That's not really the argument I'm making.  The argument is that if nearly everyone didn't vote (as you're doing), there would be negative consequences (e.g., the crazy people who voted for themselves would get in, politicians would be completely unaccountable (even more so than they are now), etc.).  Those consequences won't occur if just you don't vote.  But they would if lots and lots of people acted the same way and didn't vote.  So somebody needs to put in some effort to make sure that those unwanted things don't happen.  Your "it makes no difference if I vote or not" is only true to the extent that everyone else doesn't suddenly agree with you and stop voting.  Your action is only viable (in the sense that you can do it without incurring the negative consequences) so long as everyone else doesn't do it.  And it's that fact that makes it problematic.  You're counting on other people not acting like you do, and that's where the morality becomes questionable.

It's not a case of saying "let's assume it's right to vote, therefore it's wrong to not vote."  Rather it's saying "what would happen if everyone didn't vote?  If the answer to that is something unacceptable, then no individual should be not voting, because doing so is free-loading off others."  If an action is morally right, then it should be the case that it's fine if everyone does it.  You shouldn't have a problem if everyone starts doing what's right.  So if you do have a problem if everyone takes action X, then it's probably not the case that X is "the right thing to do."  It's a way to find out IF an action is moral, not an argument from assumption that it is.

Put another way, "I like it and I can get away with it," isn't actually a good argument that something is moral.

$0.35 and 10 minutes is not worth it for me for an action I deem useless though.  Any time at all is too much.  It just isn't worth it.

Now, as to the importance of being educated about things, that's up for debate as well.  I find my life to be fuller and far more on task when I can replace that time with time spent enjoying coffee with a friend, or posting here at RPoL.  I just don't see much value is knowing the vast majority of things that people claim are important to know.

At such time when something suddenly becomes important (for example up north here, maybe it's important to start becoming aware about work camps and the effect they have on the local economy and infrastructure), I can then do the research, and if I decide I really need to change something, become involved with a lobby group that will actually bring about change (because that's where the real power lies as far as I can tell - in financially backed lobby groups).

I get it that these issues seem really important to people.  How my Edmonton Oilers perform on a Saturday night game is also really important to me.  In my view poltics and voting is a hobby, and some people take their hobby really seriously.  I don't.

I gotcha now. I agree, this is a strong theoretical argument.  Not really a practical one in my books.

Hmm, I guess I'm not sure what you mean by that.  I hope it's not a "yeah, that makes sense, but it'd be inconvenient for me, so I'm going to ignore it" argument?

Perhaps illustrating it with a different example would useful?  Say you have a friend who invites you to dinner out, and tells you that "this is my favorite restaurant!  I always get free food here, it's great!"
"Free food?" you ask, "how do you get free food?"
"well, they've got this policy, where if you're not happy with your meal, you don't have to pay.  So i just eat, tell them I'm not happy with it, and I get it free!  It's great!"
"Oh...isn't that, like, stealing or something?"
"Nah, it's there own policy.  It's their fault for having it if they don't want me to eat for free.  Besides this place does really good business.  A few free meals isn't going to hurt them."
"But, you you're not actually unhappy with the meals?  I mean, you eat them all, and say it's your favorite place to eat."
"yeah, yeah, you just have to tell them you're unhappy with it.  You don't actually have to be unhappy for real.  I mean, how are they going to know, anyway, right?"

This is a situation where I assume we both agree that the friend is acting unethically.  But they keep getting away with it, the restaurant seems to be doing fine, and the friend really likes doing it and considers it fine.  How would you go about convince them that what they're doing is wrong in a "practical" rather than "theoretical" way?

There is real and tangible damage being done in that situation.  The store now makes less money since I am eating more of their food and not paying for it.

There is (and never will be, it is all theoretical) no damage being done when I don't vote as an individual.  Yes, if everyone stopped voting there would be some bad stuff that could potentially happen.  But that will never happen, so it's not a real thing that can occur.  Furthermore, there is also a net benefit to society when I replace that action with other things.  The two situations are not comparable.

