you want the government to move, push it from the fringes where you’ll have the greatest effect.

22

And here goes. You ready for this?

Sam Stone, I agree absolutely, 100 percent, with you. sound of jaws hitting the floor Nothing like criticism of the entrenched status quo to bring divergent political viewpoints together. (The “winner-take-all” thread’s another case in point. Phil, I’m not sure where Almost Famous fits in.)

spoke-: You flatter my ability to change minds while continuing to misapprehend my argument.

Voting’s certainly paradoxical. Individually, it’s largely a symbolic act–an affirmation of your participation and input in the political process. Taken in aggregate, however, the votes obviously do add up…which doesn’t change the fact that single votes can’t change the outcome.

Look, you’re conflating the forum with the argument. The fact that I’m telling people that “their votes don’t matter”–which, by the way, isn’t what I’m telling them–here on the SDMB may indeed spur some people to vote their preference, or not to vote at all. I don’t think so, but that’s fine. The argument itself, however, has nothing to do with an aggregate of votes. If this were a private forum–a discussion between you and me, let’s say–the crux of my OP would still be valid: either everyone’s vote matters, or no one’s does.

By the way, anyone who has to be “convinced that their vote can’t possibly turn the election” isn’t reasoning particularly clearly to begin with, IMHO. Of course an individual vote won’t turn the election–that’s common sense! It’s not like I’m handing out secret subversive tracts, here.

A “protest vote?” It still doesn’t seem as if you get it. You know the people who are saying that a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush? They’re the ones who are telling the rest of us that our votes don’t matter, not me. Tell me, is it a “protest vote” if you agree with Nader or Browne or Buchanan or whoever far more than you agree with Bush or Gore? I’m telling people, “Look, your choice matters, and therefore, go cast a vote of preference for whichever candidate you like.” And then, maybe, bang–John Doe will have a thousand votes. And that’s fine with me, because I prefer the results of an election to mirror the proclivities of the populace, if it’s all the same to you.

Because I sincerely think that my vote makes as much of a difference as anyone else’s–no matter who I vote for.

23

And that is exactly how I feel! I do not choose to endorse any of the current candidates for President; I do not feel that any of the current partisan candidates are qualified, and the independents and write-ins are either jokesters or loons (or if not either of those, there is not sufficient information available to properly determine their qualifications). And I do not choose to vote for one of them as a ‘protest’. Nor will I truly throw my vote away by voting for Bugs Bunny or Mickey Mouse or some such nonsense. I will simply vote my conscience, which means I will not vote for President. As I said in another thread, this is not apathy. I will simply not be forced to vote for the “lesser of two evils” (or even thirty!).

24

All of the following quotes are from The Simpsons episode “Treehouse of Horror VII”:

The quotes were just too perfect to pass up. Enjoy! :slight_smile:

Esprix

25

yo, h_thur-

if you think Bush has any chance of losing Texas, you’re sorely mistaken. Texas is a perfect example of a state where a vote for Bush OR Gore is wasted. You should feel free to vote your conscience.

As to the OP, I completely agree. Well put, Gadarene.

26

Not unless you put your vote in an iron clad lockbox.

27

IIRC, in '96 when Nader was a write-in candidate and wasn’t on many ballots, that’s exactly what he suggested–writing in “None of the above”.

28

And you are misapprehending what I am saying Gadarene.

You are pre-supposing that everyone who might wish to vote for Nader has no preference as between Gore and Bush.

I’m saying that there is at least a subset of voters who might honestly find themselves in full agreement with Nader on most issues. But these same voters might also realize that Nader has no realistic chance of being elected. They might further be of the opinion that, as between Bush and Gore, Gore is very much preferable. Some of these voters reside in the swing states which will decide the election.

Now, you’re telling such voters that their votes can’t possibly swing the election, so they should just go ahead and vote for Nader. That’s faulty logic, because if all of those voters heed your advice, or follow the same logic, then (acting in concert) they most definitely can swing the election.

29

spoke-: I don’t think I’m misapprehending what you’re saying, because the argument in your last post was substantively different from your arguments in earlier posts on this thread, and I apprehended it perfectly.

Nowhere am I presupposing that Naderites might otherwise vote for Bush or Gore; my presuppositions are limited to the following two items:

  1. Conventional wisdom holds that Nader voters are “throwing their vote away” and “casting a vote for Bush.”

  2. At no point in American history has a national popular election been decided by a single vote. (Really! Ask Akatsukami and tomndebb~!) I’m fairly certain that this statement could be extended to state races as well, but that’s neither here nor there.

The extent of what I am saying is that a vote for Nader is no more and no less valid than a vote for Bush or Gore, so long as it is made sincerely.

And you know what? To the extent that there are people who hold this position, it’s perfectly legitimate. I’ve got no problem with it at all, so long as those people individually realize that their single vote wouldn’t tip the balance.

However, there is also a subset of voters who genuinely favor Nader over both Bush and Gore, and for whom the prospect of a Gore presidency is scarcely more appealing than the Republican alternative. And these people shouldn’t be bullied into a two-party mentality simply because The New York Times and the Sunday morning pundits think that Nader’s candidacy is frivolous and destructive. Get me?

I’m doing no such thing. The voters you mention are free to vote as they see fit. What I’m saying is that expressing an honest, considered preference is more important than adding your miniscule tally to one side or the other of two choices with whom you don’t much agree.

This isn’t game theory. There’s no “rational choice model” that can practically be applied here. (And Kimstu, much as I love ya, your strategy buys into the same flawed calculus.) As I said, I prefer the results of an election to mirror the proclivities of the populace–to as close a degree as possible, anyway. I don’t quite see why that stance is disagreeable.

