Does your vote really matter?

[nickqt]

Does your vote matter?

If everyone else but you stopped voting, would your vote matter in terms of who is elected?

If so, then your vote matters.

Remember, we don't vote for laws, but for representatives. We vote for representatives because the Founders didn't particularly trust direct democracy, as it was akin to "mob rule".

Hence, your vote acts to dilute my vote. And my vote acts to dilute your vote.

But again, if everyone but you stopped voting, your vote would matter, so yes, your vote matters now. Just not as much as you might want it to matter.

Another way to look at it is that if an election was tied 50%-50%, would your vote matter? It doesn't matter that the election isn't 50%-50%, because your vote counts the same regardless. But yes, your vote matters.

All of that said, all we get to do is vote for representatives who mostly don't really care what we want. So, be careful as to the question you're asking, because you might be asking one thing while attempting to ask something else.

 

[Cozarkian]

Now that you've started questioning if your vote matters at all, start thinking about those people that claim they won't vote for a third party candidate because it would be a wasted vote. How can you waste a vote that doesn't matter?

There isn't anything better about voting for the lesser of two evils than there is voting for some crackpot who won't win. However, if enough people vote for a third party candidate the increase in the percentage of votes for said candidates will help force the parties to respond to the people.

 

[fskimospy]

Does your vote matter?

If everyone else but you stopped voting, would your vote matter in terms of who is elected?

If so, then your vote matters.

Remember, we don't vote for laws, but for representatives. We vote for representatives because the Founders didn't particularly trust direct democracy, as it was akin to "mob rule".

Hence, your vote acts to dilute my vote. And my vote acts to dilute your vote.

But again, if everyone but you stopped voting, your vote would matter, so yes, your vote matters now. Just not as much as you might want it to matter.

Another way to look at it is that if an election was tied 50%-50%, would your vote matter? It doesn't matter that the election isn't 50%-50%, because your vote counts the same regardless. But yes, your vote matters.

All of that said, all we get to do is vote for representatives who mostly don't really care what we want. So, be careful as to the question you're asking, because you might be asking one thing while attempting to ask something else.

Sure, but is everyone likely to stop voting? Clearly not.

It's true that technically your vote counts, in that it is part of the sum total of votes for your preferred candidate, but as a practical matter it does not count.

 

[fskimospy]

Now that you've started questioning if your vote matters at all, start thinking about those people that claim they won't vote for a third party candidate because it would be a wasted vote. How can you waste a vote that doesn't matter?

There isn't anything better about voting for the lesser of two evils than there is voting for some crackpot who won't win. However, if enough people vote for a third party candidate the increase in the percentage of votes for said candidates will help force the parties to respond to the people.

People won't start voting for third parties in large groups because it's a pretty insurmountable collective action problem. Additionally and paradoxically if they were actually able to succeed it would probably be disastrous for these voters' electoral preferences.

Just about everyone has a preference between the Republican and Democratic parties. Almost by definition, any third party would have to be closer to one major party or the other, meaning it would be more likely to attract voters from that party. If voters are taken asymmetrically all that means is that people voting for a third party in numbers large enough to make people reconsider are ensuring defeat for the party they prefer.

So by voting for your #1 choice, you end up with your #3 choice. People vote strategically, so this doesn't happen.

 

[Sonikku]

Of course it matters. When you vote, win or lose, you get lumped into demographics on some election teams spreadsheet. Get enough people voting in one demographic and politicians need to start pandering. Young people? Don't vote. Politicians don't give a shit about you. Old people? Vote in fucking droves. Politicians don't give a shit about them either, but recognize that pissing them off or taking away their check every month would seriously fuck them over when competing with other corporate mouth pieces for a senate seat, hence they don't mess with their social security. At least, not their SS, politicians are gradually warming up to the idea of saving (gutting) SS for younger people while leaving it intact for their generation/baby boomers. Get the point?

 

[nickqt]

Sure, but is everyone likely to stop voting? Clearly not.

It's true that technically your vote counts, in that it is part of the sum total of votes for your preferred candidate, but as a practical matter it does not count.

If you vote, then you inherently believe that your vote counts. Otherwise, what would be the point of wasting a Tuesday once a year/4 years?

You are confusing what makes your vote "count". It doesn't have to be the deciding vote to count. It's one of many deciding votes.

Does your vote count when it's one of a majority that gets a politician you prefer elected, or did it not count?

This whole "your vote doesn't count" thing is simply an artifact that human beings don't quite understand large numbers. Is a $1.00 in your wallet a large proportion of the $200.00 in your wallet? No. Does each individual $1.00 count as a proportion of that $200.00? Of course. Each individual $1.00 matters to make that whole $200.00, even though $1.00 is individually a small proportion of that whole.

