Did you vote in Nov 2009 elections?

RightinNYC · Nov 3, 2009

Sir Loin said:
Saying my vote is meaningless is just plain dumb and owing to dogma IMO.

Again, this is not my opinion, this is a mathematical fact. You can call it whatever you want, but that doesn't change the reality of the situation.

I voted in the 2009 election and on many issues both local and national. You do know there was more on the docket in 2009 issue wise and chronologically than the POTUS race?

And depending on how small your local elections are and how your district leans, the odds that your vote would make the difference on any of those issues ranges from somewhere between zero and some other vanishingly small number.

You will of course demonstrate for my admittedly ignorant self, all that you claim won't you? As I have said, I am game.

I already provided you with a link to an article explaining this, but I'll copy-paste the relevant portion for you:

Your individual vote will never matter unless the election in your state is within one vote of a dead-even tie. (And even then, it will matter only if your state tips the balance in the electoral college.) What are the odds of that? Well, let's suppose you live in Florida and that Florida's 6 million voters are statistically evenly divided—meaning that each of them has (as far as you know) exactly a 50/50 chance of voting for either Bush or Kerry—the statistical equivalent of a coin toss. Then the probability you'll break a tie is equal to the probability that exactly 3 million out of 6 million tosses will turn up heads. That's about 1 in 3,100—roughly the same as the probability you'll be murdered by your mother.

And that's surely a gross overestimate of your influence, because it assumes there's no bias at all in your neighbors' preferences. Even a slight change in that assumption leads to a dramatic change in the conclusion. If Kerry (or Bush) has just a slight edge, so that each of your fellow voters has a 51 percent likelihood of voting for him, then your chance of casting the tiebreaker is about one in 10 to the 1,046th power—approximately the same chance you have of winning the Powerball jackpot 128 times in a row.

For those of us who live in New York State, the situation is far worse. Last time around, about 6.5 million votes were cast for major party candidates in New York state and 63 percent of them went to Al Gore. Assuming an electorate of similar size with a similar bias, my chance of casting the deciding vote in New York is about one in 10 to the 200,708th power. I have a better chance of winning the Powerball jackpot 7,400 times in a row than of affecting the election's outcome.

Although your odds increase as the electorate gets smaller and more evenly split, it's still all but a mathematical certainty that you will never sway any election that has more than a few hundred people voting.

Never said any of the above, just responding to your arguments with my comments.

You implied that for people who don't vote, the only place their opinion matters is on the internet. Again, this is demonstrably false.

Sir Loin · Nov 3, 2009

Kandahar said:
When the results come in tomorrow night, be sure to keep track of how many of those elections were decided by your vote.

My what a silly and pointless quip. I suspect that or the two of us, you will be paying far more attention to the election return tomorrow night. I'm not much invested in them.

RightinNYC · Nov 3, 2009

Sir Loin said:
My what a silly and pointless quip. I suspect that or the two of us, you will be paying far more attention to the election return tomorrow night. I'm not much invested in them.

So you vote for the sake of voting, not really caring about the outcome?

Kandahar · Nov 3, 2009

Sir Loin said:
Utterly irrelevant, unless you care to perform an ad hoc soliloquy?

How is it irrelevant? If your sole goal is to influence the election, and your vote doesn't change the outcome of the election, then you might as well not have voted at all. If the same candidate would have won if you hadn't voted, what was the point?

Sir Loin said:
So yet, somehow and despite your best intentions, somehow above nothing? Well then I certainly see the pay off in the passionate arguments put forth so far. Chuckle.

You're the one arguing with such passion (i.e. anger). RightinNYC's argument is completely rational from an economic standpoint: Your vote is utterly irrelevant because it almost never accomplishes the goal of influencing the outcome of an election. Your argument, on the other hand, is mostly just an emotional rambling with ad hominem attacks sprinkled in generously.

Sir Loin · Nov 3, 2009

RightinNYC said:
So you vote for the sake of voting, not really caring about the outcome?

You know what? If you are going to sit around with baited breath, counting the clock and jumping to conclusions when I don't post quickly enough for you, this can only end BADLY for you. Trust me here champ.

Now I will be back to "tackle" your latest rationalization, but as important as this argument is, I have to admit that I am going to go ahead and go to bed. After all, tomorrow is another day. Feel free to mock me in absentia.:doh

Sir Loin · Nov 3, 2009

Kandahar said:
You're the one arguing with such passion (read: anger). RightinNYC's argument is completely rational from an economic standpoint: Your vote is utterly irrelevant. Your argument, on the other hand, is mostly just an emotional rambling with ad hominem attacks sprinkled in generously.

Good God, as tired as I am that post is pretty sad. Tell you what, while I sleep and before I come back to post on topic, as I have already stated I shall, why don't we see if YOU can guess why that post is just silly? And I'm being NICE calling it that.

jamesrage · Nov 3, 2009

jackalope said:
Who's voting, who's skipping, who meant to vote but missed it :2razz: ?

I am going to vote. Local and mid-term elections are just as important as the ones where we vote for president. Local levels are where bad things can most likely happen first.

