Person A:
Knows nothing about politics, doesn’t really follow the issues. When the conversation turns to politics he/she zone out until the conversation changes. Doesn’t really read any newspapers or magazines regularly. Not stupid, just indifferent. But when the election rolls around he/she dutifully goes to the polling station and votes for someone.
Person B:
Is very well informed about issues, has very strong, informed opinions about them. Gladly gets into debates over issues. Participates in the public debate. However, when the election rolls around this person does not vote.
Who is being a better public citizen in your eyes?
For me I say person B. The act of voting is really not that important except to “feel good”. Especially when you consider you have a better chance of getting killed on the way to the voting booth then of your vote changing an election.
Person B, absolutely. Of course this is reminiscent of the very first thread I was involved in on the Straight Dope. It was about voting, and I came out strongly that it doesn’t matter if you vote.
Person A votes with absolutely no information (as defined above). Ergo, Person A votes completely at random. Now, it’s possible that Person A, were he to study the issues and follow politics, would still vote for the same candidate he voted for randomly. But his chance of actually influencing the election in a way he thinks is ‘right’ is, at best, 1 in 2, making his vote worth, at best, .5.
Person B does not vote, therefore one might immediately assume that his vote is worth 0. But Person B is well-read and takes part in political discussions (as defined above). Therefore, if we assume that there are people who vote based upon the arguments that Person B makes, Person B actually advances his agenda and philosophy through multiple votes.
Therefore, Person A has at best a 50% chance of putting the correct (in his mind) influence upon an election; Person B’s lack of voting is more than made up for by other non-voters (or those who would normally vote for the other side) whom he entices to vote for his party/candidate.
As for:
I’ve made the argument before- participation in local elections (School board, city/county council, etc.) is very dependant upon individual votes, especially when determining mandates (1,000 extra votes for a certain council candidate may matter as much as 1,000,000 extra votes for the President). Ergo, voting for local candidates is worthwhile in terms of your own influence. And, as long as you’re going to bother to go down to the polling place and vote for local candidates, why not go ahead and vote for Presidential candidates? It’s not like you’ll be wasting much time doing so.
Wow look at that. I didn’t even realize that you started it Bill. Yep right there, 03-30-2000 04:57 PM , my first post. It’s nice to know that when I first started it out, it was in an argument with you. Some things never change.
These two statements have nothing to do with each other. You’ve set up a straw man. Yes, being a politically active non-voter is better than being a completely apathetic voter. That doesn’t mean that voting is useless. Being a politically active voter would be even better.
That’s a silly comparison. First of all, it’s not a matter off probability. It’s a matter of responsibility. Would you accept the excuse “Well, whats the probability of one the losing a war by just one soldier?” from a draft-dodger? Secondly, if you die, one person will be affected. Okay, maybe a few more if you count your friends and family. If we have a bad government, hundreds of millions, even billions of people will be affected.
Which is exactly why the stupid, uninformed, self-absorbed, evil, etc. should (ideally) not vote. Voting wrongly is like entering a war on the wrong side or with unwise tactics.