Trust me, all those voters won’t heed my advice. Not with a thousand voices telling them that their only reasonable choice is between Kang and Kodos.

30

Gadarene: And Kimstu, much as I love ya,

Aw, that’s what I like to hear. :slight_smile:

your strategy [the Ivins rule is what I think you’re referring to here] buys into the same flawed calculus.

For every individual who uses it, yes. But if ten or a hundred thousand individuals use it, it could well have a significant impact. I recommend it every chance I get, not because I think that any one person who follows it will make a difference to the outcome, but to help increase the overall visibility of the strategy and improve the chances that enough people will adopt it that it will make a difference to the outcome.

*What I’m saying is that expressing an honest, considered preference is more important than adding your miniscule tally to one side or the other of two choices with whom you don’t much agree. *

Why? Not on pragmatic grounds, surely: your lone vote will have no more impact in getting Nader’s five percent than in swinging the election from Gore to Bush. Your argument here seems to be essentially an aesthetic one: you find the expression of an honest, considered preference to be more in keeping with the spirit of democratic participation than making a half-willing compromise. You have a point, but it doesn’t really have any more practical value than the “don’t throw away your vote” argument does.

31

Kimstu: …Which is why, taken individually, voting is a largely symbolic act, after all. :slight_smile:

32

The notion that “you shouldn’t bother to vote because a single vote has never decided an election” is simply poor citizenship.

How to be a good citizen 101:

When you are confronted with a choice and the answer is not clear, it often helps to ‘universalize’ the decision. In other words, “What would happen if everyone did what I’m about to do?” This often brings the choices into stark relief.

For instance, you’re looking for a parking spot, and you see ten empty handicapped spots right near the entry. Obviously, the odds are remote that ten handicapped people will arrive in the next fifteen minutes while you’re inside, so you think it’s absolutely harmless to park there.

However, if you universalize this decision, you find out where the logic breaks down. If everyone did it, there would be no handicapped spots available. In effect, you are relying on others to be more courteous than you are to make your life easier. You’re a parasite.

The same goes for voting. You’re going to be lazy and stay home because your vote doesn’t ‘count’. Of course, if everyone did that then our system of democracy would break down. So you are relying on the fact that so many other people are going to shlep out in the cold and vote that you can stay home in front of the fire and warm your tootsies, comfortable in the knowledge that your vote is irrelevant because other people did your work for you.

Therefore, if you stay home and don’t vote for the reason that your vote doesn’t ‘count’, you are a parasite.

<end of lecture>
Writing in ‘none of the above’ is useless, because your vote won’t get recorded that way. It will be recorded as a ‘spoiled ballot’, which signifies nothing.

33

Coupla things, Sam.

and

Um, this is a generic “you”, right? 'Cause you sure as heck can’t be referring to me. Just want to be clear here.

Agreed. Which is why the post in which I mentioned “None of the Above” did so in the context of “None of the Above” being a valid option on the ballot. Which ain’t gonna happen any time soon, but nonetheless.

Can’t resist. Then I’d be a damn fool to do something different, wouldn’t I? (Mad props to John Yossarian for that.)

Oh, Sam, and you and I were doing so well… At least I’ll always have pldennison. Right, Phil?
…Phil?
Dammit.

34

Gadarene, you must have missed my point.

First, I was using a generic ‘you’, and not addressing anyone in particular. Also, I guess I should make it clear that I don’t believe that everyone who refrains from voting is a parasite - only those who refrain because they feel they don’t need to vote because so many other people will.

Your reference to Yossarian makes me think (hopefully) that this was an attempt at humor, and not a serious critique of the concept of ‘universalizing’ your decisions.

The process of attempting to universalize your decision to determine whether the decision is ethical is a very useful tool. Try it. Pick some ‘grey’ areas, and universalize them. See if you’d like the result. For example, let’s say you are sitting at a red light with not another car in sight for miles around. Should you run the light? Well, let’s universalize that. What if everyone decided to continue after stopping at a red light, if they had good visibility in all directions and there was absolutely no traffic? No big deal. So it’s not unethical, even though it’s illegal.

On the other hand, how about stealing software? Looked at as an individual act, it’s hard to see who is being damaged. You can justify the decision lots of ways (it’s too expensive, I’m a poor student, etc). But if you universalize your decision, you quickly realize that there would be no software made if everyone refused to pay. So you’re a parasite and it’s both illegal and unethical.

35

I think I did miss your point, Sam…mostly because nobody here is arguing in favor of people who stay home on election night and let everyone else do all the work. But the general point is valid nonetheless.

And yeah, the reference to Yossarian did signify a joke. Unless you’d like to buy some of this Egyptian cotton I’ve acquired.

36

For those thinking that there is “fuzzy maths” in the notion that it is irrational to vote instrumentally I can give you a number from the literature on the paradox of voting.

In other words voting as an investment or as an attempt to make your candidate win is straightforwardly irrational.

Voting because “votes from people like me add up” is a logically flawed way of thinking (although it is almost certainly an important part of real-world political behaviour as can be seen from Sam Stone’s highly Kantian remarks on good citizenship). It is a confusion of the diagnostic and the causal. How people like you may vote may be discovered by introspection but you cannot change how other people like you by deciding to vote a particular way.

Voting, according to the paper cited, is like cheering for a sports team. One individual has a negligible effect on the outcome. It is irrational to cheer on the basis that it will make your team win. But a whole lot of people who do nonetheless cheer do make a difference to who wins.

picmr