Sir Loin · Nov 3, 2009

As I have already stated, I think those who subscribe to the idea that they have no substantive voice and who choose not to vote have no right to complain. Likewise they are a part of the problem, not any solution. The fact of the matter is that if the majority of citizens took their right to vote as duty and did so, we would solve a great many problems that beset this nation. It goes without saying that politicians count on the kind of apathy on display here to keep the system as dysfunctional as it is now. Feel free to explain how this is not the case. As I said before, those who throw away for whatever reason their voice, have none. Sure you can show up in internet forums and try to make your case, but internet forums are just that and any attempt to compare the "power" a voter has to that of a poster at an internet forum is patently absurd.

Pointing me to articles and opinion pieces about not voting is not proving a mathematical argument and can only lead to pointing to similar articles and opinion pieces which dispel that mind set. I've spent most of my adult life trying to get people to stop buying into the indulgent mindset that voting does not count or matter, so important an aspect of our fundamental rights as it is. It is a shame that in 2009 one still has to deal with people who try to act as if this is not the case. Regardless how brilliantly impressed with their own rationalization that voting does not matter, count or give the people a voice. One thing is for certain though, hewing to the stated arguments put forth against voting in this thread will very clearly not lead anywhere productive or help this nation or guide it in any meaningful direction whatsoever.

If you choose to cleave to the argument that you have no voice, good for you. I don't subscribe to such a self defeating and shortsighted philosophy and no amount of rationalization, attempts to paint me as an ad hom "attacker" or other sophistry is going to change that.

Kandahar · Nov 3, 2009

Sir Loin said:
As I have already stated, I think those who subscribe to the idea that they have no substantive voice and who choose not to vote have no right to complain. Likewise they are a part of the problem, not any solution.

Wrong. In your entire life, how many elections have been changed due to your vote? I'm guessing zero, unless maybe if you live in a very small town. And even then I doubt it's a very large number.

Sir Loin said:
The fact of the matter is that if the majority of citizens took their right to vote as duty and did so, we would solve a great many problems that beset this nation.

How would more votes being cast solve our nation's problems? And even if that were true, it would only reduce the marginal impact of any individual's vote even more.

Sir Loin said:
It goes without saying that politicians count on the kind of apathy on display here to keep the system as dysfunctional as it is now. Feel free to explain how this is not the case.

Completely irrelevant to the mathematical fact that the impact of your vote on the outcome of the election is virtually nil.

Sir Loin said:
As I said before, those who throw away for whatever reason their voice, have none. Sure you can show up in internet forums and try to make your case, but internet forums are just that and any attempt to compare the "power" a voter has to that of a poster at an internet forum is patently absurd.

A few good arguments on this forum are a much better way to influence public policy than an equal amount of time spent voting.

Sir Loin said:
Pointing me to articles and opinion pieces about not voting is not proving a mathematical argument and can only lead to pointing to similar articles and opinion pieces which dispel that mind set.

Actually it DOES prove the mathematical argument. If you have some articles that can dispel this mindset, let's see them. And they need to be something better than "But...but...voting is good!"

Sir Loin said:
I've spent most of my adult life trying to get people to stop buying into the indulgent mindset that voting does not count or matter,

I really hope you were trying to get people to vote for a specific candidate, rather than just trying to get them to vote in general. Otherwise, you've wasted your time and the time of anyone you managed to convince.

Sir Loin said:
so important an aspect of our fundamental rights as it is. It is a shame that in 2009 one still has to deal with people who try to act as if this is not the case. Regardless how brilliantly impressed with their own rationalization that voting does not matter, count or give the people a voice.

You still haven't put forth anything resembling a rational argument. Do you believe that the mathematical odds of you casting the deciding vote are in error? If so, let's see your statistics and we can compare them to see which are correct. If not, then on what are you basing your opposition?

Sir Loin said:
One thing is for certain though, hewing to the stated arguments put forth against voting in this thread will very clearly not lead anywhere productive or help this nation or guide it in any meaningful direction whatsoever.

It will give people more time for leisure (which increases happiness) or more time for work (which increases productivity). That helps the nation.

Sir Loin said:
If you choose to cleave to the argument that you have no voice, good for you. I don't subscribe to such a self defeating and shortsighted philosophy

You have a voice in public policy. But voting is a very inefficient way at influencing public policy.

Sir Loin said:
and no amount of rationalization, attempts to paint me as an ad hom "attacker" or other sophistry is going to change that.

No one painted you as anything. You did that to yourself when you responded to a completely logical economic argument with an incoherent, emotional rant and started calling people names.

Sir Loin · Nov 3, 2009

Kandahar said:
Wrong. In your entire life, how many elections have been changed due to your vote? I'm guessing zero, unless maybe if you live in a very small town. And even then I doubt it's a very large number.

How would more votes being cast solve our nation's problems? And even if that were true, it would only reduce the marginal impact of any individual's vote even more.

Completely irrelevant to the mathematical fact that the impact of your vote on the outcome of the election is virtually nil.

A few good arguments on this forum are a much better way to influence public policy than an equal amount of time spent voting.

Actually it DOES prove the mathematical argument. If you have some articles that can dispel this mindset, let's see them. And they need to be something better than "But...but...voting is good!"

I really hope you were trying to get people to vote for a specific candidate, rather than just trying to get them to vote in general. Otherwise, you've wasted your time and the time of anyone you managed to convince.

You still haven't put forth anything resembling a rational argument. Do you believe that the mathematical odds of you casting the deciding vote are in error? If so, let's see your statistics and we can compare them to see which are correct. If not, then on what are you basing your opposition?

