If 10,000 of people who would vote for Candidate A don't vote at all, yes, Candidate B will win, and that would be a 'change'. However, it doesn't seem to be the one that would support your desired end goal (i.e., that Candidate A and B are both bad candidates). Nor does it have any greater value than say 10,000 people don't vote for Candidate B, or 10,000 people who didn't vote decide to vote for A or B, so I guess I don't see what your point is there.

And yes, your singular vote isn't worth a lot. But deciding to settle on only that single paradigm at the exclusion of all else isn't necessarily a very useful thing to do. Just like  Newtonian physics aren't very useful when asking questions at quantum scales, the effectiveness of behavior of a single individual isn't a very useful perspective when asking questions on the governance of hundreds of millions.

I've got more energy today to discuss this.  I'll try my best to be clear as I understand I can do a poor job with that at times.



Can we clarify a bit?  Why exactly do I have a duty to vote?  Who decides that?  I understand that it's a socially accepted norm, but that doesn't mean it's true.



I can complain about elected officials (though I rarely do since I don't see it as helpful).  You can claim otherwise, but I can just as easily also claim that I am right.  We're a little deadlocked here and only have personal opinion to sway each other.



By not voting I am making a conscious effort to replace an action that I see as pointless (since my 1 vote will never accomplish anything) with something that I feel will bring about real change (picking garbage).  I would argue (and do argue) that those who vote are actually taking the easy way out.




That's a fair point about children.



Maybe I'm starting to see the disconnect here.  It should be clear, I'm not complaining that 'so and so was elected', I am complaining that 'so and so is doing a poor job at his job'  I also would dispute that voting is an action that actually changes anything.



People died to give me the right to choose to vote or not vote, not the right to be forced to vote or be publically shamed.  I have no idea where you are going with the discrimination thing when I have already pointed out that I support the right of individuals to vote if they feel it's something that gives them value as a person in society (even if I personally don't share that view)  Discrimination is an odd choice of words.




The right to choose whether to vote or not.  I addressed this already.



If you think voters are rational that's fine, but I don't share that view at all.  Democracy is the best thing we have, but voters are really good at making decisions that are very bad for themselves.  There is a really good podcast I listened to on this topic - probably a few years ago.  I'll see if I can dig it up, if you're interested

At the end of the day, many of us non-voters do so for very specific reasons and only ask that we be respected as valuable citizens because we choose to carry out our citizenry in ways that are different from those who choose to vote.

I'm not sure I'm following you here.  I kind of am, but I find the connection between physics and voting tough to connect.

But boiling it all down to simply state, 'My 1 vote will not ever make a difference.' is enough for me (even though that's only 1 reason I don't vote).  It might not be for others, and so they vote.  I'm ok with that.

My desired end goal is to use my time in the best way possible (either engaging in things I find enjoyable, or things that I feel will help improve the world for myself, my kids, other people etc).

Spending time voting does not accomplish either of those things for me (my 1 vote is pointless, and I don't find politics enjoyable), so why would I do it? (Interestingly enough, if politics and voting is something an individual finds entertaining or fun, then that's another perfectly valid reason to do it in my books)

I guess I just find it offensive that I, as a non-voter, am sometimes viewed as lazy, or a lesser citizen, because I have a different view on what the most effective way is to be a citizen in society.

Hey, I don't take offense. You don't agree with a lot of things I believe in. I prefer you not vote.

Haha, fair enough :)

The less people that vote, the more powerful your own vote becomes.  So the best way to increase your political power in a democratic system is to dissuade others from using theirs.

Except one individual's vote will never become practically useful since there will always be people who vote just because they feel a sense of guilt if they do not.

Great theory, but not really true in practice.  The reality is, no matter what, my one single vote (or your either) will ever swing an election on a state/federal level, and even on much smallers levels the chances are extremely low.

Maybe they should make it so that, if a registered voter doesn't vote, their vote counts towards the third party with the most votes.

Probably a crazy idea.

That's sort of the question, though.  Are you obligated to be silent if you didn't vote?  I think the point is that you can not vote, and still be vocal about problems caused by those you didn't vote for.  You can be politically active and at the same time not vote.  Again, I stress I'm not suggesting this is the best thing to do, just saying that its possible.


If your write in, they see that someone is a voter and didn't vote for them.  If you speak out, they see that you didn't vote for them because of their flaws.  You can vocalize why you didn't vote for them, and express what it would take for you to vote for them.  The counter side seems to be saying that you can't/shouldn't do that.  And I guess I haven't seen any good argument why that would be the case.


