Being an Independent in the USA is like living in a Monarchy

[Ben Kenobi]

Aggie, it always amazes me how you are 90 percent right and then the last 10 percent really pushes you away.

No individual has the right to vote in the aggregate

Correct.

no aggregate has the right to vote as an aggregate (a community having one vote).

Also correct.

In democracies, we individuals vote as individuals.

That's one of the most important parts of the system. Each individual is permitted to vote according to their own conscience.

Not voting is also expressing a preference: the judgement that it isn't worth the bother, or the judgement that democracy is a load of tosh, or that one would rather spend the day fishing or suchlike (we can't say that a choice not to vote is a choice to delegitimize the system any more than we can say that voting legitimizes it – when GePap realizes this, he will be ashamed of himself for saying the opposite).

This is also an excellent insight. The act of casting a ballot is in itself a decision. I would disagree with this act, but I would also agree that people should only vote if they are also free to not vote. Compulsory voting is a bad thing.

You're missing the point of the argument, which is: what purpose is there in voting if one's vote will not effect the outcome.

This is where you are lead astray.

If all these other presuppositions are true, then the only influence we can have is in our ballot. We only vote once, and our ballot has the same amount of influence as anyone elses.

Of course there are exceptions to this principle, at least in the Westminster system, every one within a riding has an equal say, while ridings themselves will vary with the proportion of those who live, such that those who live in rural areas have a much higher proportion of the voting power, then those in urban areas.

Here's a real case. When I was first eligible to vote, I lived in a district that was predominantly rural and a "safe" district for the New Zealand National (Conservative) Party.

Which happens in many places.

No rational person who knew about the area and was aware of the polls could believe anything other than that Roger McCLay, the National candidate, would win.

Also true. You are batting a 1000 so far Aggie.

My turning up to vote against him would make zero difference.

Now, here's where the insight comes in Aggie. How does your turning in to vote have any more of an influence on the overall result then your choice to vote against him?

Your vote for him, doesn't count any more then the vote against him. They are precisely equal. Being the last vote in a landslide is just as meaningless as voting for the opposition.

The same is true of a close election. Your vote gains influence on the outcome, but the value of your vote remains the same. Voting for the loser in a close election, your vote has the same weight as if you were to vote for the winner.

Therefore, there was no point in voting.

There's the second wrong conclusion. The only way you have any influence at all is to vote. That's it. That's the only way you can influence the outcome. If you cannot choose which riding you vote, there is only one rational choice, and that is to vote for the candidate closest to your own beliefs.

Turning up to vote for a third party candidate has about as much effect as expressing interest in purchasing something when you don't have the cash and will never have it.

I would disagree. Minor parties do take notice at the votes that are given to them to a much greater proportion then the big parties. If you are willing to sacrifice your vote, then it is in your best interest to vote for a smaller party over the larger, just because your vote has proportionally more influence over the small party's total then it would otherwise.

Given these facts, it makes little sense to criticize people for being apathetic. It's not apathy per se, but just a recognition that one's time is better spent elsewhere than on currently hopeless tasks.

That is also true. If you lose an hour's pay, is your vote worth the 20 dollars you are losing in order to vote, not accounting for gas? That will depend on the individual.

Anyways, I think that your vote counts the same regardless of who you vote for, or whether you are voting in a landslide or not. The only way to have any influence is to vote, and to decline to vote does not increase your influence, unless there are sufficient reasons that would not accord you the time to vote on election day.

[Seedle]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
That is also true. If you lose an hour's pay, is your vote worth the 20 dollars you are losing in order to vote, not accounting for gas? That will depend on the individual.

Speaking of, why the goddamn ****ing hell is Election Day not a national holiday? Now, granted, in Ben's example, having it be a holiday is worse, because if you don't want to lose an hour's pay, you certainly don't want to lose a day's. Still, all this talk about how voting is a sacred responsibility, blah, blah, blah, and yet, it must be shoehorned into our lives, rather than given a pre-eminence for a day. And I know I'm not the only one who's worked a job where you get no opportunity to go to the polls.

[Agathon]

Hurrah! Someone who knows how to argue.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Now, here's where the insight comes in Aggie. How does your turning in to vote have any more of an influence on the overall result then your choice to vote against him?

Your vote for him, doesn't count any more then the vote against him. They are precisely equal. Being the last vote in a landslide is just as meaningless as voting for the opposition.

I agree entirely. On the other hand, people in general (not me) are more likely to vote if they vote for a winner, so the people who know they are going to win are more likely to turn up. This is also irrational, but I never claimed that voters in general were rational.

The same is true of a close election. Your vote gains influence on the outcome, but the value of your vote remains the same. Voting for the loser in a close election, your vote has the same weight as if you were to vote for the winner.

Here I don't agree. I'm treating this within an epistemic context. The decision not to vote in the landslide case is based upon information that suggests a likely landslide. One will know beforehand that one's vote has no effect.