 

[touchstone]

nothing matters. life is decades of suffering punctuated briefly by short breaths of satiety and happiness ending in eternal darkness so who cares what matters, when mattering itself doesnt matter. this thread doesnt matter. this post doesnt matter

 

[fskimospy]

If you vote, then you inherently believe that your vote counts. Otherwise, what would be the point of wasting a Tuesday once a year/4 years?

You are confusing what makes your vote "count". It doesn't have to be the deciding vote to count. It's one of many deciding votes.

Does your vote count when it's one of a majority that gets a politician you prefer elected, or did it not count?

This whole "your vote doesn't count" thing is simply an artifact that human beings don't quite understand large numbers. Is a $1.00 in your wallet a large proportion of the $200.00 in your wallet? No. Does each individual $1.00 count as a proportion of that $200.00? Of course. Each individual $1.00 matters to make that whole $200.00, even though $1.00 is individually a small proportion of that whole.

I rarely vote anymore. I want to say 2008 was the last time, but I can't remember for sure.

Elections are (basically) binary outcomes. The fact that you voted is only meaningful in two scenarios from a 'who gets elected' perspective: 1. your vote were to take it from a tie to victory for your candidate, or 2. from defeat to a tie. Anything else and you could have stayed home and it wouldn't have mattered.

The comparison to money is flawed because each dollar has a value entirely separate from the whole while votes do not. Is having $1 better than having $0? Of course. Is having 1 vote better than having 0? Only if your opponent had zero votes. In an election the outcome is the same whether you lose by 1 vote or 1 million, so all votes up to the point at which you reach a tie or win are effectively worthless in terms of installing your preferred candidate.

 

[SMOGZINN]

People won't start voting for third parties in large groups because it's a pretty insurmountable collective action problem. Additionally and paradoxically if they were actually able to succeed it would probably be disastrous for these voters' electoral preferences.

Just about everyone has a preference between the Republican and Democratic parties. Almost by definition, any third party would have to be closer to one major party or the other, meaning it would be more likely to attract voters from that party. If voters are taken asymmetrically all that means is that people voting for a third party in numbers large enough to make people reconsider are ensuring defeat for the party they prefer.

So by voting for your #1 choice, you end up with your #3 choice. People vote strategically, so this doesn't happen.

Unless, of course, like some of us you have come to the conclusion that there is no difference between the Republican and Democratic parties. They make a lot of noise about being different, but once they get the power they all do the same thing. In that case every vote for a 3rd party gives them a clear message that we are getting less and less satisfied with their performance.

 

[OverVolt]

The fact that you can vote matters. And your opinion or presence in talking about politics matters. What we need is more good people active in politics instead of the group of morons who usually follow politics.

To a degree you could easily blame the internet for some of the decline in civil society. Because people don't go out and do things. Its been replaced with internet slacktivism.

 

[nickqt]

I rarely vote anymore. I want to say 2008 was the last time, but I can't remember for sure.

Elections are (basically) binary outcomes. The fact that you voted is only meaningful in two scenarios from a 'who gets elected' perspective: 1. your vote were to take it from a tie to victory for your candidate, or 2. from defeat to a tie. Anything else and you could have stayed home and it wouldn't have mattered.

Anything else and "you" cound have stayed home and it wouldn't have mattered is wrong, because "you" that you say applies to every single person who reads it. If everyone who read it stayed home, the election would likely be an entirely different contest altogether. Again, your vote counts. Just because it wasn't a deciding vote in a 50-50 contest doesn't make it stop counting.

The comparison to money is flawed because each dollar has a value entirely separate from the whole while votes do not. Is having $1 better than having $0? Of course. Is having 1 vote better than having 0? Only if your opponent had zero votes. In an election the outcome is the same whether you lose by 1 vote or 1 million, so all votes up to the point at which you reach a tie or win are effectively worthless in terms of installing your preferred candidate.

That vote may be worthless in terms of that one particular voter getting to decide who is the winner, but again, each vote counts towards the winner winning. Period.

1 vote is worth 1 vote. If X has 0 votes, than that 1 vote makes Y the winner. If X has 1 vote, than Y's 1 vote ties the election. If X has 2 votes, than YOU staying at home and not casting your 1 vote is the reason why X won rather than Y tying X.

1 vote always counts. You're trying to say that when Obama beats Rmoney by 1M votes in State X, that 999,999 people who voted for Obama could have stayed home. That is not the same thing as each individual vote not counting or mattering.

Had everyone who voted for Obama in State X read your "your individual vote doesn't count" had stayed home, who would have won? It really is that simple.

Don't confuse a vote being a deciding vote in a tie with whether a vote counts. Hint: they do. If they didn't all count, you wouldn't see efforts to make it harder to vote.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

I would hate to think someone I truly didn't want in office won by a few votes and part of the reason was I didn't take the time to vote.

I always vote during the early polling as I can get in and out rather quickly (less than 30 minutes) on my way home from work.