It's certainly possible for people to just be lazy.  But imagine you're a anti-abortion voter.  That's your issue.  You've made a vow to never, under any circumstances support any candidate that is pro choice.  In your local election every single candidate is pro-choice.  Now, you can either compromise your morals, but make a (tiny, symbolic) difference by voting, or stick to your guns and make not difference with your (lack of) vote, but instead try to make a difference by speaking out against pro-choice candidates.  Is it the best course?  I don't know, but it doesn't seem "lazy" to me.

Again, I stress that I think voting when you have the opportunity is a good thing to do.  I'm not advocating anyone not vote.  I'm just challenging the idea that those who haven't voted are necessarily lazy/complacent/passive/whatever, and the idea that they have no right to complain about those who do get elected.


True, but if 50% of the population protest outside the capital that will also have a huge impact.  Even of those people didn't vote.

Here's perhaps another way to look at the issue:

Republicans won big in the recent election, largely by running a "we're not obama" campaign.  Many people seemed vote thinking "I'm not happy with how things are now, so I'll vote for the republicans."

Now, imagine if next year republicans try to lower taxes on the wealthy, privatize social security, and make cuts to medicaid.  All things that are fairly well-known republican goals, but which many people aren't fans of.  Now, if someone voted for a republicans (out of dislike of Obama and/or the currents state of things) gets upset when the republicans they helped elect push to do the above things, do they really have more right to complain than someone who didn't vote?  To a degree, I can see more to the argument that they have no right to complain, since they got just what they voted for (even if it's not what they actually wanted).

Or, imagine a gay person who voted for republicans because of he thought they would improve the economy.  Once elected the republicans push to reduce gay-rights.  Does this person have more or less right to complain than someone who didn't vote at all?  Isn't "if you didn't want this, you shouldn't have voted for these guys!" at least as legitimate as "if you didn't want this, you should have voted!"?

Why should we consider it more valid for someone to complain about unsurprising actions taken by the politician they voted for than for someone to complain about actions of someone they didn't vote for (because they didn't vote at all)?

Tycho, regarding your first post, you seem to be placing voting/protesting as either-or activities. Yes, if the question is between voting OR protesting, protesting is probably more effective. But it isn't, and it shouldn't be. It baffles me why someone would spend four hours in the cold complaining about Obama, but refuse to spend 20 minutes driving to the voting booth (or do like I do, a true lazy person, and just order an absentee ballot).

Regarding 'right to complain' ... I think you bring up some good points. But still, the pro-life person is simultaneously giving up on the process and not trying to fix it. Unless he is skipping voting because he's in the process of standing up some new political party (or isn't voting because his new political party's candidate wasn't permitted to run), yeah, it's a cop-out.

Either you care about the issue enough to work to change it--in which case you should be working to change it--or you don't.

And I'd agree with your first example that someone who votes GOP because it's 'not Obama' deserves what's coming. They literally are getting what they wanted, and are upset. Your homosexual is a little more nuanced. He isn't complaining about getting what he wanted, but that it's not a full package. That's normal, and I'd argue it's even very productive, to say 'this is important to me, but this is also important to me. We got this, now let's work on that.'

of course though, when it comes to actual 'rights', everyone has a right to complain about whatever. It's just some people are huge hypocrites when they do it :P

In most cases I'd agree.  But if the person is complaining that Obama is too right-wing, then they can either vote for Obama (and complain about him), or vote for whoever the republicans run (and complain about them).  For some people the real problem is that all the options are horrible in their view.  And rather than pick the least bad option, they'd rather fight to get different options (which you sort of can't do if you always pick the least bad option, since you're then feeding the system which you're against).


I think that's probably where disagree.  Not voting certainly can be a cop out.  But I'm not convinced it's always a cop out.  Voting for the least-bad option doesn't actually get you a better option.  In fact, it can reduce the chances of getting a better option in the future by supporting the status quo.  I'm not entirely convinced that "not voting" is equivalent to "giving up on the process and not trying to fix it."  If someone truly has given up on making things better, then sure.  But not everyone who doesn't vote has "given up."  Complaining about issues (to other voters) can be more effective in bringing about change than voting for a candidate you don't actually support.  That in and of itself isn't a great reason not to vote.  But if one has another reason not to vote (say, moral opposition to all the available candidates), I could consider it a valid course of action.

