• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Did you vote in Nov 2009 elections?

Did you vote in Nov 2009 US elections?

  • Voted absentee ballot

    Votes: 4 15.4%
  • Voted early voting

    Votes: 1 3.8%
  • Voted on election day at the polls

    Votes: 8 30.8%
  • Skipped b/c lack of knowledge of candidates/issues

    Votes: 3 11.5%
  • Skipped b/c I didn't care

    Votes: 5 19.2%
  • Meant to vote and missed it

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I'm not eligible to vote in US elections

    Votes: 5 19.2%

  • Total voters
    26
Well I did not expect you to say she has a point even in the slightest tiniest way whatsoever.It seems to me that you just refuse to see any facet or shade in this matter aside from your own. There are more than just mathematics at play in an issue of this size and importance.

Sure, I already cited them. Social acceptance, and the warm and fuzzy feeling you get from being a good citizen. But in terms of actually influencing policy? No, there are no issues in play other than the mathematics. Your candidate (or issue) wins if they get the plurality of votes, and they lose if they don't. Simple as that.

Sir Loin said:
I forgot that voting is not important at all and does not matter at all either. Some might even use your argument to say the whole having elections and what not is really just a waste of time. Is that about bleak enough for ya?

Elections are very important. Voting is a waste of time.
 
Sure, I already cited them. Social acceptance, and the warm and fuzzy feeling you get from being a good citizen. But in terms of actually influencing policy? No, there are no issues in play other than the mathematics. Your candidate (or issue) wins if they get the plurality of votes, and they lose if they don't. Simple as that.
You have not proven that is the case, particularly on the local level. Just becuase you say so, even if it is followed with a declaration of "PERIOD" don't make it so. You guys are real quick to dismiss that which does not fit your stance, such as the local level elections I referred to earlier. RNYC managed to barely acknowledge my point, of course with a giant chain attached that tried to state it does not happen very often. As if THAT was the point.

Elections are very important. Voting is a waste of time.
Yes so you keep saying, but I disagree with on many levels. All of them rejected in order to return to your "my math argument is ALL that matters" mantra. But that was kinda funny, elections are important but voting is a waste of time. As if one could exist without the other. So tell me if that was the attitude that "made the issue" precisely where would we be?
 
It's okay when a few people don't vote because they're vote is meaningless, but if everyone thinks this way, then we have a problem.
 
It's okay when a few people don't vote because they're vote is meaningless, but if everyone thinks this way, then we have a problem.
Oh I agree to a point and as I have been trying to argue, there is more to this argument than the finite little mathematical argument being put forth here. IMO that argument is about who is right and who is wrong about this tiny little argument that those making it wish to define as THE point. Namely that voting is a waste of time in every possible way and that the *only* reason for doing so is for sentimental or irrational reasons; as defined by those of course making that argument. Self serving and ignores the much bigger picture that these two posters normally argue for other posters to see, oddly enough. Beats me why.:thinking
 
Last edited:
You have not proven that is the case, particularly on the local level. Just becuase you say so, even if it is followed with a declaration of "PERIOD" don't make it so. You guys are real quick to dismiss that which does not fit your stance, such as the local level elections I referred to earlier. RNYC managed to barely acknowledge my point, of course with a giant chain attached that tried to state it does not happen very often. As if THAT was the point.

Why is it not the point? What's the point in voting if your vote isn't going to matter most of the time? :confused:

If you're interested, the likelihood that you'll cast the deciding vote can be calculated using this formula:

P(x) = n! / [x! * (n-x)!] * p^x * (1-p)^(n-x)
where:
n = number of other voters
x = number of other voters who vote for Smith...in this case 1/2 of n
p = probability of a random voter voting for Smith


Sir Loin said:
Yes so you keep saying, but I disagree with on many levels. All of them rejected in order to return to your "my math argument is ALL that matters" mantra. But that was kinda funny, elections are important but voting is a waste of time. As if one could exist without the other. So tell me if that was the attitude that "made the issue" precisely where would we be?

You advocate voting because you think it would be good if everyone voted...and you criticize the idea of NOT voting because you think it would be bad if no one voted. This relies on the fallacy that if you behave in a certain way, everyone else will follow suit.
 
