Personal Question From Good Samaritan

[Knockwurst]

[ QUOTE ]
The only possible good reason for me or any specific person to vote involves symbolism (except in very tight important races or to send a message in a losing cause).

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe this is incorrect. You still have not addressed the issue of the free rider probem, and it goes beyond mere symbolism, and is more a philosophical question or even a question of logic if you'd prefer.

Why should others have to bear the costs of inconvenience, the costs of educating themselves, informing others, and otherwise participating in the political process because a plurality or even a majority of people like yourself, who are capable, don't want to inconvenience themselves and are sufficiently satisfied with the status quo so as not to bother participating in the political process.

Here is Paul Krugman discussing the free rider problem as expressed by those who do not participate in the political process:

The democratic process, the only decent way we know for deciding how that coercive power should be used, is itself subject to extremely severe free-rider problems. Rat-choice theorist Samuel Popkin writes (in his 1991 book, The Reasoning Voter): "Everybody's business is nobody's business. If everyone spends an additional hour evaluating the candidates, we all benefit from a better-informed electorate. If everyone but me spends the hour evaluating the candidates and I spend it choosing where to invest my savings, I will get a better return on my investments as well as a better government." As a result, the public at large is, entirely rationally, remarkably ill-informed about politics and policy. And that leaves the field open for special interests--which means people with a large stake in small issues--to buy policies that suit them.

Slate
(emphasis added).


[ QUOTE ]
I made an exception for myself because my job is to expose fallacious arguments and I suspected this thread would generate some.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thus, until you confront the free rider problem within your own logical construct, I would have to say your logic is fallacious as well.

[J_V]

I believe you have plagiarized my ideas in my "Why I don't vote" thread. 2+2 has a strict plagiarism policy and I would like to see repurcussions.

[David Sklansky]

I am willing to admit that there are other reasons to vote besides the one I mentioned. However none of those reasons can possibly overide the reasons NOT to vote if you don't tell anybody. Either the fact that there is no chance that your vote will change the result or change the message sent. Or the fact that you have no preferance even AFTER becoming informed.

In other words my personal decision is based on math, not politics.

[pete fabrizio]

[ QUOTE ]
I am willing to admit that there are other reasons to vote besides the one I mentioned. However none of those reasons can possibly overide the reasons NOT to vote if you don't tell anybody. Either the fact that there is no chance that your vote will change the result or change the message sent. Or the fact that you have no preferance even AFTER becoming informed.

In other words my personal decision is based on math, not politics.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm really surprised you buy this superficial argument. The duty to vote is a question of ethics. If you're a strict ego-utilitarian, or possibly even a standard utilitarian, then not voting is fine and rational. But if you're a rule-utilitarian or a deontologist, etc., you may see voting as a duty, and voting is rationally required (except in extreme circumstances). If you want to say that those conceptions of ethics are irrational, then fine, but that's a different argument altogether.

[NewTeaBag]

[ QUOTE ]
...In other words my personal decision is based on math, not politics.

[/ QUOTE ]

Math and convenience. Convenience and math.

Perhaps there exist slightly more important concepts in life. This reads more like a convoluted math argument used as an excuse to not overcome a minor inconvenience.

[David Sklansky]

You and pete just don't get it. I'm curious as to how those who think it is important for me to vote feel about my wielding any of my possibly disproportionate power to get others to change their vote. Is it my "duty" to do it? Perhaps it is my "duty" to refrain from doing it.

Do you see what I'm getting at? I have the ability to add fifty votes to my side. Fifty one if I vote myself. Depending on my actions the choices are zero, one, fifty, or fifty one. Are you claiming that the answer "one" is the right answer. Or is the answer whatever is in my best interest (probably fifty)?

[pete fabrizio]

[ QUOTE ]
You and pete just don't get it. I'm curious as to how those who think it is important for me to vote feel about my wielding any of my possibly disproportionate power to get others to change their vote. Is it my "duty" to do it? Perhaps it is my "duty" to refrain from doing it.

Do you see what I'm getting at? I have the ability to add fifty votes to my side. Fifty one if I vote myself. Depending on my actions the choices are zero, one, fifty, or fifty one. Are you claiming that the answer "one" is the right answer. Or is the answer whatever is in my best interest (probably fifty)?

[/ QUOTE ]

I get your silly argument, I've heard it batted around by my pseudo-intellectual friends since freshman year in college. Thinking there is an ethical duty to vote does not mean there is an ethical duty to pursue your agenda in the best possible way. It just means that you feel you have a certain responsibility to register your preference on voting day, because that's how our society works. If you also want to advocate for certain outcomes, that's your business. If you think that your desire to achieve a certain goal outweighs your duty to vote, then spend that 15 minutes advocating instead, but that doesn't mean they are the same beast. I'm not saying you have to buy into this system of ethics, but if you did then voting would be perfectly rational.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
I am willing to admit that there are other reasons to vote besides the one I mentioned. However none of those reasons can possibly overide the reasons NOT to vote if you don't tell anybody. Either the fact that there is no chance that your vote will change the result or change the message sent. Or the fact that you have no preferance even AFTER becoming informed.

In other words my personal decision is based on math, not politics.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a false premise. There is always some chance. Equating a small chance with no chance is the same mistake people make when they tout Martingale Betting Systems. It's a matter of Power. Although the chance may be small the payoff is Huge as a measure of Power Exercised.

There should be some theory of Power here that shows Sklansky's View to be simplistic and essentially flawed. Something along the lines of; Exercising political power is something people desire and each vote amounts to exercising a small measure of that power whether the vote swings the election or not. The only reason not to vote is if you don't care about exercising political power.

PairTheBoard

[NewTeaBag]

I think, perhaps, we view voting in different terms.

I view it as a right earned through the intense labours of our predecessors and thus view it as a cherished privilege. This makes it a duty for the individual, regardless of what you calculate or deem to be the insignificance of your vote's specific impact.

This is NOT about maths or discrete number choices between 0 and 51 or 0 and X. It is simply about fulfilling what should be a basic requirement once (or perhaps twice) a year. The level of inconvenince involved for so infrequent an event is so small it really becomes inconsequential, and thus hardly a barrier to completion of the duty.

On to the point about your influence: Surely you can see (and have already alluded to) that you, stating your negative opinion, can and will have further influence upon others. This can only have a net "-" affect upon society.

Maintenance of a republican democracy requires an active role of the citizenry to remain viable. The less people who contribute, the more erosion of rights occurs.

Rights unused become awarded privileges. Privileges get removed when on a grandscale are left unexercised. Eventually, basic freedoms erode and we end up in a far less desirable society with far less choice on many issues.

[David Sklansky]

Are you saying that one should vote in meaningless elections for reasons OTHER than symbolism or, if you are well known, the effect it has on others choosing to vote?