It will give people more time for leisure (which increases happiness) or more time for work (which increases productivity). That helps the nation.

You have a voice in public policy. But voting is a very inefficient way at influencing public policy.

No one painted you as anything. You did that to yourself when you responded to a completely logical economic argument with an incoherent, emotional rant and started calling people names.

I'm about as emotional about this as a corpse and felt the same way last night. You lost the argument and my attention the second you tried to play the foolish ad hom card. Better luck next time, and yes I did not even bother to read anything you just posted aside from the last sentence, so emotionally wrapped up in this thread am I.:yawn:

Kandahar · Nov 3, 2009

Sir Loin said:
I'm about as emotional about this as a corpse and felt the same way last night. You lost the argument:yawn: and my attention the second you tried to play the foolish ad hom card. Better luck next time, and yes I did not even bother to read anything you just posted aside from the last sentence, so emotionally wrapped up in this thread am I.

When you care to address the mathematical facts instead of just making incoherent attacks on anyone who disagrees with you, be sure to let me know. :2wave:

Sir Loin · Nov 3, 2009

Kandahar said:
When you care to address the mathematical facts instead of just making incoherent attacks on anyone who disagrees with you, be sure to let me know. :2wave:

Maybe next time you want to discuss mathematics you will present such a case, rather than going for the lazy and foolish approach. Meaning crying I am being "emotional" and attacking people "ad hom" and making "incoherent attacks" does not address the topic much less have anything to do with my stances in this thread. And we both know you know this and that you know better. Physician heal thyself.

Good bye Kandahar, I wish you better luck and better FORM next time. Save the "you are emotional and ad hom incoherently attacking those who disagree with you" tripe for those with an IQ below room temp.

Cold Highway · Nov 3, 2009

Just came back from the polls, there was measure to allow non-profits to hire low level prisoners for their organizations which I voted for.

RightinNYC · Nov 3, 2009

Sir Loin said:
You know what? If you are going to sit around with baited breath, counting the clock and jumping to conclusions when I don't post quickly enough for you, this can only end BADLY for you. Trust me here champ.

We're on an internet debate forum. Unless my computer detonates, I don't think anything can really end badly for anyone.

Now I will be back to "tackle" your latest rationalization, but as important as this argument is, I have to admit that I am going to go ahead and go to bed. After all, tomorrow is another day. Feel free to mock me in absentia.:doh

Where exactly have I mocked you? Since the first post, I've said that it sounds like voting is rational for you. I've been nothing but polite in pointing out that your experience may be different from everyone else's, but you keep on taking offense and getting outraged.

Sir Loin said:
As I have already stated, I think those who subscribe to the idea that they have no substantive voice and who choose not to vote have no right to complain. Likewise they are a part of the problem, not any solution.

And this is demonstrably false. Of the four following people, which one has the smallest impact on policy:

Person A: Does not vote, but works on campaigns.
Person B: Does not vote, but is a journalist who writes about politics for a paper
Person C: Does not vote, but is a donor to candidates and issues that he cares about
Person D: Votes every year, but doesn't get involved in other ways.

Persons A, B, and C can each have a significant impact on the way things turn out. Person D will not. Every one of them will have their voice heard to a much greater degree than Person D.

The fact of the matter is that if the majority of citizens took their right to vote as duty and did so, we would solve a great many problems that beset this nation.

Now this is just completely false.

First off, the majority of citizens do vote. I don't know what elections you've been watching, but 57% of eligible voters voted in 2008. We also had majorities in 2004, 2000, 1992, 1988, 1984, 1980.... Did that "solve a great many problems that beset this nation?"

It goes without saying that politicians count on the kind of apathy on display here to keep the system as dysfunctional as it is now. Feel free to explain how this is not the case.

See above - you're completely wrong about voter turnout, which sort of invalidates the rest of your claims.

As I said before, those who throw away for whatever reason their voice, have none. Sure you can show up in internet forums and try to make your case, but internet forums are just that and any attempt to compare the "power" a voter has to that of a poster at an internet forum is patently absurd.

No matter how infinitesimal the influence of discussing politics on a website is, it is still larger than the influence of your vote on an election's outcome. For the last time, this is not an opinion, this is mathematical fact. Why do you refuse to acknowledge that fact? If you think the math is wrong, explain why. Whatever you do, stop pretending like we're not pointing it out to you over and over and over.

Pointing me to articles and opinion pieces about not voting is not proving a mathematical argument and can only lead to pointing to similar articles and opinion pieces which dispel that mind set.

No, I'm pretty ****ing sure that that's a goddamn mathematical fact. I can't believe you're actually arguing this.

I've spent most of my adult life trying to get people to stop buying into the indulgent mindset that voting does not count or matter, so important an aspect of our fundamental rights as it is.

And apparently you've based most of your adult life on a faulty premise. Sorry to be the one to break it to you.

It is a shame that in 2009 one still has to deal with people who try to act as if this is not the case.

It's a shame that in 2009 we have people who still refuse to look at facts in front of their face and admit their truth.

Regardless how brilliantly impressed with their own rationalization that voting does not matter, count or give the people a voice. One thing is for certain though, hewing to the stated arguments put forth against voting in this thread will very clearly not lead anywhere productive or help this nation or guide it in any meaningful direction whatsoever.

