3 ms·

You seem to think voting is about electing people you like, as opposed to correctly predicting a candidate that will cause the policy changes you favor. If you

by mlthoughts2018 8y ago

You seem to think voting is about electing people you like, as opposed to correctly predicting a candidate that will cause the policy changes you favor. If you think of voting as a selfish act, like “expressing yourself” regardless of whether your point of view is factually wrong, then I agree with you. Projecting your (possibly ignorant, possibly harmful) opinion would be unilaterally preferred. But if you view voting as a civic responsibility, where you have an implicit duty to fellow citizens, then it’s different. For whichever subjective policy beliefs and values you have, there would be a social responsibility to use your vote as a signal of a highly confident prediction that the indicated candidate will bring about the policy reform you target. If you are not knowledgeable about those policy topics, how they work, or how they relate to the candidate in question, then your uncertainty in your prediction about the candidate might be so high that you cannot reliably distinguish between candidates, and your vote signal drags down the overall chance for informed people to coordinate. One problem though is that the least informed people are also often the most likely to coordinate into a singular voting bloc, and the most likely to be manipulated by ad spending or populism. People who are smart enough to know that they are ignorant about a given election might therefore abstain, leaving a small population of voting experts vs. a large population of idiots who refuse to acknowledge that their opinion is ignorant.

gowld 8y ago
There's nothing wrong with finding someone whose judgment you trust and voting for their favored candidate. If the majority of the population is to dumb to make good choices, the problem isn't that the voters are bad voters, the problem is that the state is a failed state.
- mlthoughts2018 8y ago
  Why do you think I would feel there is something wrong with it? There is a failure mode where someone uses others’ willingness to trust their vote advice as a manipulation tactic, but in my original comment I suggested the idea of vote copying as a positive strategy in the case when you feel ignorant but don’t want to abstain. > “If the majority of the population is to dumb to make good choices, the problem isn't that the voters are bad voters, the problem is that the state is a failed state.” I agree, but that does not imply the ignorant people, who were failed by the state, should project that ignorance into voting rather than abstaining.
mikeash 8y ago
“You seem to think voting is about electing people you like, as opposed to correctly predicting a candidate that will cause the policy changes you favor.” Where do you get that idea? I certainly don’t think that and I can’t see anything in my comment that would even remotely hint at it.
- mlthoughts2018 8y ago
  I think literally your entire comment is specifically making that point.
  - mikeash 8y ago
    How? My entire point was that you need to cast a vote if you want elected officials to care about your opinions. I said nothing whatsoever about how to choose who to vote for, only that voting itself is key.
    - mlthoughts2018 8y ago
      > “Vote for Mickey Mouse if you can’t stand an actual human, but you need to get on the record as having shown up if you want any sort of voice.” You very clearly are saying that “having your voice heard” matters more than using your vote to correctly predict a candidate who will cause your desired change. Since you say it’s never reasonable to abstain from voting (i.e. not even if someone is ignorant of the facts), this directly means your comment explicitly endorses “having your voice heard” above “voting accurately.” It’s all right there in your comment. There’s no question of interpretation. It was just the single, direct statement you made.
      - mikeash 8y ago
        You seem to have completely misunderstood my comment. In a democracy, elected officials respond to the voting public. If you stay home, there’s no chance they’ll do what you want them to do, unless by coincidence. If you show up to vote, they will account for that and your desires will influence policy. I said nothing at all about who to vote for or how to choose that. You can’t infer the relative importance of that from what I said. I may have an opinion on that, but you can’t possibly know what it is from what I’ve said here.

gowld 8y ago

There's nothing wrong with finding someone whose judgment you trust and voting for their favored candidate. If the majority of the population is to dumb to make good choices, the problem isn't that the voters are bad voters, the problem is that the state is a failed state.

mlthoughts2018 8y ago
Why do you think I would feel there is something wrong with it? There is a failure mode where someone uses others’ willingness to trust their vote advice as a manipulation tactic, but in my original comment I suggested the idea of vote copying as a positive strategy in the case when you feel ignorant but don’t want to abstain. > “If the majority of the population is to dumb to make good choices, the problem isn't that the voters are bad voters, the problem is that the state is a failed state.” I agree, but that does not imply the ignorant people, who were failed by the state, should project that ignorance into voting rather than abstaining.

mikeash 8y ago

“You seem to think voting is about electing people you like, as opposed to correctly predicting a candidate that will cause the policy changes you favor.” Where do you get that idea? I certainly don’t think that and I can’t see anything in my comment that would even remotely hint at it.

mlthoughts2018 8y ago
I think literally your entire comment is specifically making that point.
- mikeash 8y ago
  How? My entire point was that you need to cast a vote if you want elected officials to care about your opinions. I said nothing whatsoever about how to choose who to vote for, only that voting itself is key.
  - mlthoughts2018 8y ago
    > “Vote for Mickey Mouse if you can’t stand an actual human, but you need to get on the record as having shown up if you want any sort of voice.” You very clearly are saying that “having your voice heard” matters more than using your vote to correctly predict a candidate who will cause your desired change. Since you say it’s never reasonable to abstain from voting (i.e. not even if someone is ignorant of the facts), this directly means your comment explicitly endorses “having your voice heard” above “voting accurately.” It’s all right there in your comment. There’s no question of interpretation. It was just the single, direct statement you made.
    - mikeash 8y ago
      You seem to have completely misunderstood my comment. In a democracy, elected officials respond to the voting public. If you stay home, there’s no chance they’ll do what you want them to do, unless by coincidence. If you show up to vote, they will account for that and your desires will influence policy. I said nothing at all about who to vote for or how to choose that. You can’t infer the relative importance of that from what I said. I may have an opinion on that, but you can’t possibly know what it is from what I’ve said here.