 

[fskimospy]

Anything else and "you" cound have stayed home and it wouldn't have mattered is wrong, because "you" that you say applies to every single person who reads it. If everyone who read it stayed home, the election would likely be an entirely different contest altogether. Again, your vote counts. Just because it wasn't a deciding vote in a 50-50 contest doesn't make it stop counting.

Doesn't it though? If the outcome is (effectively) always the same no matter how you vote, isn't it hard to say that your vote counts?

That vote may be worthless in terms of that one particular voter getting to decide who is the winner, but again, each vote counts towards the winner winning. Period.

1 vote is worth 1 vote. If X has 0 votes, than that 1 vote makes Y the winner. If X has 1 vote, than Y's 1 vote ties the election. If X has 2 votes, than YOU staying at home and not casting your 1 vote is the reason why X won rather than Y tying X.

Yes, but that outcome is so insanely unlikely that for all intents and purposes it does not exist. If we are seriously acting based on probabilities that remote we should probably all be wearing hard hats to protect from meteor strikes to our heads.

1 vote always counts. You're trying to say that when Obama beats Rmoney by 1M votes in State X, that 999,999 people who voted for Obama could have stayed home. That is not the same thing as each individual vote not counting or mattering.

It counts in terms of the fact that it is tallied and increases the number of votes for a candidate by 1, but it does not count in terms of installing the voter's preferred candidate.

And to be clear, my argument is not that those 999,999 people should have stayed home. My argument is that EVERYONE should have stayed home on both sides if they were being economically rational with their time. (Again assuming that getting their candidate was their only motivation for voting)

The reason why the 'if everyone stayed home then X' arguments aren't very convincing is that your propensity to vote is not based on whether or not I vote. Same for everyone else pretty much, therefore my decision has no bearing on what other people do. That's why it's a collective action problem. Everyone for the most part agrees that we need people to vote but each person's individual contribution is effectively meaningless. It's why I support mandatory voting.

Had everyone who voted for Obama in State X read your "your individual vote doesn't count" had stayed home, who would have won? It really is that simple.

Don't confuse a vote being a deciding vote in a tie with whether a vote counts. Hint: they do. If they didn't all count, you wouldn't see efforts to make it harder to vote.

Yeah but we both know everyone won't stay home, so it doesn't matter as to what people should individually do within our system.

Efforts to make it harder to vote make perfect sense. While taking 30 minutes of your day to cast one vote might not matter, if you can pass legislation that will alter the tally by thousands it's a good move for them.

Basically, groups of votes matter. Individual votes don't. Since we can't cast groups of votes individually, it's not a good use of time. If you enjoy voting or consider it your civic duty, or really anything else I think that's great. I don't think we should fool ourselves into thinking our votes count as to who wins though. The math is pretty daunting.

 

[Blanky]

Does your vote matter?

If everyone else but you stopped voting, would your vote matter in terms of who is elected?

If so, then your vote matters.

Remember, we don't vote for laws, but for representatives. We vote for representatives because the Founders didn't particularly trust direct democracy, as it was akin to "mob rule".

Hence, your vote acts to dilute my vote. And my vote acts to dilute your vote.

But again, if everyone but you stopped voting, your vote would matter, so yes, your vote matters now. Just not as much as you might want it to matter.

Another way to look at it is that if an election was tied 50%-50%, would your vote matter? It doesn't matter that the election isn't 50%-50%, because your vote counts the same regardless. But yes, your vote matters.

All of that said, all we get to do is vote for representatives who mostly don't really care what we want. So, be careful as to the question you're asking, because you might be asking one thing while attempting to ask something else.

Your logic falls apart when I point out that if you vote it won't affect whether I do or vice versa. I'm not aware of any magical super powers any voters have that force others to vote or not to based on that magical super voter's behavior.

 

[soulcougher73]

Not as long as the EC is around it doesnt matter a whole lot. Also doesnt matter much without going to popular vote. Also doesnt matter much if you are not in a swing state.

So no.

 

[soulcougher73]

Every vote matters. Even if you think both parties suck but think the GOP is heading too far in the wrong direction you can vote to show them that they are wrong. If every person that doesn't vote suddenly held their nose and voted Dem or even third party because they wanted to send a wake-up call to the GOP and the GOP pulled something like 30% of the popular vote or less, maybe that would be enough to knock them back to reality. It would be that much harder for them to blame their misfortune on gubmint handouts and LMSM boogeymen.

Until the GOP EC votes against the peoples wishes and awards those states points to the GOP candidate.

 

[soulcougher73]

If you vote, then you inherently believe that your vote counts. Otherwise, what would be the point of wasting a Tuesday once a year/4 years?

You are confusing what makes your vote "count". It doesn't have to be the deciding vote to count. It's one of many deciding votes.

