As we approach another election day in the US, I suggest that you vote only if you have a significant chance of skillfully breaking a tie. Otherwise you’d likely do more for your fellow citizens by picking up litter during that time.

If thousands will vote regardless, the odds of you skillfully breaking a tie are slim indeed. When Gallup conducts its polls, it queries less than 4000 people, because the odds of the outcome changing are too small beyond that.* The same applies to your vote.

Politicians will tell you otherwise because they are hoping you will vote for them. Others parrot the politicians without knowing better.

* <small>If after 4000 people weigh in the vote is 50/50, the odds of the outcome changing are 50/50 with each subsequent vote within a small margin of error. 50/50 odds indicates luck not skill. That's approximately the situation that occurred in Florida in 2000.</small>

Well, if everybody follows your advice and assumes their vote won't count, then nobody votes. Exercise your right, people, and vote for the candidate of your choice. Your vote does count. You're part of the sum total.

The odds of nobody voting are even slimmer than the odds that your vote will count.

So don't vote. And don't come on a message board bitching if you don't like the winner.

It’s illogical to attach bitching rights to whether or not one votes. It’s not that I don’t feel any civic responsibility. I do; that’s why I pick up litter instead.

IMO voting for the masses should be banned. Already most don't care to vote anyways, so then why allow them to vote anyways? I think there should be standards that should be applied to the electorate so only people who have informed opinions can vote. I think it is vital that people who don't want to vote because they don't feel it nessecary, should be vindicated by removing those rights. I think that the democratic system as we know it today is a shambles. The election in 2000 proved that the US system is corrupted and makes no sense, when a man get's into office with a million less votes (something is wrong). I know the way the system works sadly, the people who don't vote, will bitch and whine like a whore in labour about the fact they can't vote anymore. I think it is imparitive that elections are taken out of the hands of the many, and into the hands of the few, who can make the informed decision. These informed people don't have to be professors, they can be ordinary citizens. All they have to do is fill out a questionare testing their abilities, and if inferior they should not be allowed to vote. Makes sense to me and some guy named Plato...Democracy= bad.

Originally posted by nico
I think it is vital that people who don't want to vote because they don't feel it nessecary, should be vindicated by removing those rights.

Why is it vital?

The election in 2000 proved that the US system is corrupted and makes no sense, when a man get's into office with a million less votes (something is wrong).

How is the system corrupted when the rules that the majority implicitly agree upon allow the winner to have a million less votes?

I think it is imparitive that elections are taken out of the hands of the many, and into the hands of the few, who can make the informed decision.

The system already works that way. That’s what led to the winner having a million less votes. Ironic eh?

All they have to do is fill out a questionare testing their abilities, and if inferior they should not be allowed to vote.

I doubt the inferior would vote for that.

Why is it vital?

Look at Iraq...you tell me why it is vital.

How is the system corrupted when the rules that the majority implicitly agree upon allow the winner to have a million less votes?

This makes no sense, did you vote for the electoral college?

The system already works that way. That’s what led to the winner having a million less votes. Ironic eh?

The circumstances were totally different and thus a illogical comparison. They (justices) deepened on the electorate to make the over arching decision in Florida. The justices did not vote for the leader what they did is allow the Florida votes to be counted for Bush. In my plan they would vote for the leader.

I doubt the inferior would vote for that.

I agree, that is why this cannot happen in a established democratic society.. Unless there is a seizure of power.

Originally posted by nico
Look at Iraq...you tell me why it is vital.

Nah I don’t feel like guessing. Unless I hear otherwise I’ll assume you can’t articulate why.

This makes no sense, did you vote for the electoral college?

Yes, implicitly. The system is not set in stone; a majority in three-fourths of the states can change it. Inaction is implicitly a vote to keep the system as it is.

The justices did not vote for the leader what they did is allow the Florida votes to be counted for Bush. In my plan they would vote for the leader.

In your plan the justices would vote your way? Scary. I’d rather them vote each their own way.