In reply to Doulos (msg # 102):

"But" the friend says, "there's no damage done here!  Look!  The restaurant is doing great business!  They're not going broke!  Look at all the customers here that pay!  They're not going to miss a few bucks from me now and then!  There is no harm at all!  Everyone is doing fine!  Also, I spend the money I save here on other stuff, so the economy benefits!  Everyone wins!  Sure, if everyone stopped paying it'd be a problem, but that's never going to happen.  It's not a real thing that could occur."

This seems like the same situation to me.  By saying "look, nothing changes if I vote or don't vote so it's okay" you're doing the same as the friend he they say "look, nothing changes if I pay or don't pay, so it's okay!"  In each case, the fact is that something is different when you do or don't pay/vote, but it's small enough to be unnoticed.  Just because the "big stuff" doesn't change (ie, the restaurant doesn't go out of business, and your vote doesn't decide the whole election), doesn't mean that there is no difference at all.

You say the tangible difference is that the restaurant makes less money.  What if the friend says "well, people who get a warm fuzzy from a restaurant making money are free to pay for their food.  But I just don't get anything out of them making money, so that doesn't do it or me.  I don't share the assumption that them making more money is necessarily a good thing."  Is there a counter argument to that?

The difference is that one is tangible and real and the other is theoretical.

There is real money coming out of the pocket of the restaurant when I take extra food.

Where is the real damage being done when I don't vote?  I'm not seeing it.

"But" says the friend "there is no tangible damage being done here.  Who cares if you take a tiny amount of money out of the pocket of the restaurant?  Why is it better for them to have the money than me?  Where is the real damage being done? I just don't see it."

To answer your question, the real damage is that when fewer people participate in voting, the message is sent that the population doesn't care what the representatives do.  It sends a message of apathy, and that leads to bad (or worse) behavior on the part of the representatives because they don't think people are paying attention, and wouldn't do anything about it even if they were.

Sure, your individual vote isn't going to change a politicians behavior from great to horrible.  But your friend's free meal isn't going to bankrupt the restaurant either.  Each is just a tiny action amongst many, many other actions that drown out its individual impact.  To the company, having $20 less at the end of the month is lost in the noise.  And to the politician, one less voter gets lost in the noise.  But those actions contribute to the state of things, and they add up.  Moreover, they influence other decision makers (ie, voters and restaurant-goers), and nudge them to do the same thing, which multiplies the impact of the action a bit.  If enough people start doing it, things get really bad.  So both you as a voter, and your friend as a restaurant-mooch, are depending on other people to not do what you do to make your actions viable.  It's banking on other people doing the less-fun task, so that you can get the benefits of doing the more fun thing.

If the restaurant idea doesn't do it for you, consider a small country deciding whether to curb its carbon emissions.  On it's own, it can't stop climate change.  So why should it do anything about it, when it'll hurt its economy to do so?

Or if that doesn't work, how about hunting endangered species?  Any individual hunter might only kill one or two animals a year.  That, by itself, isn't going to kill off the species.  Why should they stop, when their action has only a tiny impact on the population?

Or cutting down parts of the rainforest?  Any individual slash-and-burn farmer is only cutting down a few acres of a vast, vast forest.  The world wouldn't even notice whether he cut it down or not.  Why should he not cut it down, when his action alone wouldn't have any noticable impact on the overall amount of rainforest?

The answer to all these is that individual actions add up.  Just because one person doing X doesn't make a significant difference, don't assume that many people doing that doesn't make a big difference.

You're just one person, your individual vote wont' change the election result.  But if all the people who thought the same thing went out and voted it would have a huge impact.  You can't control other people, you can only control yourself.  You're like a little country considering what to do about climate change, or a single hunter wondering if he should shoot that tiger, or a farmer next to the rainforest considering whether or not to chop down more rainforest.  In isolation, your decision doesn't matter.  But the sum total of all those like you matter a great deal.

