You're not seeing the big picture.

Let's say, on average, you voting (actually, attitude towards voting, but they're very closely related) encourages five people to vote.  That doesn't seem like much, except those five people will each inspire five more.  They'll each inspire five more, so we're already looking at 125 people who now vote who might not have before.

It keeps going, exponentially raising each time, turning into a movement.  In the same way that one random comment online can become a meme, you can influence thousands of people through word of mouth.

Of course, the real world doesn't work this way, partly because of what you do-- by not voting (well, having a bad attitude about voting) you discourage people from voting.  They discourage others, and the result cascades.  When the two waves hit each other, they can cancel out, so it takes another push to start it going one way or another again.

That's why your vote is important.  When you vote, you show you have a positive attitude towards voting, which makes others feel more positive about voting.  That helps beat voter apathy.  Your vote really does matter, just not in the way you think it does.

And who knows?  Sometimes it does matter in that way.  In 2004, the Washington state governor's election was won by 130 votes.  I have more friends than that on Facebook, so if I had posted something on my wall, I could have influenced the election.

I believe you are giving way too much credit to the power of one non-voter.  However, if a massive movement happened where vast numbers of people stopped voting and instead performed other tangible civil actions, like volunteering, I am convinced our world would be a much better place.

In reply to Doulos (msg # 124):

While I certainly won't dispute the benefits of volunteering (in fact, I commend you for your dedicated volunteerism), it really doesn't make for a good argument againt voting. After all, you can volunteer any time you want, whereas voting only comes around once and a while. I would understand if, for some reason, poll days were the only days that you were available to volunteer, but I somehow doubt that this is the case.

I recently moved to a new state, and voted in the last general election. Because I wasn't familiar with any of the candidates, I did a minute amount of reading to familiarize myself with their positions. Then, I drove down and dropped off my ballot. All and all, it took little time at all, but can you really make the argument that one shouldn't vote just because your time might be better served doing something else? If that was true, then, by that logic, you would be required to always act within the best interest of society. I might ask you: why are you here on RPoL, when you could be cleaning up city streets, or serving in a soup kitchen?

For some reason, the notion that society would be better spent by volunteerism rather than a selfish matter, like RPoL (or voting, as you would argue), only seems to really strike a chord with you when it comes time to vote. It sounds more like you are fishing for excuses rather than defending your position.

I mean, I too recognize that I could be out there counseling people about their medications, but I'm here talking to you all here instead. That's a selfish action, don't you think? Wouldn't you think me a hypocrite if, for some reason, I stated that I don't have the time to take someone's kid to school because I need to counsel people on their medications? If voting was important to you, you would surely make time for it. So, your argument should be less about "voting is a waste of my time, since I could be doing better things," and more about, "I don't value the act of voting itself."

Edit:

This sounds less like an argument against voting, and more like an argument against every activity that doesn't involve activities considered to be "tangible" civil actions, or volunteering. However, we're talking about participating in the democratic process; as I demonstrated earlier, your vote matters (even if only in a very, very small amount, depending on the situation).

While we'd both probably agree that the world would be a better place if people watched television for a half hour less, and volunteered a half hour more, it doesn't seem quite fair to equate the act of voting to half of an episode of Law and Order, does it?
This message was last edited by the player at 04:12, Thu 13 Nov 2014.

I can't really think of any more ways to restate my stance on this, so I'll have to let it go I suppose.  This is typically what happens in these conversations - though this has been cordial and respectful, which is always great!

I trust you will all enjoy carrying on as a civilian in our society as you see fit, and I will do the same.  Hopefully there can be some mutual respect towards both voters and non-voters as we make our decisions based on our understanding of the world.

Perhaps, but it was only an illustration, not a fact-based example.  However, the point is that your attitude toward voting really does matter.  In the internet age, you can spread your opinions faster and wider than ever before, so the ability to influence many other people into voting (or not voting) is very real.

And yes, volunteering is a great thing, and a good way to make your voice heard.  However, not everyone can volunteer freely-- I'm disabled, for example, so it's not easy for me to help in many ways.  Another way to vote is with your wallet, although that means rich people have more voice, and poorer people have none.  Voting is a simple and easy way to make your voice heard, and it's balanced in a way that money isn't.