And again, this is ridiculous. Do you actually think everyone who influences politics must vote to do so? If George Soros or Roger Murdoch forget to vote in an election, does their influence disappear for that cycle?

Sir Loin · Nov 3, 2009

RightinNYC said:
We're on an internet debate forum. Unless my computer detonates, I don't think anything can really end badly for anyone.

True that, I actually meant that comment as related to holding my attention span. Not in any *real sense* of the word and I admit I was literally falling asleep at the keyboard at that point.

RightinNYC said:
Where exactly have I mocked you? Since the first post, I've said that it sounds like voting is rational for you. I've been nothing but polite in pointing out that your experience may be different from everyone else's, but you keep on taking offense and getting outraged.

I did not say you had mocked me. As you are aware, when one signs off on an argument at debate boards, with the promise to return and talk further at some future point, they are frequently mocked for that exit. Thus in absentia. It was a joke, one I am glad to see did not pertain to you.

Now you will please understand that I have to go and attend to matters in the real world. But I will return ASAP and kick this can around with you, precisely because you have not tried to play the silly "emotional ad hom attack" cards that Kandahar has. I will pick this up right here when I do get back, but it might be as much as a couple of days before I can do so as I will be traveling on business. I suspect I don't need to explain to you why posting at DP is not a priority at such times.

Kandahar · Nov 3, 2009

Sir Loin said:
But I will return ASAP and kick this can around with you, precisely because you have not tried to play the silly "emotional ad hom attack" cards that Kandahar has.

Silly? You want me to point out the silly emotional arguments and/or ad hominem attacks you've made on this thread? 10/4. Coming right up.

Sir Loin said:
I think you speak only for yourself when you state that you have no substantive voice. By your own admission you don't vote and so you have eliminated your only means of being one of those who is "counted" or "counts" in a democratic sense. Rationalize it however you wish, you are by choice only white noise.

Sir Loin said:
I disagree and frankly find your position to be irrational. But then I am never truly shocked at the length and contortions those who oppose "voting" go to about "voice" and counting. Also, actual living human beings (some of my family) have died to protect and make possible my (and your) right to vote. You throw yours away if you wish, I won't. Nor will I embrace your lithe dismissal of the same or the shortsightedness inherent in it.

So why bother with democracy then, or what exactly is the Jedi wisdom you seek to impart here?

So the lesson is relegate your political voice to internet forums? Do tell, do elaborate either of you. I'm game.

Sir Loin said:
Most people in a democracy place a "high value" on voting. Big gold star to you on deducing that sir. Now if you can explain how your position is rational and mine irrational, minus the cerebral hookus pokus, I'm game. Seriously speaking, your attempt to state that voting is a waste of time is not persuading me that such is the case and that I have no point. Here on the internet or in the real world.

Sir Loin said:
Let us just cut to brass tacks eh? I have a vote, it is counted. Regardless the argument given it is counted, those who do not are not counted. Insert rationalized statements about rationalized statements ad ifinitum and those who don't vote are still not counted. Congrats all the way around for the reasons you are not counted and to those of you who are counted who think being counted ain't all that. Who cares if you did not vote? You count even less than those you mock for counting do. At least *ONE* who mocks the value of the count still participates in it! His voice actaully counts, whereas YOURS does not, in any tangible way, except of course.....the internet. :2wave:

Sir Loin said:
Saying my vote is meaningless is just plain dumb and owing to dogma IMO. I voted in the 2009 election and on many issues both local and national. You do know there was more on the docket in 2009 issue wise and chronologically than the POTUS race? You will of course demonstrate for my admittedly ignorant self, all that you claim won't you? As I have said, I am game.

I was not speaking to you there and thought the forum norms would have made this obvious.

Never said any of the above, just responding to your arguments with my comments.

Sir Loin said:
Utterly irrelevant, unless you care to perform an ad hoc soliloquy?

So yet, somehow and despite your best intentions, somehow above nothing? Well then I certainly see the pay off in the passionate arguments put forth so far. Chuckle.

Of course you would. Down is up and up is down. I know.

Sir Loin said:
My what a silly and pointless quip. I suspect that or the two of us, you will be paying far more attention to the election return tomorrow night. I'm not much invested in them.

Sir Loin said:
You know what? If you are going to sit around with baited breath, counting the clock and jumping to conclusions when I don't post quickly enough for you, this can only end BADLY for you. Trust me here champ.

Now I will be back to "tackle" your latest rationalization, but as important as this argument is, I have to admit that I am going to go ahead and go to bed. After all, tomorrow is another day. Feel free to mock me in absentia.

Sir Loin said:
Good God, as tired as I am that post is pretty sad. Tell you what, while I sleep and before I come back to post on topic, as I have already stated I shall, why don't we see if YOU can guess why that post is just silly? And I'm being NICE calling it that.

I see plenty of ad hominem attacks peppered throughout your posts, and as of yet, nothing disproving the mathematical fact that your vote is meaningless. My favorite was when you referred to statistics as "cerebral hokus pokus." :lol:

Sir Loin · Nov 3, 2009

Kandahar said:
Silly? You want me to point out the silly emotional arguments and/or ad hominem attacks you've made on this thread? 10/4. Coming right up.