I agree, that is why this cannot happen in a established democratic society.. Unless there is a seizure of power.

So you like dictatorship with justices voting your way? I’m sorry, your right to vote is hereby revoked.

It’s illogical to attach bitching rights to whether or not one votes.
Why? If you don't care enough to vote, why should you care enough to bitch? Many people who vote do so because this or that candidate has addressed one particular issue that the voter feels passionately about. So I suppose if there are no issues that you feel passionate enough about to vote, and thus don't vote, then there is no issue that you should feel passionately enough about to later bitch about if it is not addressed.

It’s not that I don’t feel any civic responsibility. I do; that’s why I pick up litter instead.
And it would thus be your civic right to bitch if you saw me throwing litter from my car window.;)

Originally posted by Spyke
Why? If you don't care enough to vote, why should you care enough to bitch?

I don’t vote not because I don’t care, but because I do. My choices are between doing something positive with 100% odds (picking up litter), and doing something positive with say .001% odds (voting). I choose the former. Actually, because voting takes resources (paper, gas, etc.), my odds of negatively impacting the planet by voting are (1 - .001%) = 99.999%.

So I suppose if there are no issues that you feel passionate enough about to vote, and thus don't vote, then there is no issue that you should feel passionately enough about to later bitch about if it is not addressed.

How passionate I feel about the issues doesn’t affect the odds of my vote changing the outcome. Hence my decision to vote is better based on the odds rather than my passion.

One issue I feel passionate about is voting. If millions of people picked up litter instead, we’d almost certainly have the same outcome except the country would be a lot cleaner.

Because Bush is a liar, he said he would not in the business of "nation building", that he would not give the US a deficit, that America is safer now then before the war in Iraq... a war he started for no justifiable reason. The War in Iraq has shown the callious attitude of this administration.. if you cannot see this, then surely your right to vote should be forever re-voked.

Yes, implicitly. The system is not set in stone; a majority in three-fourths of the states can change it. Inaction is implicitly a vote to keep the system as it is.


That was not your assertion this was:

How is the system corrupted when the rules that the majority implicitly agree upon allow the winner to have a million less votes?


You said that you (being the majority) decided for the electoral college which you obviously did not. If that is "democracy" then shower me with more lies.

In your plan the justices would vote your way? Scary. I’d rather them vote each their own way.


They have a right to vote whichever way they want, because the vote is informed.

So you like dictatorship with justices voting your way? I’m sorry, your right to vote is hereby revoked.

http://www.gamers-forums.com/smilies/cwm/cwm/freak3.gif whatever you say. See I love the way this makes sense, a dictatorship that votes for leader :bugeye: ...simply amazing.

Spkye

I think you should be happy that this ilk is not voting.

;)

To vote or not to vote. A simple question with a complicated answer.
On the one hand, it is true that if everyone believed that their vote didn't matter then no one would vote and democracy could not function. However, as it is, more than 50% of the population already feel that way and will not vote. That being so, participating and legitimizing an electoral process that is viewed as useless by the majority of the population can be seen as suppoting the status quo regardless of who one votes for.
The way I see it, in a functional democracy voter turnout would always be near 100% because it would be obvious to everyone that the outcome would effect them in a real and direct way and that their vote would potentially make a difference.
If it is possible for people of sound mind to believe that voting doesn't really matter, then something's wrong. If over half the population feels this way, then there is no real democracy.
So, given that there is no real democracy in this country, not voting can be viewed as a form of protest against the pathetic choices that we are given. Rather than striving to get more people to vote, I look forward to a day when voter turnout is so low that the illusion of democracy will crumble and people will come to realize the reality of the system they live in.

On the other hand, especially given the curren administration, there are significant, if insufficient repercussions to the outcome of the vote, so I would say that if your vote will actually matter, that is, if an election is close in your district, and your state could go either way, then vote. Otherwise don't.

Originally posted by nico
The War in Iraq has shown the callious attitude of this administration.. if you cannot see this, then surely your right to vote should be forever re-voked.