Also, if you vote with a candidate because you agree with them slightly more than you agree with the other candidate, does anyone honestly think that candidate isn't going to claim your full support on every issue?  "We have a mandate from the people to do X!" is pretty much what every candidate says after they win, even if poll after poll repeatedly shows the voters were actually opposed to X.  Even though republicans ran on a "I'm not Obama!" campaign, I have very little doubt that they will claim public support for every bit of legislation they put forward.  You can't really indicate on your ballot why you voted for a candidate, so they all assume/pretend that it's because you agree with them on everything.


I agree there.  I just don't think it's necessarily true that voting for someone who's against you on the issue just because the other candidate is worse than them is the same as "working to change it."  You can work to make changes in ways other than voting.


Yay, agreement! ;)
(leaving "some people" sufficiently vague probably helps us be in agreement on this, though!)

That seems counterproductive to the idea of choice and freedom.  Australia actually fines people who do not vote in elections, and again, that seems to be forcing people to vote, which is the exact opposite of what freedom is all about, and is the equivalent to spitting in the face of those who fought and died to provide freedom for us as individuals.

Voting isn't an action in isolation.  It involves research, travelling to the voting station, waiting in lines etc.

There is the question of how much time it actually takes to be sufficiently informed about the options.  20 hours?  40 hours?  Hyper-active politically involved people probably spend 10 hours a week, all year long, informing themselves of the issues, just so that they can feel like they are making the most informed vote possible.  And yet, in many cases, they mght still be totally off base with their own voting strategies because there are lots of things they can't see in a situation.

So, it's not just 20 minutes driving to the voting booth. Most politically involved folks would be offended that someone did not inform themselves before voting and would ask you kindly not to do that.  It's potentially 500 hours a year to become a sufficiently informed voter - and even then that might be enough.  AND that vote won't change anything.  Every time I sit down and think about this it becomes much more difficult for me to rationalize the act of voting as a sensible option for an individual.

So, yes, it actually can easily be an either/or situation.  Let's say it's only 10 hours every four years to inform yourself on the basics of a political party and what they stand for.  I would say that's nowhere near enough, but for the sake of discussion it works.

Would I rather spend 10 hours casting a vote that has the practical effect of accomplishing exactly zero?  OR.  Would I rather spend those 10 hours having coffee with a friend, cleaning up a local park, and getting a couple extra hours sleep?  The answer to me is stuinningly clear and I'm baffled that it isn't clear to everyone else as well.

Is complaining a helpful thing to do if you have not voted?  No really.  It's not helpful if you HAVE voted though, so the question of having voted or not is sort of not important.

However, I go back to my initial argument.  If you have voted, you are agreeing to the democratic process.  By marking down on the piece of paper you are saying 'I believe this is the best way to choose the person who is going to run things' and then you live with the consequences of that.  I would say it's even sillier to complain about things when you have voted since you already agreed to the system by which those individuals get into power.  At least those who didn't vote are fully aware that voting was a silly activity to begin with because they knew they were getting a bad option in place no matter what.

I was under the impression that your vote didn't matter to you?

Your example of Australia is another way of dissuading the self-perpetuating spiral of political apathy.  Unfortunately that dissuasion doesn't extend to the apathy of the current political parties.  The Democrats and Republicans should be afraid of having a low voter turnout, because it means they would both lose.  They might put effort into getting the majority of people who are able to vote to vote, rather than just those who always vote.

True enough, in the sense that almost every other action matters much more to me.



Does it accomplish that?  By forcing people to cast votes does it actually dissuade apathy?  I wonder.   Either way, it's incredibly offensive to think that a free society would force others to engage in an activity that actually does very little.  Sad really.

However, if I was going to be charged $40 if I didn't vote I would then probably be forced to go spoil a ballot since the cost ($40) would potentially outweigh the benefits (cleaning up the city park).  It wouldn't do a thing to actually influence an election (for me personally) but then government could talk about how civic involvement was increased (though in reality it wasn't since they now have a dirtier park and an extra spoiled ballot - net loss in the civic involvement category)

I don't know if it accomplishes it, but I think that's what they'd say the intent was.

It's a good question to ask whether it would accomplish that, and probably easy to find out.  Do you know when the law was implemented?  I could try and get a good sample size of voter turnout %  before and after.



Spoilt Ballot % would be another thing to check. It might also as you said have a negative affect, perhaps even a net loss overall.

I'll see if I can find the law they passed regarding the fine and get back to you on that once I've gathered the evidence.
-------------------------------------------
 Personally where I live there isn't really that much time taken up on voting, we have mail-in voting so you don't have to wait in line or go out of your way.