I see plenty of ad hominem attacks peppered throughout your posts, and as of yet, nothing disproving the mathematical fact that your vote is meaningless. My favorite was when you referred to statistics as "cerebral hokus pokus." :lol:

Sorry to break this to you and you should know better, stating that I think something is a rationalization is not an ad hom attack nor are jokes or sharp comments. Likewise stating that IMO saying my vote is meaningless, is dumb or owing to dogma, is also not an ad hom attack. Making a comment about statistics where none are in evidence is not ad ad hom attack. You would do well to not become so emotional, you would not have to go such lengths and contortions.

Now that last post of yours was pretty frakin stupid, and if you want to be offended and call that an emotional ad hom attack, fine by me. Oh yeah and remember Kandy, I'm the one who is supposed to be all worked up and frothy here. Chuckle. Good day.:2wave:

Kandahar · Nov 3, 2009

Sir Loin said:
Making a comment about statistics where none are in evidence

You are wrong. RightinNYC linked an article that shows that the probability of your vote determining the outcome of the election is nil.
Have you ever, in your entire life, cast the deciding vote in an election? If not, how did your vote influence public policy?

Sir Loin · Nov 3, 2009

Well thanks to Continental Airlines I have time to respond to you and then some.

RightinNYC said:
And this is demonstrably false. Of the four following people, which one has the smallest impact on policy:

Person A: Does not vote, but works on campaigns.
Person B: Does not vote, but is a journalist who writes about politics for a paper
Person C: Does not vote, but is a donor to candidates and issues that he cares about
Person D: Votes every year, but doesn't get involved in other ways.

Persons A, B, and C can each have a significant impact on the way things turn out. Person D will not. Every one of them will have their voice heard to a much greater degree than Person D.

This argument does not address the fundamental fact that politicians pay attention to who votes. Particularity to groups of voters and that politicians by nature ignore those who don't vote as they have no power or voice with a politician. Surely it is not your intention to suggest that this is not the case? There are myriad ways that the outcome of votes matter on both the local and national level. From local bond elections to the POTUS race, the stance that one has no power or voice as a voter, or that a voters voice is valued on the level that a non voters is, is absurd. There are many real life examples where one vote has made the difference between winning and losing, between enacting a law or bond measure and rejecting it. Especially at the local level. We repeatedly see instances where a city council member, school board trustee, member of the board of supervisors, or a special district member — such as water board or fire district — is elected by one vote. In 1948, President Truman carried Ohio and California by less than one vote per precinct, thereby winning enough electoral votes to give him the presidency. And in 1960, one vote change in each precinct would have defeated John F. Kennedy.

RightinNYC said:
Now this is just completely false.

First off, the majority of citizens do vote. I don't know what elections you've been watching, but 57% of eligible voters voted in 2008. We also had majorities in 2004, 2000, 1992, 1988, 1984, 1980.... Did that "solve a great many problems that beset this nation?"

When I stated that if the majority of citizens voted a great many problems or issues that beset this nation would be solved, I did not speak strongly enough. I do not speak solely of the POTUS election but rather *all* elections. I have no idea what the turnout for local elections and state elections is where you live. Here and in a great many places the electorate is not galvanized into voting in the same numbers as is the case in the POTUS elections. Simply put if everyone, or at least the vast majority of Americans voted the vast majority of the time, politicians would be forced to address more issues of concern to more voters. As an example a very high percentage of senior citizens vote in each election, so elected officials pay greater attention to issues such as modifications in social security legislation. Because people with disabilities don't usually vote in high numbers, politicians are not as interested in their viewpoints. There are more than 35 million voting age persons with disabilities. If people with disabilities voted in the same ratios as other groups did, their influence could change and influence the results of elections. This is what I am talking about with regard to "voice" and voting mattering in our society.

RightinNYC said:
No matter how infinitesimal the influence of discussing politics on a website is, it is still larger than the influence of your vote on an election's outcome. For the last time, this is not an opinion, this is mathematical fact. Why do you refuse to acknowledge that fact? If you think the math is wrong, explain why. Whatever you do, stop pretending like we're not pointing it out to you over and over and over.

You have not presented any math, you presented two opinion articles which don't even address the examples I gave above in reference to Truman and Kennedy in a POTUS race. And neither of them even attempts to delve into or addressing anything more than POTUS elections and let me restate that I am talking about *all* elections, not just the POTUS race.

RightinNYC said:
No, I'm pretty ****ing sure that that's a goddamn mathematical fact. I can't believe you're actually arguing this.

So now an op/ed piece is a mathematical fact and the two you have submitted prove that voting is pointless and does not matter? My what a broad net your articles attempt to cast. In fact that Slate article starts out with the blanket statement that no vote by anyone ever mattered before 2000. Kinda flies in the face of history and common sense so yeah, I can't believe you're actually arguing this myself. And again you are predicating your argument upon the fallacious argument that the only way your vote matters is in the outcome of an election, which is patently absurd as there are many ancillary outcomes and results based upon your vote.

RightinNYC said:
And apparently you've based most of your adult life on a faulty premise. Sorry to be the one to break it to you.

And how you read into my comment that I have "based my adult life" on this premise you say is faulty should be a fanciful exploration. Chuckle.

RightinNYC said:
It's a shame that in 2009 we have people who still refuse to look at facts in front of their face and admit their truth.