Does your vote count when it's one of a majority that gets a politician you prefer elected, or did it not count?

This whole "your vote doesn't count" thing is simply an artifact that human beings don't quite understand large numbers. Is a $1.00 in your wallet a large proportion of the $200.00 in your wallet? No. Does each individual $1.00 count as a proportion of that $200.00? Of course. Each individual $1.00 matters to make that whole $200.00, even though $1.00 is individually a small proportion of that whole.

It would only count if your vote was the actual deciding factor. Say 1001 vs 1000. But if the party/person you voted for wins 5000/3000 than no your vote did not matter as that person would have still won without your vote. It would just be 4999/3000.

 

[cubby1223]

If you vote, then you inherently believe that your vote counts. Otherwise, what would be the point of wasting a Tuesday once a year/4 years?

Interesting comment.

If you believed your vote counts you would participate in a helluva lot more state and local elections that occur between the Presidential general elections

 

[cubby1223]

The statistical probability that my one vote will ever be the deciding vote in an election is so remote that it will more likely than not never occur even once during my lifetime. That's why I'm never motivated to vote.

I understand and respect those who genuinely want people to get out and vote their conscience. But I absolutely love reading these threads, and the comments from people who actually believe that if everyone voted for sure your chosen political views would dominate over the enemy

 

[Jhhnn]

The statistical probability that my one vote will ever be the deciding vote in an election is so remote that it will more likely than not never occur even once during my lifetime. That's why I'm never motivated to vote.

I understand and respect those who genuinely want people to get out and vote their conscience. But I absolutely love reading these threads, and the comments from people who actually believe that if everyone voted for sure your chosen political views would dominate over the enemy

So why do you think Repubs hated ACORN so vehemently?

Because they concentrated on registering under represented groups like poor & working class people, blacks, latinos & young people. Less than 75% of Americans eligible are even registered & that's at its worst among those groups-

http://www.statisticbrain.com/voting-statistics/

Repubs also enjoy higher turnout from their faithful-

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ty-id-became-partisan-and-why-it-shouldnt-be/

Things would clearly be a lot different if all those folks registered & actually voted.

 

[soulcougher73]

So why do you think Repubs hated ACORN so vehemently?

Because they concentrated on registering under represented groups like poor & working class people, blacks, latinos & young people. Less than 75% of Americans eligible are even registered & that's at its worst among those groups-

http://www.statisticbrain.com/voting-statistics/

Repubs also enjoy higher turnout from their faithful-

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ty-id-became-partisan-and-why-it-shouldnt-be/

Things would clearly be a lot different if all those folks registered & actually voted.

Probably to attempt to maintain the illusion that your vote matters for their base. Always have to have a boogeyman to point at.

 

[fskimospy]

I understand and respect those who genuinely want people to get out and vote their conscience. But I absolutely love reading these threads, and the comments from people who actually believe that if everyone voted for sure your chosen political views would dominate over the enemy

I think it's pretty easy to see that the median US electoral representative would be much more liberal if everyone voted, considering groups that lean conservative vote at considerably higher rates than liberal ones.

http://cacs.org/research/effect-voter-turnout-political-polarization/

(this is an article on political polarization, but it has an informative chart)

Considering that US elections often turn on a few percentage points either way if you equalized turnout between those groups it is highly likely that Democrats would win considerably more elections. It would also likely put the presidency almost permanently out of reach for Republicans.

Of course political parties change their ideology with different electoral circumstances, which is what would happen then, but regardless conservatives would almost certainly need to move left considerably to maintain competitiveness.

In fact, this is why polling firms shift between registered voters and 'likely voters'. If you look at the registered voter numbers they are nearly always more favorable to Democrats, specifically because they narrow the turnout gap. (liberal groups also register in lower numbers if I'm not mistaken, but they vote in even lower proportion)

 

[cubby1223]

The overriding issue is that people are liberal for a wide variety of reasons. One person votes Democratic for one issue while another person votes Democratic for a completely different issue.

I'll rephrase my comment - higher voter turnout might benefit your party of choice, but it doesn't mean the specific subjects you are passionate about will be addressed by the elected party.

Instead of now where you get 50/50 split in votes, if everyone voted, rather than, say, a 70/30 split, I'd suspect you get more towards a 30/30/20/20 split. But I don't see 3rd parties injecting themselves in any meaningful way, so I'm going to predict more low voter turnouts for many, many years to come.

 

[Vdubchaos]

No vote matters as long as people that get elected are not held accountable for lies.

George Carlin says be best. Better believe it.

And yes, I blame ALL the US trouble/politics and BS that goes on ....on VOTERS.

You guys put these people in power, not me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIraCchPDhk

The only vote American's have left is VOTING WITH THEIR MONEY. Where and HOW you spend your money is what really counts.

 

[senseamp]

People get the government they deserve.