I don’t see how this explains why it is vital that people who don't want to vote because they don't feel it necessary should be vindicated by removing those rights. How does my voting affect what happens in Iraq, with more than scant odds?

You said that you (being the majority) decided for the electoral college which you obviously did not. If that is "democracy" then shower me with more lies.

The majority can change the electoral college. Obviously some things about the system were decided before we were born. Democracy doesn’t vanish just because a lifetime passed since a decision was made. Inaction is an implicit decision. It is safe to assume that the majority is satisfied on any changeable issue that they ignore.

[Justices] have a right to vote whichever way they want, because the vote is informed.

You previously said that in your plan they would vote for the leader. Sounds like your plan changed. How was the system corrupt in 2000 if justices have a right to vote whichever way they want, and they did?

You’re directly responsible for what happens in Iraq due to the fact that you voted him into office, in a democracy the blame rests with the nation not the individual. That is reserved for the dictatorships of the world.

Inaction is an implicit decision.

That is true, but your earlier assertion indicated otherwise.

You previously said that in your plan they would vote for the leader.

They being the ppl allowed to vote, not just the justices, I suggest you read what I wrote.

Originally posted by jps
On the one hand, it is true that if everyone believed that their vote didn't matter then no one would vote and democracy could not function.

It is also true that democracy could not function if nobody ran for office. Should we all run for office?

The way I see it, in a functional democracy voter turnout would always be near 100% because it would be obvious to everyone that the outcome would effect them in a real and direct way and that their vote would potentially make a difference.

It potentially makes a significant difference in Tokyo when I fart in New York, but I wouldn’t bet on it.

Suppose by when 10,000 people have voted the result is split 50/50. At that point it is known that if all people voted, the outcome would likely be 50/50 within a tiny margin of error, indicating that subsequent votes are likely a waste of resources (with 50/50 odds and a small error margin, subsequent votes are equivalent to coin flips). If by when 10,000 people have voted the result is split by something other than 50/50, subsequent votes are an even more likely waste of resources.

If it is possible for people of sound mind to believe that voting doesn't really matter, then something's wrong. If over half the population feels this way, then there is no real democracy.

Why?

Rather than striving to get more people to vote, I look forward to a day when voter turnout is so low that the illusion of democracy will crumble and people will come to realize the reality of the system they live in.

Doubtful. If only 10,000 people voted in every election, it is highly likely that the outcome of every election would be the same as if everyone voted.

Originally posted by nico
You’re directly responsible for what happens in Iraq due to the fact that you voted him into office, in a democracy the blame rests with the nation not the individual.

You’re not getting to a point it seems, so let me try: Are you saying that because I’m directly responsible for what happens in Iraq, I should try to change the situation there by voting, despite perhaps a less than 1 in 1 billion chance that my vote will change the outcome of the election?

That is true, but your earlier assertion indicated otherwise.

You say my assertion was:

How is the system corrupted when the rules that the majority implicitly agree upon allow the winner to have a million less votes?

The assertion within this question is that the rules that the majority implicitly agree upon allow the winner to have a million less votes. Which part of this assertion indicates that inaction is not an implicit decision?

They being the ppl allowed to vote, not just the justices, I suggest you read what I wrote.

What you wrote is:

The justices did not vote for the leader what they did is allow the Florida votes to be counted for Bush. In my plan they would vote for the leader.

In this sentence they can refer only to justices. If you meant “in my plan the people allowed to vote would vote for the leader,” how can voters vote for the leader before they know who the leader is, that being determined by the outcome of the same vote?

: Are you saying that because I’m directly responsible for what happens in Iraq, I should try to change the situation there by voting, despite perhaps a less than 1 in 1 billion chance that my vote will change the outcome of the election?


Well voting for a different person or party will not absolve you from the disastrous situation in Iraq, but it would help the country from getting out of the mess it's in. What relevance does your supposed "influence" has? I think rather correctly that the amount of influence you have corresponds to your importance in the country.

In this sentence they can refer only to justices.