Well let's see how you do with the facts or thoughts I have expressed in this post before we bemoan the death or truth.

RightinNYC said:
And again, this is ridiculous. Do you actually think everyone who influences politics must vote to do so? If George Soros or Roger Murdoch forget to vote in an election, does their influence disappear for that cycle?

No I don't and I never said such. The person stating that there is no value whatsoever in voting and that any value attached to it is irrational and solely related to civic pride, is you.

RightinNYC · Nov 3, 2009

Sir Loin said:
This argument does not address the fundamental fact that politicians pay attention to who votes.

And they pay more attention to journalists, donors, and campaign workers. Period.

Surely it is not your intention to suggest that this is not the case? There are myriad ways that the outcome of votes matter on both the local and national level. From local bond elections to the POTUS race, the stance that one has no power or voice as a voter, or that a voters voice is valued on the level that a non voters is, is absurd.

No, it's math and logic.

There are many real life examples where one vote has made the difference between winning and losing, between enacting a law or bond measure and rejecting it. Especially at the local level. We repeatedly see instances where a city council member, school board trustee, member of the board of supervisors, or a special district member — such as water board or fire district — is elected by one vote.

I very much doubt it happens with the regularity you're suggesting, but I don't know why you think that bears on my point. The odds of your individual vote mattering are infinitesimal.

In 1948, President Truman carried Ohio and California by less than one vote per precinct, thereby winning enough electoral votes to give him the presidency. And in 1960, one vote change in each precinct would have defeated John F. Kennedy.

And one vote per precinct is not the same as one vote. Not even close.

When I stated that if the majority of citizens voted a great many problems or issues that beset this nation would be solved, I did not speak strongly enough. I do not speak solely of the POTUS election but rather *all* elections. I have no idea what the turnout for local elections and state elections is where you live. Here and in a great many places the electorate is not galvanized into voting in the same numbers as is the case in the POTUS elections. Simply put if everyone, or at least the vast majority of Americans voted the vast majority of the time, politicians would be forced to address more issues of concern to more voters.

And I think you're making this up without anything to support it. We already see high turnout in presidential year elections, and that doesn't improve our lot any.

As an example a very high percentage of senior citizens vote in each election, so elected officials pay greater attention to issues such as modifications in social security legislation. Because people with disabilities don't usually vote in high numbers, politicians are not as interested in their viewpoints. There are more than 35 million voting age persons with disabilities. If people with disabilities voted in the same ratios as other groups did, their influence could change and influence the results of elections. This is what I am talking about with regard to "voice" and voting mattering in our society.

Which has what to do with individual people voting? You keep on missing my point - yes, if 35 million people got together and voted, it would make a difference. The exact same difference as it would if 35,000,001 people got together and voted.

You have not presented any math, you presented two opinion articles which don't even address the examples I gave above in reference to Truman and Kennedy in a POTUS race.

You don't understand why those aren't the same thing. That's not my fault.

And neither of them even attempts to delve into or addressing anything more than POTUS elections and let me restate that I am talking about *all* elections, not just the POTUS race.

Which is why I pointed out that "[a]lthough your odds increase as the electorate gets smaller and more evenly split, it's still all but a mathematical certainty that you will never sway any election that has more than a few hundred people voting."

So now an op/ed piece is a mathematical fact and the two you have submitted prove that voting is pointless and does not matter?

No, math is a mathematical fact.

My what a broad net your articles attempt to cast. In fact that Slate article starts out with the blanket statement that no vote by anyone ever mattered before 2000. Kinda flies in the face of history and common sense so yeah, I can't believe you're actually arguing this myself.

Provide me with a link to a significant election that was decided by one vote (Note: this is different from your "one vote per precinct" example, for obvious reasons).

No I don't and I never said such. The person stating that there is no value whatsoever in voting and that any value attached to it is irrational and solely related to civic pride, is you.

Holy ****, stop misstating my arguments.

-There is value in voting.
-That value is entirely dependent on the value you place on voting.
-That value is not irrational
-There is effectively zero chance that your vote will every change the outcome of any noteworthy vote.
-The belief that your vote will change the outcome of any noteworthy vote is irrational.

Seriously, if you take a 101 level political theory class, this will be explained to you in full detail.

Sir Loin · Nov 3, 2009

RightinNYC said:
And they pay more attention to journalists, donors, and campaign workers. Period.

Well I know I'm mighty persuaded by that well sourced claim.

RightinNYC said:
No, it's math and logic.

You are back to your Slate Magazine "math" or the NYT "math" because all I see is supposition.

RightinNYC said:
I very much doubt it happens with the regularity you're suggesting, but I don't know why you think that bears on my point. The odds of your individual vote mattering are infinitesimal.

Ah more supposition.

RightinNYC said:
And one vote per precinct is not the same as one vote. Not even close.

Says the same poster who does not "believe" we repeatedly see instances where a city council member, school board trustee, member of the board of supervisors, or a special district member — such as water board or fire district — is elected by one vote. Why you pretend that does not happen is of course entirely predicated upon your needing to win an internet argument. So common sense and the fact it does happen be damned. It don't fit your claim and runs counter to it? Reject it! Real politcal theory 101 stuff huh?

RightinNYC said:
And I think you're making this up without anything to support it. We already see high turnout in presidential year elections, and that doesn't improve our lot any.