In reply to Grandmaster Cain (msg # 127):

If you believe that is true than you it makes sense to vote. I dont believe that it is anything more than a symbolic action.

Symbolic acts can be quite strong.  Most protests are largely symbolic-- even a large sit-in or boycott won't hurt a major company's profits overly much.  What symbolic things are good at is convincing others to act, even if it's symbolic.  So again, your choosing to vote can and does inspire others to vote.

Doulos, do you feel its something particular about your vote that makes it not matter, or does no ones vote matter?  It seems to me that your argument is that your voting or not voting will not change the outcome of the election.  But that seems like it should be equally true for everyone.  And yet elections do have outcomes.  How could it be that everyone's vote makes no difference, and yet we end up with a result?  Who's vote matter?  Who cast the deciding vote?

Your argument seems to rest on the assumption that voting or not voting makes no difference.  But you need to explain how someone can get elected, if none of the votes had any impact on the result.  How can you add up a bunch of "nothings" and get "something?"  I would argue this disproves the assumption on which your argument rests.  Thoughts?

Let's just assume for one second that voting and picking up trash are equivalent actions... because one person doing either activity on their own can't have much impact.

It is only when significant numbers commit to either action that a noticeable benefit occurs. For Duolos the benefit of one is immediate and obvious (cleaner environment, perhaps), but for those promoting voting encourage it because the people in power represent all the people and even if you vote for the losing side, every side sees how "the voters" went on the issues at hand and adjusts their marketing campaign to suit the majority of voters.

Again, this is all great in some vague theoretical sense, but it doesn't negate the fact that my singular vote, particularly in a federal election, has an astronomically small chance of doing anything.  This is one of those areas in life where I just can't intentionally waste time on an action when it is only symbolic.

I don't really concern myself with the theoretical too much here.  I do admit that you pose an interesting thought experiment, and I don't really have a good answer, but I just sort of shrug and say 'Okay, but so what?'

To make things clear, I think playing video games would also be a good replacement for voting.  Or sleeping.  Or drinking coffee and enjoying the day.  All of those actions provide real enjoyment to my life and voting does not.

If significant numbers vote, does it bring a benefit?  I'm not sure.  What if I am in the minority opinion?  Then it brings a horrible outcome for me.  Voting just shuffles around the deck chairs on the political Titanic - to get a different version of the same corrupt individual into power.  That's a whole other reason not to vote, but it's a real one as well.

And yet, even though this is just as true for everyone else, things still happen due to people voting.  How could that been if voting didn't matter?  You've asserted something ("my vote doesn't impact the outcome") which if true would contradict observations.  That shows the assertion isn't true.

For what it's worth, the more you defend your position, the less sympathetic I've become to it.  When you started the conversation, I was happy to agree that there are legitimate reasons for someone not voting.  And I wasn't really too fussed if someone didn't vote even without a good reason.  But you also seem to be asking for people to respect what you're doing, not just tolerate it.

Your reasons basically boil down to two things:
1.  It's too much effort
2.  voting doesn't have an impact
The first I would argue is called into question by the fact that so many other people manage to pull it off.  And "it's too much effort" isn't all that different from "I'm too lazy."  If you had just said "I'm too lazy," I'd have had a bit more respect for it.  But you keep trying to portray it as something more than just laziness, which sort of rubs me the wrong way a bit.
For the second, we've just shown that it's actually not true.  You say it's just "theoretical," but that's not really a counter.  I don't see it any different from the hypothetical not-paying-for-their-dinner friend I mentioned before.  As far as I can tell "it's just theoretical" is functionally the same as "I can get away with it."  So again, by trying to claim some kind of moral position for what you're doing actually makes me less sympathetic to your position.

If you said "I really just don't care who wins" (similar to what you did in your very last post) I could see that as a totally legit reason not to vote.  But all the stuff you've been arguing through most of the thread just sounds like trying to justify laziness and apathy instead of owning up to it.

It seems like it may be one of those cases where trying to rationalize what others see as a bad habit, you actually end up offending them more than the habit itself does.

Here's another perspective: Doulos, you seem to be saying "My/your vote doesn't count unless it's the one that decides the election".  Which, in addition to being untrue, strikes me as a little arrogant.  The point of voting is to show the will of the people-- it's a collective opinion, so single-vote grandstanding seems to go against that.