Yes the judges along with a multitude of others would vote for leader. Sorry if my semantics were off.

how can voters vote for the leader before they know who the leader is..blah

From here on you miss everything. In my democratic system all it is that vast majority of the un-necessary voters would be denied democratic rights. The one's who truly care about the election should vote; see this in essence is already happening. *Albeit in my system it would be judged on an analytical observation of events* but as jps has already indicated, the US is already run by the minority, making it as well as an oligarchic democracy, and thus democracy in the US is faux. Democracy needs the majority of society to vote in order for it to be considered truly democratic.

Just get out there and vote, OK?

Originally posted by nico
I think rather correctly that the amount of influence you have corresponds to your importance in the country.

When it comes to voting, my importance matches the odds that my vote will affect the outcome.

Democracy needs the majority of society to vote in order for it to be considered truly democratic.

I think democracy can run just fine with 10,000 people voting in every election. In my system the Constitution would be amended so that in each election x people are randomly selected to vote, with the rest encouraged to pick up litter instead. Similar deal with the census. Hundreds of millions of dollars would be freed up for higher priorities and the outcome would otherwise likely be the same. Of course neither of those will fly soon (politics being the art of the possible), so I’ll settle for myself not voting.

I understand where you’re coming from, but just because you perceive your vote to be worth nothing. Doesn’t mean that it is worth nothing. Bush "won" by a couple hundred if not even less votes. The Green Party got 4-5 million votes, those were ignored because of some electoral rules (which I oppose). The reason why so many Americans are apathetic about this system is because it is largely structured incorrectly. The First thing that to be gotten rid of is the electoral college...purpose? Secondly the courts should stay out of election results. What should happen in the US is that instead of voting for president you vote for senator, and congressman, not unlike the British system. But I concede in a nation as large as the US, it would be rather a large task. But it would make more sense, and the debacle in Florida would never happen again. Limited democracy is the best option; I just think that the people who deserve it should vote. Not some 10,000 ignorant strangers... I fear the thought.

Due to gerrymandering, 90 percent plus seats of the congress are guaranteed wins by either the Republicans or Democrats. Look at what DeLay is doing in Texas. Why vote when the voting districts are adjusted by the political party in power to guarantee that one party will win?

Gerrymandering and campaign financing are killing democracy in America. Maybe not killing...may be dead already.

So step up and initiate change.
Not voting is aquiesing to defeat.

:m: Peace.

I don’t vote not because I don’t care, but because I do. My choices are between doing something positive with 100% odds (picking up litter), and doing something positive with say .001% odds (voting).

Why is that a choice? Are you saying you can only perform one or the other civic act? Can you chew gum and pick up litter at the same time?:D

I choose the former. Actually, because voting takes resources (paper, gas, etc.), my odds of negatively impacting the planet by voting are (1 - .001%) = 99.999%.

So, you're an environmentalist then? Seems voting for stricter litter laws might go further than the individual effort of picking up litter.

How passionate I feel about the issues doesn’t affect the odds of my vote changing the outcome. Hence my decision to vote is better based on the odds rather than my passion.

But if others agree passionately enough about the same cause as you, and you band together as a voting bloc, your vote can make a difference. If you encourage others that their vote will be wasted, your voting bloc is weakened.

One issue I feel passionate about is voting. If millions of people picked up litter instead, we’d almost certainly have the same outcome except the country would be a lot cleaner

That must be a real conundrum for you. Because you won't vote, you can't make your voice heard to eliminate the voting process.

One issue I feel passionate about is voting. If millions of people picked up litter instead, we’d almost certainly have the same outcome except the country would be a lot cleaner

Nope nope. What if that million all voted for the same guy? The election would come out different. Your vote does count when you add it to the pile.

What good fortune for those in power that people do not think.

- Adolf Hitler

Originally posted by nico
I understand where you’re coming from, but just because you perceive your vote to be worth nothing. Doesn’t mean that it is worth nothing.