That is rich, yeah I "made up" the concept that more voters means more politicians have to address more issues and constituents and that more people vote in the POTUS election than do say local bond issues. Also I hung the moon and created the heavens.

RightinNYC said:
Which has what to do with individual people voting? You keep on missing my point - yes, if 35 million people got together and voted, it would make a difference. The exact same difference as it would if 35,000,001 people got together and voted.

You don't understand why those aren't the same thing. That's not my fault.

Likewise you don't understand my points and reject everything stated and even claim I *made up* pretty commonly well known situations and political realities. That sure ain't my fault

RightinNYC said:
Which is why I pointed out that "[a]lthough your odds increase as the electorate gets smaller and more evenly split, it's still all but a mathematical certainty that you will never sway any election that has more than a few hundred people voting."

Well let me tell you if that were the point of my posts, you would have a point. Instead you choose to keep this argument real limited and refuse to engage the basic truth that a citizen's vote influences far more than just election results. Oh yeah I forgot you said that is not so and added PERIOD. Chuckle. Apparently for the sake of winning a really narrow internet argument. Let me just say you have not persuaded me with your attempts thus far.

RightinNYC said:
No, math is a mathematical fact.

And a Slate op/ed is to a NYT op/ed is to math you say? Bwaa haaa.

RightinNYC said:
Provide me with a link to a significant election that was decided by one vote (Note: this is different from your "one vote per precinct" example, for obvious reasons).

Significant election is it now? And now the focus narrows even more eh? Quite self serving too. Yeah I was way off base about the internet nature of the ever devolving argument you are trying to have with me. We are done here, not wasting any more time reading more of the same.

We will just have to agree to disagree.

Kandahar · Nov 3, 2009

Sir Loin said:
This argument does not address the fundamental fact that politicians pay attention to who votes. Particularity to groups of voters and that politicians by nature ignore those who don't vote as they have no power or voice with a politician. Surely it is not your intention to suggest that this is not the case?

Sure, politicians pay attention to which GROUPS vote, and in what proportion. But your particular vote is meaningless.

Sir Loin said:
There are myriad ways that the outcome of votes matter on both the local and national level. From local bond elections to the POTUS race, the stance that one has no power or voice as a voter, or that a voters voice is valued on the level that a non voters is, is absurd.

It makes perfect sense. If there's an issue that's important to you, why would your congressman care if you personally vote for him so that his vote percentage in the next election is 65.1682% instead of 65.1679%? A better use of your time would be to convince others of the merits of your argument, so that a large group of people floods his office with letters and phone calls. Your individual vote means nothing to the congressman.

Sir Loin said:
There are many real life examples where one vote has made the difference between winning and losing, between enacting a law or bond measure and rejecting it. Especially at the local level. We repeatedly see instances where a city council member, school board trustee, member of the board of supervisors, or a special district member — such as water board or fire district — is elected by one vote.

There are many examples of lottery winners too. But the odds that YOU will win the lottery, or that YOU will participate in one of those elections where you cast the deciding vote are very small (unless you live in a very small town). Besides, do you really feel passionately enough about who represents your community on the water board, to the point where you're going to turn out for every election in the hope that this time you'll cast the deciding vote for member of the water board?

Sir Loin said:
In 1948, President Truman carried Ohio and California by less than one vote per precinct, thereby winning enough electoral votes to give him the presidency. And in 1960, one vote change in each precinct would have defeated John F. Kennedy.

In none of those cases was the election decided by one vote. Unless you're voting in every precinct, your vote still wouldn't have mattered.

Sir Loin said:
Simply put if everyone, or at least the vast majority of Americans voted the vast majority of the time, politicians would be forced to address more issues of concern to more voters.

Why would I necessarily WANT them to address more issues of concern to more voters? What if those surplus voters disagreed with me?

Even if this were true, how does the vast majority of Americans doing something make it worthwhile for me personally to do it?

Sir Loin said:
As an example a very high percentage of senior citizens vote in each election, so elected officials pay greater attention to issues such as modifications in social security legislation. Because people with disabilities don't usually vote in high numbers, politicians are not as interested in their viewpoints. There are more than 35 million voting age persons with disabilities. If people with disabilities voted in the same ratios as other groups did, their influence could change and influence the results of elections. This is what I am talking about with regard to "voice" and voting mattering in our society.

But you don't have direct control over any vote except your own. So voting is still a waste of time. You can talk about how "if everyone voted in greater numbers" or "if everyone thought like you did" but that doesn't change the fact that everyone is NOT doing this. The fallacy here is assuming that if you behave in a certain way, everyone else will follow suit.

Sir Loin said:
You have not presented any math, you presented two opinion articles

I'd be happy to show you the statistical formula that they used in those articles, if you like.

Sir Loin said:
which don't even address the examples I gave above in reference to Truman and Kennedy in a POTUS race. And neither of them even attempts to delve into or addressing anything more than POTUS elections and let me restate that I am talking about *all* elections, not just the POTUS race.

Neither of those elections were decided by a single vote. There has never been a presidential election (or even a state election, to the best of my knowledge) decided by a single vote.

Sir Loin said:
And again you are predicating your argument upon the fallacious argument that the only way your vote matters is in the outcome of an election, which is patently absurd as there are many ancillary outcomes and results based upon your vote.