You seem to be creating an either/or situation, when the reality is both are true.

Is it true that in mass numbers elections are decided by votes?  Yes.

Is it true that my one singular vote has an almost zero chance of actually determining an election (at least at the federal level).  Yes.

Both are true and one fact does not negate the reality of the other.  How to reconcile those things? No idea.

As for the rest of your post, I guess I should lay out all of the reasons (that I can think of) for not voting.  I don't feel as if you've done a very good job of summing up my position, but I'd say that's my own fault for doing a poor job of clarifying it since we have mostly been focusing on only one aspect of why I don't vote.

1) My vote will not change what will happen - and so the risk (getting hit by a car, slipping on ice on the way to the voting booth etc) is not worth the reward (ie zero) of voting.

2) Becoming informed on the incredible nuances of the political system, and everything that is involved, is a massive job.  There are reasons why entire sections of Universities are devoted to Economics and Political Science.  It's highly complex and superintelligent people can't agree on most of it.  I use to be highly involved in politics, spent a lot of time informing myself on the issues, volunteered with Elections Canada, and the whole ordeal.  And never did I ever feel like I knew enough.

3)  Those being voted in have proven they will rarely do what they say they will do, so informing myself on the issues is a waste of time in many (though not all) cases anyways.

4) Lobby groups have shown themselves to be the real driving factor behind political change as far as I can tell. If I really thought that changing things in certain areas was important I would use my dollars and lobby groups to try and change things.

5) I've discovered that my own happiness in life has zero connection to politics or voting.  Almost all of what I truly care about in life comes from relationships, coffee time, leisure time, fun etc.  I found that I became a much happier and more enjoyable person to be around when I cut out politics from my life.  Does politics have an effect on the other areas of my life that I enjoy? Sure. But far less than most people might assume.

I am sure there are other reasons I am missing, but these are far more than enough for me personally.

I like what one section from an article at reason.org has to say this.

You seem to be hung up on this point.  Refusing to vote because the election does not hang on your one ballot seems rather arrogant to me.  Also, it's incorrect, since every vote determines the election.

Incorrect, as demonstrated earlier.  Just because your vote doesn't determine the election does not mean your vote does not matter.

Many people vote who are not informed on the issues.  If anything else, this means your vote is even more important, since you apparently do.

Also untrue.  According to Polifact, Obama has kept 45% of his promises, and only broken 22%.  The rest are either compromises, or are stalled or otherwise in the works.  So, he's made reasonable efforts on 78% of his promises.  I wouldn't call that "rarely".  The Congressional GOP has a rate of 38% promises kept, 32% broken, for a total of 68% reasonable effort.  That's much lower, but still the majority of the time, so it's not "rarely".

Not as true as you might think.  There have been many elections where special interests poured money into campaigns, only to lose in the election.  In fact, the only way to counter that is when informed people do vote.

There's an old saying by Neimoller: "First, they came for the Jews...."  You can look it up if you like, but the idea is that if you don't speak up and act however you can while problems are small and affect other people, there won't be anyone to speak up and act when problems are big and they come for you.

Call it arrogance if you want, I don't see how it's anything but 100% true.



I disagree.



I'm not concerned with others.  Only myself.



Fair enough.  I incorrectly used the word majority.  They only lie 22% at best.  That's hardly convincing me to waste my time voting for liars.  I mean they only lie about 1/4 of what they say right?



Just my experience with it all.  Your mileage may vary. Of course special interest groups and lobbies will not always get what they want, but they have a lot more power than my 1 in 10 million of a chance of a vote.



While the voters go and vote and feel like they have done a good deed, I'll be standing by actually doing good in this world.  This quote you brought up basically sums up the competely disgusting arrogance of the voting crowd.  Well done.

It's arrogance because you're refusing to vote unless you can single-handedly determine the outcome of the election.  That's rather counter to the whole idea of voting in the first place, right?


Well, first of all, there's a difference between lying and not keeping a promise.  Both are bad, but you're conflating the two.

Second, everybody breaks promises.  I'd wager if we looked over all the promises and commitments you've made over your life, you wouldn't do much better.  Really, I don't think many humans would.


And those who do actual good deeds, plus vote, therefore must be doing significantly more good in the world.  They're not mutually exclusive, you know.

