Does your vote really matter?

[fskimospy]

You're getting angry because I keep correcting what you're saying and you aren't able to get around the basic fact that you can't show me any plausible mechanism by which you choosing to vote accomplishes the goal of electing the your preferred candidate. As I said, there's no getting around it. If you can't do this, you concede the argument.

This theory is not new or particularly special, it's the outcome of the work of Anthony Downs who is basically the father of modern quantitative political science research. Like I said before, for people who have studied or worked in political science related fields the idea that voting is economically irrational in the way I've put forward is not controversial. If you think it is, you might want to consider why you've come to such a different conclusion.

It's a single argument, that voting is irrational. I was trying to explain it to you in a number of different ways to help you see the inherent conflict of individual rationality and collective outcomes that you are having trouble getting past. If you took that as multiple different arguments you simply aren't reading what I wrote closely or you didn't understand it.

I don't really know what else to say. I doubt repeating myself again will help.

 

[fskimospy]

This may also be a helpful article to better understand the issue:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_voting

 

[realibrad]

...

The problem is you are mixing the way we use the word matter. You are saying it has a personal value to you, just like how my fish tank matters to me. You are trying to say that inherent objective value is the same is personal value. A single vote in the US simply does not matter that much. If it were true that everyone acted that way, then nobody would vote, but voting does not live in that vacuum.

For your argument to be true, it would also mean that taking a shower for 1 extra min "matters" in CA because CA is having a water shortage. If only 1 person took a longer shower, it would not even be measurable. That in this context inherently means it does not matter. Collectively if more people took longer showers, it would "matter"

Don't mix objective terms with subjective.

 

[nickqt]

You're getting angry because I keep correcting what you're saying and you aren't able to get around the basic fact that you can't show me any plausible mechanism by which you choosing to vote accomplishes the goal of electing the your preferred candidate. As I said, there's no getting around it. If you can't do this, you concede the argument.

This theory is not new or particularly special, it's the outcome of the work of Anthony Downs who is basically the father of modern quantitative political science research. Like I said before, for people who have studied or worked in political science related fields the idea that voting is economically irrational in the way I've put forward is not controversial. If you think it is, you might want to consider why you've come to such a different conclusion.

It's a single argument, that voting is irrational. I was trying to explain it to you in a number of different ways to help you see the inherent conflict of individual rationality and collective outcomes that you are having trouble getting past. If you took that as multiple different arguments you simply aren't reading what I wrote closely or you didn't understand it.

I don't really know what else to say. I doubt repeating myself again will help.

I'm not getting angry, and you aren't correcting anything I'm saying.

You want me to believe that my vote doesn't count. Yet, it clearly does. There is literally a tally mark given to the candidate I chose. Whether that tally mark is counted as the first tally, the 50%+1 tally, or the last tally, that tally counts.

You are instead trying to argue that because my vote isn't the specific "deciding vote" that it follows that it doesn't count. Or that it doesn't matter. And you are wrong. It does matter.

If an election did come down to 500 votes X and 501 Votes Y, my vote for Y counted just as much as any other of those 501 votes for Y.

The exact same.

You can huff and puff about how super correct you are and about how irrational of a person I am for voting, but you haven't proven anything. At all.

The only way my vote doesn't count is if it gets thrown away and not tallied, or if I choose to stay home and not vote.

You can continue to keep saying that I don't understand, and that you're just a Saint and a Scholar for helping me to come to grips, but that is ridiculous.

My vote counts because it is tallied. My vote counts just as much as every other vote. If every person believed that their vote didn't count and didn't vote because you think it's clearly true, then a candidate that would have won would have lost.

If you can't understand that, then I doubt repeating myself is going to help you come to grips with actual observable reality. But I'll try again.

If the statement that "your vote doesn't count, doesn't matter, and won't influence the election" was true, then every single voter (not just me) could read it, follow those directions and not vote, and the election result would not be changed.

Yet that is completely false on its face. If every single voter stayed home because the statement that each individual vote doesn't count, doesn't matter and won't affect the election, it would in fact affect the election.

Following your advice to stay home because votes don't count, don't matter and won't affect the election would directly affect the election, making your statement false. Implying that I'm just a dumb head for not agreeing with you doesn't make it true.

 

[fskimospy]

Yes, if the election is decided by 1 vote literally every vote on that side did in fact count. That is the only time they count, which is in fact my whole point.