I don't discount other reasons to vote, such as social acceptance or the warm and fuzzy feeling you get from voting. I normally vote in the even-numbered years for precisely those reasons. But in terms of actually influencing public policy, your vote is meaningless.

Sir Loin · Nov 3, 2009

Kandahar said:
Sure, politicians pay attention to which GROUPS vote, and in what proportion. But your particular vote is meaningless.

It makes perfect sense. If there's an issue that's important to you, why would your congressman care if you personally vote for him so that his vote percentage in the next election is 65.1682% instead of 65.1679%? A better use of your time would be to convince others of the merits of your argument, so that a large group of people floods his office with letters and phone calls. Your individual vote means nothing to the congressman.

There are many examples of lottery winners too. But the odds that YOU will win the lottery, or that YOU will participate in one of those elections where you cast the deciding vote are very small (unless you live in a very small town). Besides, do you really feel passionately enough about who represents your community on the water board, to the point where you're going to turn out for every election in the hope that this time you'll cast the deciding vote for member of the water board?

In none of those cases was the election decided by one vote. Unless you're voting in every precinct, your vote still wouldn't have mattered.

Why would I necessarily WANT them to address more issues of concern to more voters? What if those surplus voters disagreed with me?

Even if this were true, how does the vast majority of Americans doing something make it worthwhile for me personally to do it?

But you don't have direct control over any vote except your own. So voting is still a waste of time. You can talk about how "if everyone voted in greater numbers" or "if everyone thought like you did" but that doesn't change the fact that everyone is NOT doing this. The fallacy here is assuming that if you behave in a certain way, everyone else will follow suit.

I'd be happy to show you the statistical formula that they used in those articles, if you like.

Neither of those elections were decided by a single vote. There has never been a presidential election (or even a state election, to the best of my knowledge) decided by a single vote.

I don't discount other reasons to vote, such as social acceptance or the warm and fuzzy feeling you get from voting. I normally vote in the even-numbered years for precisely those reasons. But in terms of actually influencing public policy, your vote is meaningless.

As with RNYC we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Just another facet of the "your vote does not matter" argument that I happen to agree with:

Dr. Judith Rich: Why Your Vote Matters More Than You Think

"By not participating in the process, not voting, you give up your right to have a say in the matter. That, ultimately, is the premise upon which this country was founded."

Kandahar · Nov 3, 2009

Her argument seems to be broken down into two parts. Let's look at them one at a time, and see if they make logical sense:

In my experience of doing deep, inner work with people all over the world, what I see as the most common, consistent obstacle to living a powerful, creative, and satisfying life is the unconsciously held belief that "I don't matter." It's not that people walk around saying this to themselves. Most people are completely unaware they harbor this belief, but their lives reflect it.

This is quite the hyperbole. It's quite a stretch to conclude that just because someone recognizes the mathematical FACT that their vote doesn't matter, that they don't have any sense of self-worth and are unhappy with their lives. There are plenty of ways you can matter, that have nothing to do with voting. :roll:

If you think your one vote doesn't matter, consider what the outcome would have been if our founding fathers felt that way. We wouldn't be here, for starters. Think of people who have made a difference throughout history. People like Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Edison, Madam Curie, Henry Ford, the Wright brothers, Jonas Salk, Margaret Sanger, Susan B. Anthony, Martin Luther King, Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, Oprah Winfrey. Then there are the ones whose names most of us don't know: the man who stood in front of the tank in Tiananmen Square or the first person who actually picked up a hammer and began to tear down the Berlin Wall.

What's the difference between any one of these people and you or me? Absolutely nothing! Except, these people chose to matter. No one gave them permission. Many of them chose to do so in the face of far more difficult circumstances than most of us encounter in our daily lives.

What she fails to mention is that NOT A SINGLE ONE of those examples she cites influenced the world through their vote. They were political activists, statesmen, and scientists who did a lot more than merely voting for a candidate for political office. That's exactly the point...there are lots of ways you can change the world. Voting is simply not one of them.

Sir Loin · Nov 3, 2009

Kandahar said:
Her argument seems to be broken down into two parts. Let's look at them one at a time, and see if they make logical sense:

This is quite the hyperbole. It's quite a stretch to conclude that just because someone recognizes the mathematical FACT that their vote doesn't matter, that they don't have any sense of self-worth and are unhappy with their lives. There are plenty of ways you can matter, that have nothing to do with voting. :roll:

What she fails to mention is that NOT A SINGLE ONE of those examples she cites influenced the world through their vote. They were political activists, statesmen, and scientists who did a lot more than merely voting for a candidate for political office. That's exactly the point...there are lots of ways you can change the world. Voting is simply not one of them.

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. Opps, silly me, 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?

Did you vote in Nov 2009 elections?

Did you vote in Nov 2009 US elections?

Voted absentee ballot

Voted early voting

Voted on election day at the polls

Skipped b/c lack of knowledge of candidates/issues

Skipped b/c I didn't care

Meant to vote and missed it

I'm not eligible to vote in US elections

Girthless

Girthless

Enemy Combatant

Enemy Combatant

Enemy Combatant

Dispenser of Negativity

Girthless

Enemy Combatant

Enemy Combatant

Girthless

Enemy Combatant

Enemy Combatant