What a bunch of self righteous pussies

[Berzerker]

and you think voting makes an opinion worthy of your consideration?

[Dinner]

If they don't care enough about their opinion to actually vote why should I care about their opinion? We know the politicians certainly won't care about them as nonvoters.

[giblets]

Because they're human and you have empathy for other humans? Oh wait, never mind.

[Egbert]

If they don't care enough about their opinion to actually vote why should I care about their opinion? We know the politicians certainly won't care about them as nonvoters.

Scene: Russia 1917

There was no voting allowed for the proletariat.

Why care about the opinion of those who don't vote?

[Berzerker]

If they don't care enough about their opinion to actually vote why should I care about their opinion? We know the politicians certainly won't care about them as nonvoters.

maybe the reason they aint voting is because they do care about their opinion

I'm a bit surprised to see people who voted for Hillary/Trump looking down their noses at the people who didn't vote for them

[The Mad Monk]

I think that voting gives your opinion more weight, since by doing so you're demonstrating that you are buying into the system. People who cannot take the time to vote, when they have the right to vote, should expect their opinion to have as much weight as one who lacks the right to vote -- that is to say, you may present your opinion, but we are under no obligation to consider it.

[The Mad Monk]

Major Frank Burns I hope!

Major??? He should have been busted to pastry chef!

[Aeson]

I think that voting gives your opinion more weight, since by doing so you're demonstrating that you are buying into the system. People who cannot take the time to vote, when they have the right to vote, should expect their opinion to have as much weight as one who lacks the right to vote -- that is to say, you may present your opinion, but we are under no obligation to consider it.

No one is under any obligation to consider anyone's opinion.

If you judge someone's opinions based on anything other than the content of their opinion, then you're ignorant.

[Proteus_MST]

Lets try it with an example:
A person X stands together with a friend Y.
Suddenly Y falls to ground, he stops breating and his heart stops beating.
X could do CPR (yes, he learned how to do it) and/or he could call the ambulance, but he does nothing.
When finally someone else calls the ambulance and it arrives, Y is pronounced dead.

Wouldn't you find it strange if afterwards, at Ys funeral, it is X who cries the loudest for his friend?

IMHO this example bears certain parallels to non-voting vs. voting ... it is uncertain whether CPR (and/or X calling the ambulance immediately) would have prevented the death of his friend (just as voting doesn't guarantee´that your vote has any significantr influence on the election), but at least X would have done what is possible in his situation in order to prevent Ys death (just as someone voting would have done all it is possible in his situation in order to prevent Trump)
And just as strange it is if X then is the one who cries the most at Ys funeral (considering that he didn't even care enough about saving his friend, to make a simple phone call or use his knowledge about CPR) it is strange if non-voters afterwards take part in violent protests against Trumps election (considering that they didn't care enough about the election/preventing Trump, to cast their own vote in it)

[The Mad Monk]

No one is under any obligation to consider anyone's opinion.

If you judge someone's opinions based on anything other than the content of their opinion, then you're ignorant.

If you're debating something neutral to everyone's interests, sure.

[Aeson]

Lets try it with an example:
A person X stands together with a friend Y.
Suddenly Y falls to ground, he stops breating and his heart stops beating.
X could do CPR (yes, he learned how to do it) and/or he could call the ambulance, but he does nothing.
When finally someone else calls the ambulance and it arrives, Y is pronounced dead.

Wouldn't you find it strange if afterwards, at Ys funeral, it is X who cries the loudest for his friend?

IMHO this example bears certain parallels to non-voting vs. voting ... it is uncertain whether CPR (and/or X calling the ambulance immediately) would have prevented the death of his friend (just as voting doesn't guarantee´that your vote has any significantr influence on the election), but at least X would have done what is possible in his situation in order to prevent Ys death (just as someone voting would have done all it is possible in his situation in order to prevent Trump)
And just as strange it is if X then is the one who cries the most at Ys funeral (considering that he didn't even care enough about saving his friend, to make a simple phone call or use his knowledge about CPR) it is strange if non-voters afterwards take part in violent protests against Trumps election (considering that they didn't care enough about the election/preventing Trump, to cast their own vote in it)

It's not a very good analogy.

In most states it wouldn't matter who you called, your call wouldn't even get through (the EC). Whether you call or not, you know for sure the paramedics are showing up at the same time. And all the options that had any chance of showing up are awful.

[Aeson]

If you're debating something neutral to everyone's interests, sure.

No, the content of the opinion is what matters in all cases. Otherwise you get horribly stupid results like thinking a white power advocate who voted has a better opinion than anyone who didn't vote.

[loinburger]

If somebody voted third party then does their opinion matter? Their vote had just as much of an impact on the election as the non-vote of a non-voter

[Lorizael]

No, the content of the opinion is what matters in all cases. Otherwise you get horribly stupid results like thinking a white power advocate who voted has a better opinion than anyone who didn't vote.

Opinions often take the form of judgments based on evidence. Some people are more credible than others, and we should give their opinions on certain subjects more weight. For example, if a particle physicist and Donald Trump both have the same evidence that a new particle exists and present the same arguments in favor of said particle, we should give the physicist's opinion more weight--despite the content being identical--because the physicist's credibility means the argument is more likely to be valid. That is, if DT alone presents the argument, it's very possible there are a lot of counter-arguments he and we aren't considering which render his argument invalid. But if the physicist presents the same argument, it's reasonable for us to conclude that they've considered, rejected, or at least taken into account those counter-arguments.

How do we assess the credibility of a political opinion? Well, maybe we should give more weight to people who've studied political science or something, but I think it can be argued that having voted is at least marginally correlated with investment in and knowledge of current politics. So we can use that as part of a heuristic for judging the credibility of someone's opinions about politics. Obviously, though, it's not the only signal we have.

[giblets]

"If you don't endorse one of our terrible candidates you have no right to complain about how terrible they all are"