Now, in a close electorate (like the one I moved to for the next election in 1993, which was the most marginal in the country), you don't have that certainty. The probability of your vote deciding the winner increases from virtually nil to being one in a couple of hundred (and perhaps less).

If the committed voters are roughly even, then the uncommitted voters decide the election, and if they are evenly split, it is a tossup. From a state of believing that it is 50/50, you ought to vote because if it is 50/50, then you are the deciding vote.

There's the second wrong conclusion. The only way you have any influence at all is to vote. That's it. That's the only way you can influence the outcome.

But in a non-marginal I cannot. I have zero influence.

I would disagree. Minor parties do take notice at the votes that are given to them to a much greater proportion then the big parties. If you are willing to sacrifice your vote, then it is in your best interest to vote for a smaller party over the larger, just because your vote has proportionally more influence over the small party's total then it would otherwise.

It's nice that they take notice of them, but they don't have any effect. At least they don't have any effect that is noticeably greater than not voting.

For example, a lot of Republicans are pissed off with their party, so they could protest vote for the Libertarian party, hoping that the Republicans would see the transference of votes and change their future policies. But you could do the same by sending your congressman an email saying you won't vote for his "communist" policies, and then not voting at all. The Republicans will still be deprived of the vote, and that's all they care about. You don't necessarily need to have a third party to have a protest.

There is one exception. Very very rarely, a third party gets a monstrous portion of the vote, which gives it a reasonable chance of inflicting massive damage on the party the protest is aimed at. Here it is worth voting for the third party, even if it does not win, because the scare value is so high (as opposed to my old electorate, where McClay won every time no matter what, until they changed the boundary).

Proportional representation changes all this.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Agathon


How hilarious that you claim to be a Nietzschean and at the same time spew this crap. You shame that poor man by sporting him as an avatar.

Noobs who associate with philosophers they don't understand.

I understand Nietzsche just fine. Your mistake is to think that because I think Nietzsche had some great insights, that I must slavishly copy his ideas. The whole point of Nietzsche's worldview is to bring about creative individuals - to follow anyone elses morality and not my own, that is to be completly ignorant of his world view.

You might want to try reading again. I never suggested those were things I'd do, just that these were more appropriately labelled "political activism" than building homes for charity. I don't see that as being an unreasonable point, which you could have understood if you had read the post properly.

Point accepted.

Complete crud. No-one legitimizes anything by voting. People may vote for cynical reasons or merely defensively. Merely doing something, without reference to intention is not sufficient to legitimate anything. For example, the simple act of buying something under threat of punishment for theft no more legitimates capitalism for the buyer than not buying something (he simply may have no other effective means of acquiring food). Mere action does not imply consent. Similarly, withholding one's vote does not imply delegitimization of the system – people might just not vote because they are lazy or would rather go fishing on election day.

Legitimacy has never been about consent - people do as they are told all the time without ever giving their consent because they do not believe that their consent is necessary, or even an issue. There is no tacit social contract; individual are born into a socio-political system, trained and indoctrinated into it, an then come to believe that it is right: in their eyes, it is legitimate.

Perhaps if you thought before you spewed tiresome democratic propaganda, then you might have something interesting to say.

Blah, blah, blah. You think Ben is a good debater....

[Agathon]

Originally posted by GePap

I understand Nietzsche just fine. Your mistake is to think that because I think Nietzsche had some great insights, that I must slavishly copy his ideas. The whole point of Nietzsche's worldview is to bring about creative individuals - to follow anyone elses morality and not my own, that is to be completly ignorant of his world view.

Yes, and he obviously thought highly of anyone who loved democracy. It's not a license to follow or invent whatever moral code you like – there is an authenticity criterion, one which it's pretty easy to see that democracy as practiced violates. The dumb sixties hippie version of Nietzsche is the "follow your own star" crap.

Legitimacy has never been about consent - people do as they are told all the time without ever giving their consent because they do not believe that their consent is necessary, or even an issue. There is no tacit social contract; individual are born into a socio-political system, trained and indoctrinated into it, an then come to believe that it is right: in their eyes, it is legitimate.

This is an over elaborate explanation that misses the point. I don't care how some people come to believe a political system is legitimate (because all do not), but whether the simple act of voting is necessarily a legitimating act. It is not, for the simple reason that not voting is not a necessary delegitimating act. So the claim that by voting per se people legitimate the democratic system is simply not true.

Blah, blah, blah. You think Ben is a good debater....

He's better than you. At least he knows the rules of argument.

[Traianvs]

Originally posted by Seedle


Speaking of, why the goddamn ****ing hell is Election Day not a national holiday? Now, granted, in Ben's example, having it be a holiday is worse, because if you don't want to lose an hour's pay, you certainly don't want to lose a day's. Still, all this talk about how voting is a sacred responsibility, blah, blah, blah, and yet, it must be shoehorned into our lives, rather than given a pre-eminence for a day. And I know I'm not the only one who's worked a job where you get no opportunity to go to the polls.

Ehm, we vote on sundays. Problem solved.

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by Traianvs


Ehm, we vote on sundays. Problem solved.

