Voting is pointless

Jon

Administrator
Staff member
#1
Is there no point in going to the polling booth to vote for your Prime Minister or Presidential candidate? Are you are fooling yourself if you think your one vote will make any difference? A statistician has argued that you are more likely to die in a road traffic accident driving to the voting booth than alter the outcome of the election.

This topic is highly emotive, as I have found from previous discussions on the subject. Everybody loses rationality!
 

The_Doc_Man

Founding Member
#2
In situations of low voter turn-out, it is actually a really good idea to vote because in that case, your seemingly small vote increases in effectiveness.
 

Insane_AI

Founding Member
#3
My $.02: If you have the right to vote, do so or at least keep your trap shut on politics. If you don't want to participate, fine. Then don't participate.
 

Jon

Administrator
Staff member
#4
Doc, one retort I have received is, "If everybody thought that way, then nobody would vote." My reply is, "If everybody thought that way, then I would vote as it would then have some 'weight.'"

I would argue, however, that in elections, even low voter turnout makes the chances of your vote having much impact to still be negligible. If instead it was a vote for who goes to the supreme court and it is nearly 50:50, then as a senator, I would vote. Alarming note: I am not a senator! Nobody would vote for me to be one. How ironic!
 

The_Doc_Man

Founding Member
#5
@AI: I have to agree.

@Jon: American humorist Mark Twain is quoted to have said "But in this country we have one great privilege which they don't have in other countries. When a thing gets to be absolutely unbearable the people can rise up and throw it off. That's the finest asset we've got -- the ballot box."

President Franklin D Roosevelt is quoted as saying: "Nobody will ever deprive the American people of the right to vote except the American people themselves and the only way they could do this is by not voting."

Keith Ellison said: "Not voting is not a protest. It is a surrender."
 

Jon

Administrator
Staff member
#6
Because of the very emotive nature of this argument, there are a lot of surrounding factors brought into it, such as, "We died for the right to vote." "It is your responsibility and civic duty to vote." And so on. I've heard them all! Including the "You get the government you deserve." But that is really just an ad hominem attack against you rather than having any merit in logic, since your vote has nearly zero influence on the government that comes into force. How do you deserve what you have no influence over?

The many biases we have on this prevent logical reasoning on the matter, in my view. So let us strip the labels out and instead talk about bets. Some people like to do the lottery and some don't. In either case, the odds of winning the jackpot are tiny and in the long run most people lose. I do not hear emotive arguments complaining about not doing the lottery, yet it amounts to the same as voting in elections, where the jackpot is having your single vote altering the outcome of the election. In fact, because I have the courage of my convictions, I am voting Labour in the UK at the next election, even though I am a Conservative. :p

Regarding keeping quiet about politics if you don't vote, I don't see how that is relevant. If you enjoy discussing politics, why does not doing a futile thing (voting) mean you shouldn't talk about it? In fact I would argue that your individual vote has a net negative effect on the world. You contribute to congestion, global warming if traveling by car, risk of accident, consuming resources and so on.

This is not to say I do not believe voting is a bad thing. We need it. Please don't confuse what I am saying with what you think I am saying. My argument is simply that your personal vote does nothing. You are kidding yourself if you think it is. It is a paradox of sorts. Take some time out to think about it. If you disagree with me, tell me how many elections you have changed the outcome of in your lifetime. If you don't want to answer that, tell me how many elections in the UK, USA, France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Australia, South Africa, Holland, Sweden, Norway, Switzerland, Finland or Portugal have been changed by one vote in the last 100 years? Maybe therein lies your answer.

American humorist Mark Twain is quoted to have said "But in this country we have one great privilege which they don't have in other countries. When a thing gets to be absolutely unbearable the people can rise up and throw it off. That's the finest asset we've got -- the ballot box."
Yes I agree, when the people rise up to vote against it, that is a good thing.