Well, I think the arrogance comes from those who vote and look down on those who do not for very good reasons.

Well, as demonstrated, that's because there is a lot of good reasons to do so.  Voting is an easy, low-effort, way of making your voice heard.  It's also the most equitable.  Refusing to vote is a lot like refusing free food because it's too cold to leave your house.

Oh, wait... is that not what you meant?   =P

I'd say voting is more like being told to head downtown and wait in line for 45 minutes so that you can be offered cardboard cutouts of food that actually don't give you any nutrients ;)

Unfortunately, I think this is the part of your message that is getting through, which is what is putting people off.  Your position seems lazy and selfish because that's the case you're making for yourself (ie: "its too much effort" and "It'd only be worth it if I could decide the entirely election completely on my own.").

The sticking point for me is still this idea that unless you cast "the deciding vote" that your vote "makes no difference" or "doesn't matter."  Voting is a collective action.  No one, single person gets to make the decision.  That's sort of the point of voting, not a flaw.  Your position basically boils down to "I'll only contribute if my vote is the one that counts."  That really doesn't come off well, and expecting/demanding that people respect it comes off even worse.

I also think that if one really thinks only "the" deciding vote matters, then that really inhibits their ability to make moral decisions to a degree.  Who is responsible for driving a species extinct?  Only the person who kills the very last member, or everyone who's killed members?  The whole "I don't care about others, just myself" position ignores that your actions contribute to the final result, even if they don't bring it about all by themselves.  Or think about the litter you clean up.  Who is responsible for the park being full of litter?  Just the person who dropped the first bit of trash?  The person who dropped the last bit?  Or everyone who's dropped stuff there?  Is the 50th person to throw their cig butt on the ground less guilty than the person who threw the 49th or 51st?  Does their action "no matter" or "make no difference" just because the park would still be littered whether they threw it down or not?

The small actions of many can add up to large effects.  Whether you are contributing to that large effect matters, even if your own actions can't/won't bring it about in isolation.  If we don't understand that, we can end up helping make things worse.

Like I said earlier, that you don't vote doesn't really matter all that much to me.  But the reasoning you're showing in arguing your case does bother me, because it's the same kind of thinking that leads to so many of the problems in the world today.  Far too many people think "oh, it's fine if I do X, because I'm just one person," and that leads to far too many people doing X, with all the problems that causes.  We'll never solve many of the worlds problems if everyone only looks at their actions in isolation.

You're misunderstanding the context of that quote.

Obviously I don't have the ability to properly communicate my thoughts here, so I guess I'll just drop it.

Enjoy your voting.  I'm sincerely glad it works for you and allows you to feel connected to your community and to the process of democracy.  It sure doesn't for me (or for the 75% of the population that also didn't vote in this weekend's municipal election in my city).

Obviously the attitudes of voters are not going to become any less negative (if this discussion is any indication) on this issue.  That's unfortunate, but hopefully in time things will change.

And right there's the problem.  If 75% of people aren't voting, how can the will of the people be heard?

Voter apathy is a killer.  It means the election doesn't go to the one the people want, but to the candidate who gets his friends to the polls.

Assuming what you say is true (and I have no reason to doubt you) then if you and that 75% had voted, you could have altered the outcome of the election.  So, voting does make a difference.

The fact that you are using the word apathy means I have either completely failed at relating my position (most lkely) or you are intentionally ignoring my points (far less likely).

Apathy is not the reason I don't vote at all.  I care a great deal about tons of issues but believe voting does nothing to fix those issues.

Admittedly, Voter Apathy is a catchall term.  However, "I don't care because it doesn't matter" is a decent description of apathy, and I believe that's close to your point.

However, the bigger problem is that it's untrue.  You said 75% of the population didn't vote where you are. What that means is, only 25% did vote.  So, if the 75% had voted as a bloc, they could have pushed through anything they wanted, the 25% was simply not big enough.

Now, having both vote as a bloc is unrealistic.  However, most election results have a swing of 20% or less of the vote.  That means swing voters count for a lot more, they're the ones who determine the election.  So, the actual number of votes required to win an election is much smaller.

In other words, you vote *does* matter, because the deciding voter group is much smaller than you think.  Also, even if your side loses, the closeness of an election can send a strong message.