Not nothing, but very little. Like redeeming a coupon for its cash value of 1/20 cent.

Bush "won" by a couple hundred if not even less votes.

Those votes were equivalent to coin flips as I described above. Each voter that steps up to the ballot box effectively flips the coin.

The First thing that to be gotten rid of is the electoral college...purpose?

I think a strong case could be made for that.

Secondly the courts should stay out of election results.

As the arbiters of the Constitution that defines elections at the highest levels, it would be difficult to change their role.

Not nothing, but very little. Like redeeming a coupon for its cash value of 1/20 cent.


Would you vote in a direct democracy?

Those votes were equivalent to coin flips as I described above. Each voter that steps up to the ballot box effectively flips the coin.


That doesn’t negate the simple fact that those votes counted.

As the arbiters of the Constitution that defines elections at the highest levels, it would be difficult to change their role.

Yes, but the problem I perceive is that they could pervert the election results... oh like in...2000.

Originally posted by Spyke
Why is that a choice? Are you saying you can only perform one or the other civic act?

It’s hard to vote while you’re picking up litter. I can’t pick up as much litter then. Every piece picked up has more value to society than my vote, on average.

So, you're an environmentalist then? Seems voting for stricter litter laws might go further than the individual effort of picking up litter.

When environmental laws come up for vote, my odds of changing the outcome are close to none after 10,000 people have voted. It is true that there are probably things I could do other than pick up litter that help the environment more, but voting likely isn’t one of them.

But if others agree passionately enough about the same cause as you, and you band together as a voting bloc, your vote can make a difference. If you encourage others that their vote will be wasted, your voting bloc is weakened.

If you are persuasive to a large group of people, encouraging others to vote a certain way, or discouraging others from voting provided you know how they are predisposed to vote may significantly change the outcome. If you don't know how they were predisposed then discouraging them from voting affects the outcome randomly; on average it doesn't affect the outcome.

You could claim that sciforums has a higher percentage of environmentalists than the general population and that I’m discouraging large numbers of them from voting. Doubtful.

That must be a real conundrum for you. Because you won't vote, you can't make your voice heard to eliminate the voting process.

I can make my voice heard without voting, as I'm doing now. Just discouraging random people from voting is enough of an outlet for my passion. Hopefully they will tell others and a century from now only 10,000 people or so will vote in each election.

Originally posted by nico
Would you vote in a direct democracy?

Direct or no, I’d vote only where I had a significant chance of skillfully breaking a tie. The odds would need to be greater than 1 in 10,000.

That doesn’t negate the simple fact that those votes counted.

Yes, but the odds of any of them skillfully breaking a tie were still close to nil. If the counting had stopped at 10,000 or 100,000 or 500,000 votes, either Bush or Gore would have won with almost perfect 50/50 odds. The voters after the 10,000th voter changed those odds very little.

Suppose you know in advance that the whole population is split exactly 50/50 on Gore/Bush. Every pair of voters cancels each other out on average. Should you stay home? Yes, because for every Gore voter that stays home, on average a Bush voter stays home. The tally will be close to 50/50 as long as several thousand people vote, and you can be confident they will. At any given moment during the election the odds of either having the highest tally at that moment will be 50/50. Your vote will not have a skillful effect on the outcome. If you vote for Gore and it turns out that Gore wins by 1 vote, you'll be happy. But it remains true that during the election your best choice was to stay home.

It’s hard to vote while you’re picking up litter. I can’t pick up as much litter then. Every piece picked up has more value to society than my vote, on average.

Then by all means don't vote and continue picking up litter. I'm certain Americans will continue to keep you busy and content.;)

Originally posted by zanket

It potentially makes a significant difference in Tokyo when I fart in New York, but I wouldn’t bet on it.