Despite this however, in my state (Washington), Voter Turnout went from 53.1% in 2010 to 28% in 2014.  So making it easier really doesn't seem to have helped.
-------------------------------------------

EDIT: Ooh, unless the fine was only payable in the form of community service ;)
This message was last edited by the GM at 07:29, Sun 09 Nov 2014.

I believe the 1920s sometime.  But an increase of voter turnout does not mean there is a change in voter apathy. It just means that they feel forced to go, whether they care or not.




One of the big arguments from pro voters is that voters should also be informed, so the number of hours that it takes to cross the threshold from uninformed to informed, should also be a part of that. That's a moving target though, and surely would be a different number depending on how "into" politics you are.

I agree making it easier is not the only factor though - political corruption and the lack of actual value in a single vote are also issues. I have no doubt large numbers of people just don't care, and frankly, when combined with the other factors, I'm not sure it's worth their time to do so.
This message was last edited by the player at 07:33, Sun 09 Nov 2014.

I've sort of been backing Doulos' side for a while, but wanted to raise a point on the other side too.  A key part of Doulos' argument is the fact that his individual vote is vanishingly likely to sway the result, so why should he bother?  Which sounds relatively sound.  On the other hand, if many people think the same way, their collective lack of voting very well could sway the result.

There are many situations like this in life, where your individual actions or lack there of will have relatively minor impact, but the sum total of many people making the same choice has a significant negative impact.  Often change requires a whole bunch of people doing something together that individually would have little impact.  One person walking down a street doesn't get much attention.  Get a few thousand and suddenly you have a march, and it gets the message out way more effectively.  One person saying "I'm not buying this product anymore!" won't really change a company's policies, but a whole lot of people doing it can get their attention.  Environmental examples unfortunately usually go the other way:  one person deciding not to do their part (e.g., littering, wasting, etc.) wouldn't have a huge impact, and the system could surely cope with it.  But get enough people thinking "well, just me doing this doesn't matter" and you can end up with a very big negative impact.  How many people thinking "there's so many passenger pigeons!  Me killing a few will never make a difference!" does it take to drive a species extinct?

One way to address this issue is to think not about your individual action, but about the strategy in general.  Does the strategy you pick (ie, voting or not voting) lead to good results if lots of other people take it?  If not, its probably not the right strategy.  Another way of saying that is: if your "it makes no difference" position requires that everyone else not do the same thing to be true, then you may be freeloading (ie, depending on everyone else to do the job for you).

It's not exactly the same as a tragedy of the commons situation, but it's similar in some ways.  Everyone trying to just maximize their own benefit at the margin, rather than trying to achieve the maximum for the whole, everyone can end up with less.  "It's fine for me not to vote, because everyone else will" isn't too far from "it's fine for me to graze a few extra sheep on the common ground, as long as everyone else doesn't do it too".

I've heard this argument before, and it has a touch of validity to it (Immanual Kant seems to be given credit for the general idea of it, and he's sort of a smart guy).  I admit I've had to reason through this one for sure.  It's probably the most powerful pro-voting argument I can see out there.

Essentially, the argument goes, you don't need to prove that your non-vote will ever practically make a difference (in a negative way), but that it could theoretically make a difference (in a negative way).

In the end it brings the act of voting back to a way of expressing your support for the democratic process in a symbolic way.

I can totally get on board with that.  If that's the reason someone wants to vote, then fire away.  For some people voting provides an emotional warm fuzzy.  It can be like kissing your child good night while they are sleeping.  Could they wake up at that exact moment and because they see you kissing them at night they gain more confidence in themselves as a person and go on to do great things in life?  Sure, that's a possibility.  Yet, that's not why people do it.  They do it (I do it!) as a symbolic way of demonstrating care and love for that individyual.  It's a purely selfish act that gives me a feeling that I enjoy, which does not provide any real benefit to society - yet I do it.  It's not a rational action, similar to voting, but it does bring me a certain emotional benefit.

For me personally, the key difference is that I do not gain that same warm fuzzy feeling from voting, but I'm fully aware that many, many people do - and for them I encourage them to vote.

EDIT:  Keep in mind, this only deals with one of the reasons not to vote - that your one vote will never make a difference.  There are certainly other reasons not to do so.
This message was last edited by the player at 15:43, Sun 09 Nov 2014.

I guess that's not really what I was saying.  It's not about "warm fuzzies," it's more about "I should do what's right, regardless if I could get away with doing what's not right and come out a bit ahead."  It's sort of the opposite of an ends-justify-the-means position, in that its says we should do the right thing not because it makes us better off, but in fact we should do what's right even if it makes us worse off.  Or, perhaps a better way of stating it is: don't try to determine what's right by looking just at the impact it has on yourself.