Put another way, if you only look at the effect of your actions weighed up against the effect of everyone else's actions, you'll always be able to justify whatever you do as making no real difference.  And that lets you convince yourself that almost any action is okay.  That's why we need "theoretical" reasoning about things like this.  To help us make decisions that have a tiny, but non-zero, impact on the world.  It helps us see which "team" to play on, even when the teams are so large it seems like it makes no difference which we pick.

Is it actually possible for enough people to ask for free food from a restaurant to start doing damage to the restaurant owners?  I would argue yes.

Is it actually possible for enough countries to cut carbon emissions to start making a difference? I would argue yes.

Is it actually possible for enough people to stop cutting down rainforest to actually make a difference?  I would argue yes.

Is it actually possible for enough people to stop hunting edangered specias to actually make a difference?  I would argue yes.

Is it actually possible for enough people to stop voting to actually make a difference?  This is where the real question lies.  If you can answer yes to this, then I'm willing to admit that there might be a case for voting (of course this is assuming this is the only reason not to vote - which as we've decided, it isn't).

I'm really not interested in theoretical thought games that have no bearing on reality.  Voting is such an ingrained social behaviour that I find it almost impossible to imagine a real scenario in which enough people would stop doing so to cause elected officials to feel like they can now officially ignore voters.



This is a really good point, and if not voting does actually lead to this then perhaps there is a case for voting. I'm not convinced this is true, though it would be extremely difficult to try and test.

Somehow you'd need to track elected official's behaviour and attitudes and chart it against the percentage of eligible voters as it went up or down.

If anything I wonder if the opposite is true.  In my city there is a municipal election going on.  Last municipal election there was a voter turnout of about 23% of the eligible population.  In discussing this issue with someone who is very involved in the local political scene he mentioned how important the current candidates felt it was to really impress the few number of voters that were actually expected to turn up for this year's election - since each individual vote, in their mind, held more value.  So, while I don't buy that line of thinking from a statistical standpoint, in the minds of those running for office, they actually feel even more pressure to do what is needed to get elected. Does that carry forward to similar behaviours after they are elected?  I am unsure.

In short, I've yet to see any tangible thing that will change if I don't vote, except that I now have more time to improve my community in other actual tangible ways.
This message was last edited by the player at 16:43, Tue 11 Nov 2014.

In reply to Doulos (msg # 106):

I guess my reply to that is that in the last EU rep election here in scotland ended up with a UKIP representative because so few people bothered to vote.  UKIP is pretty unpopular in scotland, but managed to convince their supporters to get out and vote, while everyone else stayed at home.  UKIP got 10% of the vote, in an election with only about 30% turnout. So by everyone else being apathetic about it, UKIP (which is an anti-EU party) managed to get a seat at the EU representing a country where they're very unpopular.

People being apathetic about voting leads to them getting representatives they don't want.  This happens.  It's not just theory.

Interesting situation. I'm going to look into it!

EDIT:  I have some interesting thoughts on this.  Perhaps later today!
This message was last edited by the player at 17:17, Tue 11 Nov 2014.

Democracy is not the best way to go in most cases.  It allows those without much knowledge to vote on issues that could affect many lives.  A democracy means there is no law except that which is voted on by a majority of the populace.  That would be a scary society indeed.

A representative democracy or republic is much preferred.  People vote for their representative leaders, who then bear the responsibility of gaining all the knowledge needed to vote for their contingencies' best interests while staying within the confines of the law.

First, it has been assumed that voter apathy is to be "blamed" on this vote. That's not clear from the articles.  It could have been that those who did not vote would have strengthened the outcome, it's tough to say.

Second, who is to say that this is a bad outcome?  How do we know that this isn't exactly what is best for Scotland?  The theory behind voting is that if I don't, the entire system will fall apart, not that some other third party will get elected.

Third, one single vote would have done nothing to change the outcome, so I still am unconvinced.

I would like to put forth that if all those non-voters volunteered 30 minutes of their time during the election to do something of real value for their country, that they could have done some massive good.