Suppose by when 10,000 people have voted the result is split 50/50. At that point it is known that if all people voted, the outcome would likely be 50/50 within a tiny margin of error, indicating that subsequent votes are likely a waste of resources (with 50/50 odds and a small error margin, subsequent votes are equivalent to coin flips). If by when 10,000 people have voted the result is split by something other than 50/50, subsequent votes are an even more likely waste of resources.
Yeah, I know what you're saying. Its interesting and all, but is it true of all elections or only presidential elections? Does it always hold true or is it just a general rule? I certainly remember elections that initially seemed to be going one way that switched halfway through the count. If the initial 10000 is a perfect cross section of society then I can see it being pretty much always true, but not otherwise.

Originally posted by zanket
Why?
Well, the way I see it, given that very few people don't have some problem with the government, the fact that they don't vote indicates that they dont' think it is an effective way of enacting change.



Originally posted by zanket
Doubtful. If only 10,000 people voted in every election, it is highly likely that the outcome of every election would be the same as if everyone voted.
Not really. Again, it would depend on who these 10,000 people were. Either way, it would send a clear message that people don't feel voting does any good.

Then tell me please, what governmental system would satisfy you because you obviously don't care for democracy. :D :D

Originally posted by jps
Yeah, I know what you're saying. Its interesting and all, but is it true of all elections or only presidential elections? Does it always hold true or is it just a general rule?

It’s true of all elections. Even the census.

I certainly remember elections that initially seemed to be going one way that switched halfway through the count. If the initial 10000 is a perfect cross section of society then I can see it being pretty much always true, but not otherwise.

The initial 10,000 is not a perfect cross section. It’s just extremely close. Let’s say it costs $1 million to tally 10,000 votes in a nationwide election, and $1 billion to tally 50 million votes (entire voting population). We could save $999 million if we’d accept the very small risk that the 10,000 votes would yield a different outcome than the 50 million votes. If the entire population is split 55/45, the risk is millions to one against the 10,000 voters choosing the “45” candidate (in a presidential election it might happen only once every 10 million years). Given that the “45” candidate is still preferred by 45% of the entire voting population, (45/50) = 90% of a majority still gets its way.

If the entire population is split almost 50/50, 99.999% or so of the majority still gets its way with 10,000 votes tallied when the entire population voting would have yielded the other outcome.

The bottom line is that 10,000 randomly selected people do represent the entire population within a small margin of error on any issue. If people accepted this, a lot of money could be saved that could go toward addressing the problems that voters are hoping their candidate will find a way to fix, who otherwise might not have the money to fix.

Keep in mind too that Congress--the result of our elections wherein every vote is supposedly precious--does not itself tally every possible vote on every issue they address. They make laws that have a major impact on everyone, yet 5 or so reps might be absent on any given day. Are they lazy? No, they just know the power of statistics. If the vote isn’t expected to be close to 50/50, the risk of their absence changing the outcome is acceptable.

Not really. Again, it would depend on who these 10,000 people were. Either way, it would send a clear message that people don't feel voting does any good.

Or it could send the clear message that people have become more logical and choose to save the $999 million in return for a miniscule risk that 99.999% rather than 100% of the majority is satisfied. Analogy: I think the country is better with lawyers than without (some voters is good), but if everyone was a lawyer that would be bad (everyone voting is not as good).

Originally posted by nico
Then tell me please, what governmental system would satisfy you because you obviously don't care for democracy. :D :D

What I’ve suggested in this thread is an improvement to democracy. Here’s a favorite quote of mine:

By ex-US president John Adams
I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. My sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history, naval architecture, navigation, commerce and agriculture in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and porcelain.

Should none of us study politics or war? No, some should, and some doubtless will. But thanks to John Adams’ generation, people have more choices now. Not everyone needs to study politics and vote.

Just got back home from voting: I was the last in the door, panting, a lady asked "which ward?" and I panicked (usually I vote with my snifficant-other) but they, in a flurry of bureaucratic genius, looked up my name, signed me in, and let me into the reverse-oracle in the last 2 minutes of less-than-holy and less-than-frequent communion.

Was I an informed voter in this local election? No. Does this matter? No.

Vote the bastards out, and if they won't count our votes,..

Kill them. Bwahaha.