Last edited:
Why is it not the point? What's the point in voting if your vote isn't going to matter most of the time? :confused:

If you're interested, the likelihood that you'll cast the deciding vote can be calculated using this formula:

P(x) = n! / [x! * (n-x)!] * p^x * (1-p)^(n-x)
where:
n = number of other voters
x = number of other voters who vote for Smith...in this case 1/2 of n
p = probability of a random voter voting for Smith




You advocate voting because you think it would be good if everyone voted...and you criticize the idea of NOT voting because you think it would be bad if no one voted. This relies on the fallacy that if you behave in a certain way, everyone else will follow suit.
You are of course are relying upon a fallacy. Namely that I am saying that if you behave in a certain way, everyone else will follow suit. Your attempt to frame my stance as that statement may be appealing to the direction you would prefer this conversation flow, but is in no way my point or reflective of my thoughts on this matter. And this is hardly the first time I have entered into a debate or conversation about the topic. In fact the "your vote is meaningless" dirge is so common place as to be moribund. I state plainly that IMO it is not good for the country that people not vote and not generally ascribe to the idea their vote and their opinion does not matter. I can understand why this would appeal to a politician or say a dictator? But what possible pay off can you receive from acting so obtuse? I admit I can't fathom it.

You just blithely declared that elections are important but voting is a waste of time. As if the importance of the former was not inexorably linked to the later. You have thus far been completely unwilling to even engage in the simple suggestion that this issue might be about deeper issues and have more societal importance and impact than your buffalo stance. Oh let me guess, what next? What does "good" for a democracy mean? What does "good" mean? You started by trying to pigeon hole me as an emotionally overwrought ad hom ATTACKER and IMO it has been just about as dense as that ever since.

How about this Chief Smoke? Instead of just stating over and over that my and all votes are a waste of time, you demonstrate how our votes affects NOTHING and are counted for NOTHING, at both the local level and national level and how *all* that matters is your oft repeated mantra that voting is a waste of time. Yip that is a pretty broad stance you have taken up, mighty dense turd to polish too. Good luck.
 
You are of course are relying upon a fallacy. Namely that I am saying that if you behave in a certain way, everyone else will follow suit.

If you want to know why I think you are relying on that fallacy, look no further than statements like this:

Sir Loin said:
I state plainly that IMO it is not good for the country that people not vote and not generally ascribe to the idea their vote and their opinion does not matter.

OK. Let's assume for a minute that it's true that it's not good for the country if PEOPLE don't vote. Why is it not good for the country if you or I personally don't vote? And more to the point, how does my vote benefit me?

And there's another fallacy: You conflated "Their vote does not matter" with "Their opinion does not matter." I haven't seen anyone on this thread arguing the latter point. There are plenty of ways to influence policy; voting is not one of them.

Sir Loin said:
I can understand why this would appeal to a politician or say a dictator? But what possible pay off can you receive from acting so obtuse? I admit I can't fathom it.

If we again ignore the psychological benefits of voting and focus solely on the political benefits: The payoff is saving some of one's time by not voting...and you won't alter the outcome of the election anyway.

Sir Loin said:
You just blithely declared that elections are important but voting is a waste of time. As if the importance of the former was not inexorably linked to the later.

It isn't. As long as some people still vote, any individual's vote still won't matter.

Sir Loin said:
How about this Chief Smoke? Instead of just stating over and over that my and all votes are a waste of time, you demonstrate how our votes affects NOTHING and are counted for NOTHING,

I already did that by providing you with the statistical formula. Even when there are only 1,000 other voters (e.g. a small town's election), the probability that your vote will determine the outcome is TINY. And when there are millions of other voters (e.g. a state or presidential election), the probability that your vote will determine the outcome is virtually nil.
 
Last edited:
If you want to know why I think you are relying on that fallacy, look no further than statements like this:



OK. Let's assume for a minute that it's true that it's not good for the country if PEOPLE don't vote. Why is it not good for the country if you or I personally don't vote? And more to the point, how does my vote benefit me?

And there's another fallacy: You conflated "Their vote does not matter" with "Their opinion does not matter." I haven't seen anyone on this thread arguing the latter point. There are plenty of ways to influence policy; voting is not one of them.



If we again ignore the psychological benefits of voting and focus solely on the political benefits: The payoff is saving some of one's time by not voting...and you won't alter the outcome of the election anyway.



It isn't. As long as some people still vote, any individual's vote still won't matter.



I already did that by providing you with the statistical formula. Even when there are only 1,000 other voters (e.g. a small town's election), the probability that your vote will determine the outcome is TINY. And when there are millions of other voters (e.g. a state or presidential election), the probability that your vote will determine the outcome is virtually nil.
You can be honest, you have not the slightest intention of admitting that anything but your mantra exist. Do ya?
 
You can be honest, you have not the slightest intention of admitting that anything but your mantra exist. Do ya?

Not unless you can show that it's incorrect, no...
 
Not unless you can show that it's incorrect, no...
Thanks for admitting the obvious. :mrgreen: By now your idea of "incorrect" is so exclusive as to be laughable, but you don't enjoy arguing for the sake of it now do you? I advise a better brand of turd rub next time.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom