Democrats: Do you want the war to end?

[Ron Paul]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Then put your voter registration where it matters. Switch your voter registration to Republican and vote for Ron Paul in the primary,

[/ QUOTE ]

I would have voted but some guys convinced me on a politics forum that voting changes nothing and is pointless. They made some strong arguments and used math and everything.

I could PM the link of the forum debate and you could argue the point directly to the forum, but watch out for this guy called Borodog, he will probably tell you you are being illogical and an idiot for arguing in favour of voting.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, but I am not arguing in favor of personally voting. I am arguing that if a bunch of people are going to waste their time voting anyway, it is not a waste of time to try to convince them to vote the way you want.

Voting is foolish; lobbying the fools is not (necessarily).

[andyfox]

I don't follow. If voting is a waste of time, what difference does it make how anybody votes?

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't follow. If voting is a waste of time, what difference does it make how anybody votes?

[/ QUOTE ]

Voting is a waste of time because of the unlikelihood of one vote deciding the election. Convincing a large block of voters has a greater chance of effecting the election there fore if a person can increase his votes altered to time ratio he may arrive at a point where his efforts will bring about a situation that he deems worthwhile.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't follow. If voting is a waste of time, what difference does it make how anybody votes?

[/ QUOTE ]

Voting is a waste of time because of the unlikelihood of one vote deciding the election. Convincing a large block of voters has a greater chance of effecting the election there fore if a person can increase his votes altered to time ratio he may arrive at a point where his efforts will bring about a situation that he deems worthwhile.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, by conceding this, you're conceding that voting produces worthwhile consequences. How can we come to any other conclusion?

I don't see how we can claim "X is a time wasting activity" out of one-side of our mouths, but then out of the other say "convincing other people to engage in time wasting activity X will be productive". If Activity X is time wasting, nothing productive can come of it, by definition, unless "time wasting" has some new meaning I'm not aware of.

Maybe this is one big false dichotomy, but I'm not seeing the alternatives here.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Ah, but I am not arguing in favor of personally voting. I am arguing that if a bunch of people are going to waste their time voting anyway, it is not a waste of time to try to convince them to vote the way you want.

[/ QUOTE ]

By using your time to convince others to behave a certain way, aren't you contradicting the bolded? Surely it's not a waste of their time if you're spending your time to get them to change their voting behavior by starting this thread, right?

If it was a waste of their time to vote (where 'their' = readers of this forum), then we could deduce that you would be wasting your time "lobbying" them.

Edit: What andyfox said

[iron81]

[ QUOTE ]
By using your time to convince others to behave a certain way, aren't you contradicting the bolded? Surely it's not a waste of their time if you're spending your time to get them to change their voting behavior by starting this thread, right?

[/ QUOTE ]
I guess its an EV calculation. Say Borodog spent 10 minutes thinking of that post and writing it out, but it would take 30 minutes for him to actually go to the polls. If Borodog thinks that he will change an average of .33 votes to get Ron Paul elected, it is better for him to make the post.

This doesn't make it worthwhile unless you account for how much utility Borodog will gain by influencing voters. I have no idea how to account for this.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
I guess its an EV calculation. Say Borodog spent 10 minutes thinking of that post and writing it out, but it would take 30 minutes for him to actually go to the polls. If Borodog thinks that he will change an average of .33 votes to get Ron Paul elected, it is better for him to make the post.


[/ QUOTE ]

If Boro is claiming that others are wasting their time by voting:

[ QUOTE ]
I am arguing that if a bunch of people are going to waste their time voting anyway

[/ QUOTE ]

...then trying to influence their behavior is still a negative EV move. In other words, a losing play is a losing play.

In the end, by conceding there's value in trying to change voter behavior, I think Boro is conceding there's value in voting. I don't see a way around deducing this.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]


If Boro is claiming that others are wasting their time by voting:

Quote:
I am arguing that if a bunch of people are going to waste their time voting anyway



...then trying to influence their behavior is still a negative EV move. In other words, a losing play is a losing play.

[/ QUOTE ]


Wrong. Borodog doesn't lose when a person votes ineffectively, it doesn't cost him his time for another person to vote. much like if i sell TVs for less than it costs me to buy them it doesn't mean its a - ev play for you to buy one from me. You can gain from my loss, no problem.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


If Boro is claiming that others are wasting their time by voting:

Quote:
I am arguing that if a bunch of people are going to waste their time voting anyway



...then trying to influence their behavior is still a negative EV move. In other words, a losing play is a losing play.

[/ QUOTE ]


Wrong. Borodog doesn't lose when a person votes ineffectively

[/ QUOTE ]

Conversely, by claiming voting is a waste of time, Boro doesn't gain when a person votes effectively. That's what would make a waste of time. If he's not gaining or losing anything, then he's wasting his time trying to change voting behavior.

Unless he does gain or lose when someone votes effectively or ineffectively. Then voting is a productive use of someone's time, because it produces gains and losses -- which contradicts the claim that voting is a waste of one's time.

[SNOWBALL]

[ QUOTE ]

Conversely, by claiming voting is a waste of time, Boro doesn't gain when a person votes effectively. That's what would make a waste of time. If he's not gaining or losing anything, then he's wasting his time trying to change voting behavior.

Unless he does gain or lose when someone votes effectively or ineffectively. Then voting is a productive use of someone's time, because it produces gains and losses -- which contradicts the claim that voting is a waste of one's time.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think what boro might be saying is "don't play hand X pre-flop, but if you insist on playing it, at least minimize your losses on later streets by doing Y."