The fact that you're trying to argue if every voter acted that way that things would be different tells me that you don't understand the nature of this collective action problem or individual rationality.

Please read the linked article on the paradox of voting, maybe it will do a better job of explaining the issue than I have.

 

[mizzou]

The power of your vote decreases as the stage gets larger, but it still counts. Many important bills live and die with a few thousand votes in local municipal elections. In theory, the power of your vote is only worth the value against those who also vote....so each person's vote is of equal weight.

Your vote is just as equal to the strength of your neighbors vote. So are you saying you shouldn't vote because your neighbor and others around you have already voted? What if something important came along, and 15% of the electorate said, "Nah, I think Ill pass my individual vote is only worth .05% of the total amount. Then you just lost 15% of the vote.

VOTE!

But also, if you dont' care to stay informed of what you are voting about, then stay at home

 

[soulcougher73]

You're getting angry because I keep correcting what you're saying and you aren't able to get around the basic fact that you can't show me any plausible mechanism by which you choosing to vote accomplishes the goal of electing the your preferred candidate. As I said, there's no getting around it. If you can't do this, you concede the argument.

This theory is not new or particularly special, it's the outcome of the work of Anthony Downs who is basically the father of modern quantitative political science research. Like I said before, for people who have studied or worked in political science related fields the idea that voting is economically irrational in the way I've put forward is not controversial. If you think it is, you might want to consider why you've come to such a different conclusion.

It's a single argument, that voting is irrational. I was trying to explain it to you in a number of different ways to help you see the inherent conflict of individual rationality and collective outcomes that you are having trouble getting past. If you took that as multiple different arguments you simply aren't reading what I wrote closely or you didn't understand it.

I don't really know what else to say. I doubt repeating myself again will help.

Well i have heard repeating yourself for a 18th time works like a charm. Might be worth a shot for the slow ones.

 

[soulcougher73]

You want me to believe that my vote doesn't count. Yet, it clearly does. There is literally a tally mark given to the candidate I chose. Whether that tally mark is counted as the first tally, the 50%+1 tally, or the last tally, that tally counts.

He isnt saying your vote doesnt count. He is saying it doesnt matter. Their is a big difference.

 

[fskimospy]

He isnt saying your vote doesnt count. He is saying it doesnt matter. Their is a big difference.

Ha! Thanks for figuring out a way better way to say it.

 

[nickqt]

He isnt saying your vote doesnt count. He is saying it doesnt matter. Their is a big difference.

Please, continue staying at home so my vote has even more value.

Thanks!

 

[ultimatebob]

Your vote might mean something if you live in a swing state.

In a state as hard left Liberal as Connecticut? Forget about it. The Democrat will almost always win, even if they are borderline incompetent.

 

[Griffinhart]

My friend told me that I should vote because every vote counts, but then that got me thinking. If votes are counted per state and not individually and unless the state is 50/50 or near that status with republican and democrat voters, then your vote really does not count. Like in Texas, without a doubt it's a Republican state, so if I wanted to vote democrats, it really makes no difference as the majority will be republican anyway, so doesn't that mean my vote does not really matter?

Living in Massachusetts, if you don't vote Democrat you are in the same boat. But, I feel my vote still counts. There are times when those elections are close, and there are certainly other reasons to vote. Local elections, ballot questions which are often as important if not more important than national politics.

It's also worth noting that a two party system vs a three or four party system isn't always better. For example, the Nazi party never won more than 1/3 of the vote prior to coming to power.

I'm not against more parties, I would like to see more. I just also realize that the grass isn't always greener.

 

[nickqt]

Living in Massachusetts, if you don't vote Democrat you are in the same boat.

Who is your governor?

 

[JohnAlmighty]

Same issues in Europe. Actually your vote does count, but it doesn't matter who you vote for. Both parties will do the same harm to the economy and population.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Please, continue staying at home so my vote has even more value.

Thanks!

I agree!!!!!

 

[el padrino]

It matters. Not much but matters. And it's better to vote yourself than to let someone vote instead you...

 

[blankslate]

I drag out his quote every time the Repubs claim they are not trying to disenfrachise the people from the vote.

Need to carry that clip on my phone...

I've only met one or two people in a work environment willing to go beyond "so and so sucks or is awesome" on the subject of politics.

And only one of my friends is interested in talking about it beyond that as well.


....