Keith Ellison said: "Not voting is not a protest. It is a surrender."
If an individual doesn't do something that doesn't have any material impact, it is not a surrender. Keith Ellison is only right if he is referring to groups of people voting, not an individual. Once again, it is a paradox.

President Franklin D Roosevelt is right to say what he is saying, not because an individual's vote does anything, but rather that persuading a collection of individuals is more likely to have an effect, and that is the task of politicians.

There is a lot of motivated reasoning behind this issue where people are not prepared to think of the logical ramifications that one vote actually has. It has become an ideology that your one vote counts, because everybody perpetuates the myth again and again. Consequently, rational analysis of this by most seems very difficult. If no one wants to do the math on it, what does experience say? I think the real world is on my side with this one.

P.S. Don't shoot the messenger!
 
Last edited:

Bee

Founding Member
#7
And I'm about to quote from Cloud Atlas again:

Person 1: "No matter what you do it will never amount to anything but a single drop in a limitless ocean."
Person 2: "What is an ocean but a multitude of drops?”

I understand the logic, Jon. And happily note your voting intention. And you are right, it is very emotive because it underpins something which is at the heart of our society - democracy. Yes, people have died so that others could vote. And because of that very fact most people will not be able to disassociate the logic from the action of voting.

2018 is only the 100th anniversary of some women getting the vote. From 1918–1928, women could vote at 30 if they owned property, or as graduates of UK universities, while men could vote at 21 with no qualification. From 1928 women had equal suffrage with men (that's in the UK).

In the US, before the ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment in 1920, individual states had passed legislation that allowed women to vote in different types of elections; some only allowed women to vote in school or municipal elections, some required that women owned property if they wanted to vote, and some territories extended full suffrage to women, only to take it away once they became states. Although legally entitled to vote, black women were effectively denied voting rights in numerous Southern states until 1965. I was born in 1968. Almost in my lifetime, some women were denied the right to vote in the most developed nation in the first world. NINETEEN SIXTY-FIVE. I'll just let that sink in a bit.

There is no way I will ever not use my vote. If it makes a difference, great. If it doesn't, at least I feel I've put my mark where my opinions are.
 

Jon

Administrator
Staff member
#8
Person 1: "No matter what you do it will never amount to anything but a single drop in a limitless ocean."
Person 2: "What is an ocean but a multitude of drops?”
I love those quotes. :)
 

The_Doc_Man

Founding Member
#9
Jon, I'll toss a negative-logic bomb at you (figuratively of course).

On the day that someone gets elected and you viscerally loathe and despise that person, and the vote turns out to have hinged on ONE VOTE of difference, and you had chosen to abstain... how absolutely horrible would you feel? Now multiply that by 10,000 disaffected voters, easy to find in most states.

Some years ago, the state of Louisiana's race for governor devolved into a two-horse race - Edwin Edwards and David Duke. Edwards was a known crooked politician and shyster of the highest order. Duke was a former "Grand Dragon" (a high-level leader) of the Ku Klux Klan, an avowed racist, and not noted for having an equal rights orientation for women, gays, and various non-Christian religious groups. The candidate who SHOULD have been running came in third by a slim margin and thus was out of the picture for the runoff. A lot of people questioned whether they could, in clear conscience, vote for either one. However, I had no trouble pulling the Edwards lever. First, trust the crook you know rather than the crook you do not. Second, I wasn't really voting FOR Edwards. I was really voting AGAINST Duke.

I should also note that in the recent USA presidential elections, I had a similar dilemma. Again, though I pulled the lever next to Trump, I was actually voting AGAINST Clinton. When you look at the Duke/Edwards and Trump/Clinton elections, sometimes the vote leaves you spitting out the foul taste of the vote. But if you don't vote, our system punishes you by giving you what you didn't want.
 