Just to state the final point on this.  The issue is rather self explanatory.  If you do not participate in something that you have the right to participate, you should not complain about the results.  That is a self evident rule.  Can you complain? Yes.  Does it seem awkward to the rest of society? For the most part, yes.  I simply do not see the argument in favor of not voting.  Why is better not to vote at all?

For example, if you don't help bake the pie that someone gives you to eat, you shouldn't complain about what its ingredients are.

These are rules that you made up, sorry, but I don't agree at all.  When the entire system is broken, and you choose to remove yourself from the system, it's completely appropriate to complain about the outcome of that system (when someone who is elected does an extremely poor job).

Let's assume you are stranded on an island with 9 other people.  A system is devised whereby everyone will vote on whether to punch themselves in the face, or punch themselves in the stomach.  Regardless of whether you choose to participate in the vote, you will also be punched in one of the two places.

All 9 of the others cast their vote, but you decide to spend the time that they spent voting, instead looking for a way off the island.  After the vote everyone gets punched in the voted upon area and it hurts - a LOT!

Under this scenario you are basically the only one who has a right to complain, because you knew that both options were poor, and you were the only one who knew this and decided not to take part in that action, instead doing your best to find another way to improve the situation.  All of those who did vote are the ones who look silly for complaining, given that both options were bad.

Now, take this scenario and increase the numbers to 1,000,000 people.  Not only are both options bad in their own way, but the odds of your vote actually influencing things are next to none.  It's absurd to even take part in te whole process and absurd for those who vote to complain when things are crappy in the end.  Only those of us wise enough to opt out of the situation have maintained the right to complain.

Now you have my view on why I don't vote, and why complaining (which I don't bother with anyways), is really only the right of those who don't vote.
This message was last edited by the player at 00:30, Wed 12 Nov 2014.

In reply to Doulos (msg # 112):

Doesn't your viewpoint assume that somehow withdrawing from the system makes a difference? That, by refusing to participate, you somehow aren't responsible for the problems that the system creates in your absence? Further, that if enough people agreed with you, and withdrew from the system (i.e., refused to vote) as well, that the system itself would be more open to fundamental change (such that you'd be willing to participate/vote)?

I think this is more of a question of "responsibility" rather than "right;" it's silly to ask if one has the "right to complain" about something because everyone has the "right" to complain about anything. The real question we should be asking is if voting makes someone responsible for the outcome of the system, even if the outcome is the undesired one (the one you didn't vote for), and if, conversely, not voting completely removes responsibility for what happens.

Correct me if I'm wrong, D., but it seems to me that, in your viewpoint, because one does not vote, and "opts out" of the system, their hands are clean of whatever the system decides to do.

Imagine we have a voter pool of 4 individuals (A, B, C, & D), to vote on an issue with 2 possible outcomes: one beneficial to society (in favor), and one not beneficial, or selfish (in opposition). In this example, all one needs is a simple majority, or else the proposition fails. Let's say that A votes in favor, and B votes in opposition. If C votes in opposition, the vote is tied 1:2 against the proposition that would benefit society.

Now, if D decided to not vote, the negative outcome for society occurs, whereas if D voted in favor, D could prevent the negative outcome. I think you'd have a hard time convincing anyone that if D neglected to act, that D would not be somehow responsible (i.e., the cause of) for what happened; after all, it was in D's power to make a difference (in this case, D was the deciding factor).

What does this mean for our real world voting? It demonstrates that one's responsibility is tied to the difference that one's vote makes. In a voter pool of 100,000, one's vote counts for only a very small fraction of the pool as a whole, so one's individual responsibility is also very small. However, the responsibility remains; by refusing to vote, one is still responsible (even if in a very small way) for the system's outcome. One cannot wash one's hands completely of culpability simply by neglecting to participate, for to not vote costs a vote for the option that would have been more favorable.
This message was last edited by the player at 06:29, Wed 12 Nov 2014.

Sure, that makes some sense.  I'll gladly take responsibility for the infitisimal amount by not voting, particularly since I am replacing that time with tangible actions (such as cleaning up our local school playground).