Same here.

[Traianvs]

Originally posted by Agathon


Proportional representation changes all this.

The US need to stop living in the 18th century. Winner take it all principles ensure a low turn-out, frustration of not being represented in parliament (or congress) and mediatized dirty campaigns lacking debates on content.

Everyone knows this.

PR will never happen though as the incumbent party realizes very well that it would erode their power immensely. Only a public outcry, massive grassroots campaigns or a near revolution could introduce the concept.

[Seedle]

Originally posted by Traianvs
Ehm, we vote on sundays. Problem solved.

Hmm, not a bad idea. However, it makes an ounce of damn sense, which is a huge liability in the U.S.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Traianvs

The US need to stop living in the 18th century.

They don't have time to stop. They are too busy telling the rest of us how politically backward we are.

Stupidest people in the world bar none.

[onodera]

Originally posted by Traianvs


Ehm, we vote on sundays. Problem solved.

Same here.

[rah]

You whinners that say you don't vote because your vote doesn't count so why waste your time are all just wrong.
Yeah my presidential vote won't matter because I live in Illinois but it's only 1 election on the ballot. It's the same for people that only vote when there's a presidential election. Out of all the elections on the ballot, the presidential one is probably the one that will have the least impact on us. It's the local elections and the referendums that have the most impact and there are quite a few of those elections that have been decided by less than a handful of votes.

Anyone that doesn't vote is an irresponsible lazy ass, and should just keep their mouths shut because they're all hot air and no action. THE "my vote won't count" is just an excuse to sit on their ass and do nothing.

Looking at who supports not voting in this thread should be adaquate proof of my point.


And I agree with those that think it would be a better idea to vote on weekend. Do any religions have a problem with it?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by rah
You whinners that say you don't vote because your vote doesn't count so why waste your time are all just wrong.

BAM

Yeah my presidential vote won't matter because I live in Illinois but it's only 1 election on the ballot.

So you are arguing that it is pointless for you to cast a presidential vote in Illinois. Please follow your own advice and don't. I think it's awesome how you manage to contradict yourself in the space of a sentence.

It's the same for people that only vote when there's a presidential election. Out of all the elections on the ballot, the presidential one is probably the one that will have the least impact on us. It's the local elections and the referendums that have the most impact and there are quite a few of those elections that have been decided by less than a handful of votes.

If you read my posts, I was arguing that there is a point in voting in those races. Or at least that certain arguments against voting don't apply there.

Anyone that doesn't vote is an irresponsible lazy ass, and should just keep their mouths shut because they're all hot air and no action. THE "my vote won't count" is just an excuse to sit on their ass and do nothing

It doesn't get any more true the more you keep saying it.

Looking at who supports not voting in this thread should be adaquate proof of my point.

But you're getting raped in the argument. You still have not demonstrated why those who do not vote are not entitled to complain.

[rah]

Even if it won't change the outcome if I vote for McCain in Illinois, it still provides information. Future money might be spent in Illinois if there's a chance that a state could swing in the future. So there is still a reason to do our civic duty and vote. And I'm there voting for the other races so it only costs an extra second to vote McCain. Your whole arguement is that you have something better to do with your time, like it's going to take all day for you to vote. You have also said that it doesn't matter but you seem to have said the oposite also

If you read my posts, I was arguing that there is a point in voting in those races. Or at least that certain arguments against voting don't apply there.

so which is it? Meaningless or meaningful. IF ANY race is meaningful then not voting makes you a lazy ass or an uncaring ass, whichever is immaterial to me.
And lazy asses or uncaring asses have no right to complain. Truth, no matter how many times you say otherwise, or claim your imaginary victories.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by rah
Out of all the elections on the ballot, the presidential one is probably the one that will have the least impact on us.

President has the most potential to impact our lives. Given our choices though, probably won't be much differentiation economically, as both are for socializing losses on the market. Socially, the SCOTUS appointments could make a pretty big difference. Depending on where you stand on issues, it could be a huge swing (for those who support one party platform or the other entirely) or a wash (for those who aren't so divided).

Anyone that doesn't vote is an irresponsible lazy ass, and should just keep their mouths shut because they're all hot air and no action.

We know your vote is for limiting freedom of speech. You're so hypocritical it's just funny. Voting is a manner of expressing yourself, as is "whining" about stuff you don't like. Everyone has the right to express themselves in the manner they see fit. That includes voting or not, that includes "whining" or not.

You want to limit people's ability to do so. No wonder you vote for authoritarians.

Looking at who supports not voting in this thread should be adaquate proof of my point.

I see a range of reasons why people do[n't] vote. There are valid reasons to not vote (for various political viewpoints). There are valid reasons to vote (for various political viewpoints). Only ignorant people can't allow for one or the other. And yah, even ignorant people have a right to "whine".

And I agree with those that think it would be a better idea to vote on weekend. Do any religions have a problem with it?

Utah wouldn't agree with Sunday I'm sure. Saturday may be a problem for some Jews.