Jon

Administrator
Staff member
#10
On the day that someone gets elected and you viscerally loathe and despise that person, and the vote turns out to have hinged on ONE VOTE of difference, and you had chosen to abstain... how absolutely horrible would you feel?
Doc, I like inversion to see things from a different perspective. There are a few comments I will make. Firstly, while it is possible, it is very unlikely to happen, like winning the lottery. Secondly, there is an opportunity cost to you voting, time taken, costs getting there and so on. Third, risk of car accident getting there. I could say, how would you feel if your family were in a bad car accident on the way to the voting booth?

So a mini sub-argument... If you believe the "how absolutely horrible would you feel" argument is a valid reason to vote, then consider this. Statisticians have calculated the risk of death by car accident is greater than the chance of one vote tipping the election. This means that what you are effectively saying is you are preferring reducing the risk of the "wrong" president over the greater risk of family death (which of course I know you don't actually believe). Given you value your family above the choice of president, there is a conundrum there. They are in conflict. I hoped my argument made sense, a bit poorly worded!

I was actually voting AGAINST Clinton.
Having watched A LOT of US politics during the election period, I was amazed Hilliary didn't go to prison!

But if you don't vote, our system punishes you by giving you what you didn't want.
I dispute this for reasons already stated.

Edit: I would like to add, the only reason to vote is because you enjoy it. I understand and agree with that perfectly. Just don't think it will make any difference!

I would argue that you spend that voting time doing something useful and charitable. It will have a net plus rather than a net minus.
 
Last edited:

Insane_AI

Founding Member
#11
Jon,
Another part of the equation that you may be missing, and this is likely to upset a few people but I'm going here anyway.

When it comes to participating in US Politics, we have four active methods to correct our government.
1. Vote
2. Petition your representative.
3. Sue in court
4. 2nd amendment - k**l them when civil recourse has failed. [Mod edit: Google has policies that say they negatively rank promotion this action, so **]

I choose the first two as they are the most effective, given my means. The last is just that, the last resort but still an option on the table.
 

Jon

Administrator
Staff member
#12
Don't worry about upsetting people AI, I know my post did!

I do know that there is a bit of a sueing culture in the US. But like all things US, they tend to filter over to the UK soon after.
 

Bee

Founding Member
#13
You say soon after, but really, we aren't anywhere near as litigious as the US and they've been at it for decades.
 

Bee

Founding Member
#15
I don't have the data to compare. Is there more ambulance-chasing? Yes. But that's arisen from the personal injury legislation, not from the USA's lead.

Are there more threats to sue? Unsure. I receive threats from people who wish to sue the Council on a semi-regular basis (maybe 6-10 times a year). But 98% never do; it's an empty threat. (Edited: actually, I've never had to defend an action to sue).

And there are matters that can no longer be pursued in court, such as breach of promise. That one kept the courts busy a few decades ago.
 

Jon

Administrator
Staff member
#16
I think much of US culture filters through to the UK. Look at political correctness. I hope for God's sake we don't have the madness happening in the US right now, especially on college campuses. But sadly, I think it has already taken a foothold.

Maybe we have something we can filter to the US from the UK? On the schools Sports Day at the end of the year, there are no winners anymore. So if you come last, it doesn't matter. :oops: Does this happen in the US?
 

Bee

Founding Member
#17
What makes you think Political Correctness started in the US? Isn't the way in which the UK is dealing with PC a direct result of our own equality legislation, that began with the Sex Discrimination Act (1975) and which has morphed into the all-inclusive Equality Act 2010?
 

Jon

Administrator
Staff member
#18
I would argue that if it was the result of our own Acts in the UK, rather than outside influence, then it seems "magical" that most other Western countries are following suit at the same time. Remarkable! :D
 

Jon

Administrator
Staff member
#20
I think when you rub up against other cultures, you bleed aspects of it into your own country. Look at the multicultural UK for example, where curry is the most popular food! Since the US is the most dominant culture, and in particular with the number of US movies/box sets we watch, we suck from the teet of the Big Apple!
 
Top