3 ms·

Can you really say that voting has made things better?

afterburner 16y ago
Way to correlate! I have to say, this type of attitude makes me suspicious. One of the parties in US elections gains a lot by discouraging people in general not to vote, because it tilts the results in their favour. This might not apply to you, but I always wonder if these kinds of comments aren't just in support of that strategy.
- randallsquared 16y ago
  One of the parties in US elections gains a lot by discouraging people in general not to vote, because it tilts the results in their favour. This implies that you believe that the other party (from whichever one you were thinking of) would always win if voting were mandatory. This seems like a result of interacting almost entirely with those of the party you favor, like people in 2004 who asserted that since no one they knew had voted for Bush, he must have won by fraud.
  - afterburner 16y ago
    From bad correlation to a false conclusion and a straw man argument. You're a pro. There is plenty of room in the setup of US elections for one party to have an advantage when turnout is low but still have varied results from year to year and region to region even when voting is mandated. But more importantly, even when you can get 60% of the popular vote in a 100% turnout election, lower turnout can still increase this percentage if the low turnout meant proportionally more of the winning party voters turned out, resulting in more than 60% majority.
    - randallsquared 16y ago
      if the low turnout meant proportionally more of the winning party voters turned out But you did say "people in general", not "people likely to vote for party X", so your statement only makes sense if you think people in general vote for party X, which is the same as saying that party X would certainly win if everyone voted. Maybe you misstated what you really meant to say, but I think the inference from what you actually did say was reasonable. I almost didn't read any further when you began accusing me of making up straw men and being a professional (troll, I assume?). That certainly was a neat trick. :)
      - afterburner 16y ago
        Blanket discouragements against voting will not have the same effect on different groups, especially if the favoured group received more directed encouragement separately. The whole bit you wrote about Bush and fraud and hanging only with your own was the straw man. I can see how maybe my initial statement was incomplete, but this stuff is not exactly news in US politics.
pjscott 16y ago
Hold on. What happened to your original claim that, by not voting, you were sending a stronger signal of your libertarian views than you would by showing up and voting for libertarian candidates? Did you concede that point, or are you still holding onto it, or what? Please pardon me if this seems obsessive-compulsive, but there's an interesting pathological form of "debate" where someone keeps throwing arguments out, ignoring any refutations, then declares victory. Of course I'm not accusing you of this -- such an accusation would be very flimsy -- but it's always something to watch out for.
- jswinghammer 16y ago
  Not sure I conceded it at all. I think that voting is futile and a waste of time. I also think that not voting communicates dissatisfaction with the current regime.
  - lmkg 16y ago
    Not voting communicates acceptance of the current regime. Voting for third-party/write-in candidates communicates dissatisfaction with the current regime, as it is a (symbolic) attempt to change it.
    - Semiapies 16y ago
      The belief that an attempt that cannot work and somehow creates an effect through symbolism is a belief in magic.
      - andymorris 16y ago
        As is believing that politicians would interpret a low voter turnout as anything but a net gain - it just means they can expend less effort required to shift the balance in their favour.
        Semiapies 16y ago
        "Politicians" collectively win no matter what. Particular politicians and interest groups have varying strategies for high and low voter turnout and various vote compositions. I fail to see what is magical about not bothering to make a move when they win either way.

Way to correlate! I have to say, this type of attitude makes me suspicious. One of the parties in US elections gains a lot by discouraging people in general not to vote, because it tilts the results in their favour. This might not apply to you, but I always wonder if these kinds of comments aren't just in support of that strategy.

randallsquared 16y ago
One of the parties in US elections gains a lot by discouraging people in general not to vote, because it tilts the results in their favour. This implies that you believe that the other party (from whichever one you were thinking of) would always win if voting were mandatory. This seems like a result of interacting almost entirely with those of the party you favor, like people in 2004 who asserted that since no one they knew had voted for Bush, he must have won by fraud.
- afterburner 16y ago
  From bad correlation to a false conclusion and a straw man argument. You're a pro. There is plenty of room in the setup of US elections for one party to have an advantage when turnout is low but still have varied results from year to year and region to region even when voting is mandated. But more importantly, even when you can get 60% of the popular vote in a 100% turnout election, lower turnout can still increase this percentage if the low turnout meant proportionally more of the winning party voters turned out, resulting in more than 60% majority.
  - randallsquared 16y ago
    if the low turnout meant proportionally more of the winning party voters turned out But you did say "people in general", not "people likely to vote for party X", so your statement only makes sense if you think people in general vote for party X, which is the same as saying that party X would certainly win if everyone voted. Maybe you misstated what you really meant to say, but I think the inference from what you actually did say was reasonable. I almost didn't read any further when you began accusing me of making up straw men and being a professional (troll, I assume?). That certainly was a neat trick. :)
    - afterburner 16y ago
      Blanket discouragements against voting will not have the same effect on different groups, especially if the favoured group received more directed encouragement separately. The whole bit you wrote about Bush and fraud and hanging only with your own was the straw man. I can see how maybe my initial statement was incomplete, but this stuff is not exactly news in US politics.

pjscott 16y ago

Hold on. What happened to your original claim that, by not voting, you were sending a stronger signal of your libertarian views than you would by showing up and voting for libertarian candidates? Did you concede that point, or are you still holding onto it, or what? Please pardon me if this seems obsessive-compulsive, but there's an interesting pathological form of "debate" where someone keeps throwing arguments out, ignoring any refutations, then declares victory. Of course I'm not accusing you of this -- such an accusation would be very flimsy -- but it's always something to watch out for.

jswinghammer 16y ago
Not sure I conceded it at all. I think that voting is futile and a waste of time. I also think that not voting communicates dissatisfaction with the current regime.
- lmkg 16y ago
  Not voting communicates acceptance of the current regime. Voting for third-party/write-in candidates communicates dissatisfaction with the current regime, as it is a (symbolic) attempt to change it.
  - Semiapies 16y ago
    The belief that an attempt that cannot work and somehow creates an effect through symbolism is a belief in magic.
    - andymorris 16y ago
      As is believing that politicians would interpret a low voter turnout as anything but a net gain - it just means they can expend less effort required to shift the balance in their favour.
      - Semiapies 16y ago
        "Politicians" collectively win no matter what. Particular politicians and interest groups have varying strategies for high and low voter turnout and various vote compositions. I fail to see what is magical about not bothering to make a move when they win either way.