In the end, I become more convinced every election that voting is a symbolic action that feels good and gives people the sense that are contributing to the democratic process.  That's not a bad thing, but it does nothing for me personally.  I teach my kids that real world actions are far more important, and lead by example - by cleaning parks instead. In my mind I am raising more effective civilians in our world.  However, should the decide that they also want to vote to feel a part of society, that's fine as well.

The initial question that started all of this is whether non-voters have the right to complain.  I say yes, and that they have more of a right than voters.  Others say no.

The real answer is that both sides should probably replace the time spent complaining on something more constructive.

I'm a little surprised this took the turn it did.

Low voter turnout DOES have a major impact. It's pretty well documented, and you can find it in any google search. This is especially true in the midterms. The people with the highest showing at midterm elections are older, especially retired people, who by and large vote for the exact same candidate they did last time. People below 40 have very poor showing, and below 25 barely appear at all. What is the result? Well, you get the same people in office that you had last year, and continue to have a congress with a 10% approval rating.

There are certainly specific instances as well. Established candidates especially want to *reduce* the number of voters overall, because of the rule I mentioned above. We saw this in the Bush/McCain primary elections of 2000, where McCain was considered the new guy, and far more moderate than Bush. But Bush pulled him into a media sniping war. Voter frustration rose, turn-out was low, Bush swept it, even though he had a lower popular vote than McCain. Obama beat Bush specifically because he managed to push it the other direction, by motivating people to vote who otherwise would not.

In general, low-voting turnout is also a major contributor to Republicans winning races: http://www.cincinnati.com/stor...p-election/18557257/ Even though democrats seem to be more popular, and certainly have more money, they don't get as many people into voting booths. As a consequence, they lose.

Let's assume that's true.  My response is so what?  If I vote in a year where there is low turnout my vote won't matter.  If I vote in a year where there is high voter turnout my vote won't matter.  Only if I vote in a perfectly impossible situation, where the vote is decided by one vote, will my vote matter.

Not quite true. One of the factors that influence voter turnout is other people voting.  Via word of mouth, people who don't vote influence others to not vote; so if there's a large group of people who feel like their vote doesn't matter, they convince many others that their vote doesn't matter.

Don't think of your vote as needing to be the only deciding factor.  Think of your vote as one stone in an avalanche.  By itself, it may not do much, but it can make other stones start falling.

That's still quite theoretical.  Picking garbage isn't.

When the best responses to why I should vote include arguments such as 'see your vote like a rock in an avalanche' you can see why it might be difficult to take voting seriously ;)
This message was last edited by the player at 20:51, Wed 12 Nov 2014.

It's not my best analogy, but: voter apathy is one of the biggest reasons for low voter turnout.  And quite often, that's fueled by the "my vote never matters" attitude.  The more people who believe their vote matters, the more people who actually vote, and that does make a difference.

Well their vote (as an individual) doesn't matter, so it turns out they are right.

You guys can throw all sorts of theoreticals out there, but the truth is one single person's vote doesn't matter.

This isn't a theoretical.  If you vote, you inspire others to vote too.  In the same vein thinking your vote doesn't matter discourages others from voting.

Just because your single vote isn't the deciding factor doesn't mean your vote doesn't matter.

Right, but the number of voters who vote does not change the outcome of my vote mattering (by important amounts).  Unless of course the number of voters who actually vote drops to absurdly low numbers like 1.

So, if its true that my voting or not-voting encourages/discourages others to do likewise (not sure to what degree this is actually true), then all it does it move that total number of voters around a bit, but doesn't increase the actual value of my one single vote by any sort of important amount.

For example, let's say my not-voting encourages 50 other people in my community to do the same.  In the local municipal election there will be about 1200 votes.

So the value of my vote goes from 1/1200, up to 1/1150 - still astronomically small chances of that one vote actually mattering since those 1150 votes would have to split down the middle exactly 575 to 575, with my 1 vote being the swing vote.

My one act of not voting may drop the total numbers by 0.05% (which is having an awful lot of faith in the influence I have in not voting), but the actual effectiveness of my one single vote has not gone up by that same amount because of the way elections work.