It's not about warm fuzzies, it's about pulling your weight, even if the rest of us could get by even if you don't.  It's sort of like paying your taxes.  Would the government collapse (or even really notice) if one joe schmoe doesn't pay his taxes?  No, it wouldn't.  But that doesn't make it okay for joe schmoe not to pay his taxes.  Sure, everyone else only has to pay some tiny fraction of a penny to make up for it, and wouldn't even notice the difference of just him not doing it.  But if everyone did it, then we would have huge problems.  We don't pay taxes because it gives us warm fuzzies.  We do it because it's necessary.  And even though any individual could not pay their taxes without the whole system falling over, no one individual has any more right to shirk their responsibility than anyone else, so we all have to chip in and do our insignificant-in-isolation part.


And I think those "other reasons" are where you and are I actually in a good deal of agreement.  It's just the "my vote won't make a difference" argument that I think is problematic.

The idea of 'voting is right' is also something I greatly dispute though.  It's only seen as 'right' because it holds social value.  I don't believe it has any inherent rightness in it.  Maybe that's another spot where voters and intentional non-voters disagree.

As far as I can see, replacing the action of voting with a lot of other actions is a great deal more moral. Again, that's a personal opinion, but it really does come across as offensive to claim that I am a less morally right person because I have a different opinion on how to be citizen - particularly when it replaces what I view as a symbolic action (voting) with a tangible action (community cleanup).

Paying taxes has some other very large incentives - prison for starters.

Sorry, wasn't my intent to say you weren't moral.  I was responding to your comment about "warm fuzzies" and the idea that voting was fine if you enjoy it or whatever, but had no value in itself.  My point was that it's not about warm fuzzies, it's about doing what you think is right, regardless of the pay off, as opposed to calling it the right thing because of the pay off it provides.  Your arguments have all been about the pay off, or the cost-benefit analysis or the like.  The argument I was giving was saying that that's not necessarily the right way to look at it.  In this case because you're depending on other people doing a necessary task for you, and if everyone does that, the job doesn't get done.


I find that answer...troubling.  It basically sounds like you'd be okay with tax avoidance if you knew you wouldn't get caught.  If that IS what you're saying, then I will go ahead and say that's not a very moral position, in my opinion.  But hopefully I'm misunderstanding your meaning here.

Tycho,

I have no problems paying taxes I use many of the services.  I was just saying that if the two were equally "purposeless" (which I don't think they are), there would still be other incentives to pay taxes (prison!).  Similar to how I would probably be forced to vote if I was going to be given a fine if I didn't.

I guess I'm not sure we've gone very far with the initial argument.  It sort of goes: being a citizen means voting, and that's the right thing to do, so even if it isn't actually the right thing to do in practical purposes, it's still the right thing to do theoretically.

However, all of that hinges on the first assumption, that voting, as a citizen, is by its very nature the right thing to do. I suppose that part would be in dispute by me.  I see it as neither right, nor wrong, in and of itself.

Three of those things normally take 20 minutes. If they're an issue, order an absentee ballot and do it that way. Filling out an absentee ballot takes all of five minutes. You can do it on the toilet if you want to be efficient, and it costs all of $.35.

As for research, that's a different question ... Yes, in a democracy (and really, in general), you should be educated on what is going on in your environment, how the economy is changing, how your government is acting in your name, etc. This isn't a question of politics; it's a question of normal living. Yes, I consider it essential to keep yourself aware of what is going on around you.

Of course, there are some things which may be totally political to you. Tax rates for groups other than your own, gun rights, etc. Stuff that have no direct impact for you. But then, you're not required to have an opinion on everything. If you don't think events in Syria are of special political importance, you can disregard you in choosing your favored candidate.

I consider myself pretty anal retentive about educating myself, but that just meant visiting each candidate's website and votesmarg.org and reading the voting history. That's maybe 10 minutes per candidate, if I'm slow. In reality, the political parties have made it much easier. Republican = pro-life, pro-gun, pro-religion, economy-focused. Democrat = pro-choice, anti-gun, pro-minority, focused on providing aid directly to citizens.

There are certainly some cases where I'd say it's justified to not vote. You're an astronaut in space busy doing space-stuff. You're the lead cancer researcher about to make a breakthrough that'll save millions of lives. You're deployed to West Africa saving lives from Ebola. But for the majority of us, an hour of our time doesn't save someone's life.