3 ms·

>> It's the same logic young people use to justify not voting What's wrong with not voting? If you're a regular person, it takes a lot of time and energy and y

>> It's the same logic young people use to justify not voting What's wrong with not voting? If you're a regular person, it takes a lot of time and energy and you get nothing out of it. One vote never made a difference. I don't buy the argument that "If everyone thought like that, then it would make a terrible difference"... This statement is bullshit because the premise is false to begin with; most people will not think like that because most people are sheep and will vote for whoever the media tells them to vote for. The people who buy the rhetoric that their vote makes a difference are the same people who buy all the bullshit propagated by the political media. If someone is suggestible enough to accept the premise that one vote out of hundreds of million makes a difference, then surely these people are also easily influenced by other kind of media. It's very far fetched. If you're a thinker, then your vote can never compete against the masses who just follow the media.

reaperducer 8y ago
One vote never made a difference. ...is the sort of thing said by people who don't watch the news and because of that are unaware of the number of manual re-counts that are done each election.
- jondubois 8y ago
  Getting an accurate count is not the issue; that's part of the show. The issue is that you only have one single vote out of hundreds of millions and the pool of candidates is ridiculously, ridiculously limited. In a fair system with over 300 million potential candidates, how likely would it be that a father and his son would both be elected as president (as was the case for George Bush junior/senior)? What about the Clintons? When we factor in the empirical evidence, how can we still think that one vote out of hundreds of millions make any difference at all?
  - reaperducer 8y ago
    how likely would it be that a father and his son would both be elected as president If all 300 million people lived identical lives and had identical histories, then the chances are about one in 300 million. In the real world, people who take specific life paths, get specific degrees, and acquire specific skills are more likely than others to end up in a particular place. Especially when the other 299,999,999 people get to weigh in on the decision. Just as not every one of those 300 million people has an equal chance of becoming a database administrator at Google, and not every one of those 300 million people has an equal chance of becoming a barista.
  - snowwrestler 8y ago
    Are you familiar with the personal history of Bill Clinton? Needless to say, his dad was not president. I once looked up the personal histories of U.S. presidents. It was about 50% candidates who came from well-connected families (like both Bushes or FDR), and about 50% candidates who rose from seemingly humble beginnings (like Clinton, Truman, Eisenhower). It crosses party lines; both Carter and Reagan had humble beginnings. Have you run for office yourself? You might feel differently about votes if you did. The field of candidates is only limited at the end. At the beginning, as you point out, it could be anyone. And logically, a high volume of votes can't disprove the value of a single vote. If a single vote did not have any value, neither would a high volume of such votes! But if a million votes are worth something, then each vote must be worth something too.
pookeh 8y ago
> If you're a regular person, it takes a lot of time and energy and you get nothing out of it. One vote never made a difference. Except when you start preaching that idea, then you are part of the masses that think that way, and hence the minority of people who do vote, and who do not represent the majority opinion, are the ones that influence the outcome.
- jondubois 8y ago
  I'd rather be part of the masses who think rationally. If it were up to me, the system would look very different but it's not. I have 0 influence. The best I can do for myself is leave the country if it gets bad. If everyone thought like me, then society would churn through governments like toilet paper and life would be better for people like me who only stand to benefit from change.
  - InitialLastName 8y ago
    If you don't think it can change for the worse, I'd like to point you towards some properly failed states.

reaperducer 8y ago

One vote never made a difference. ...is the sort of thing said by people who don't watch the news and because of that are unaware of the number of manual re-counts that are done each election.

jondubois 8y ago
Getting an accurate count is not the issue; that's part of the show. The issue is that you only have one single vote out of hundreds of millions and the pool of candidates is ridiculously, ridiculously limited. In a fair system with over 300 million potential candidates, how likely would it be that a father and his son would both be elected as president (as was the case for George Bush junior/senior)? What about the Clintons? When we factor in the empirical evidence, how can we still think that one vote out of hundreds of millions make any difference at all?
- reaperducer 8y ago
  how likely would it be that a father and his son would both be elected as president If all 300 million people lived identical lives and had identical histories, then the chances are about one in 300 million. In the real world, people who take specific life paths, get specific degrees, and acquire specific skills are more likely than others to end up in a particular place. Especially when the other 299,999,999 people get to weigh in on the decision. Just as not every one of those 300 million people has an equal chance of becoming a database administrator at Google, and not every one of those 300 million people has an equal chance of becoming a barista.
- snowwrestler 8y ago
  Are you familiar with the personal history of Bill Clinton? Needless to say, his dad was not president. I once looked up the personal histories of U.S. presidents. It was about 50% candidates who came from well-connected families (like both Bushes or FDR), and about 50% candidates who rose from seemingly humble beginnings (like Clinton, Truman, Eisenhower). It crosses party lines; both Carter and Reagan had humble beginnings. Have you run for office yourself? You might feel differently about votes if you did. The field of candidates is only limited at the end. At the beginning, as you point out, it could be anyone. And logically, a high volume of votes can't disprove the value of a single vote. If a single vote did not have any value, neither would a high volume of such votes! But if a million votes are worth something, then each vote must be worth something too.

pookeh 8y ago

> If you're a regular person, it takes a lot of time and energy and you get nothing out of it. One vote never made a difference. Except when you start preaching that idea, then you are part of the masses that think that way, and hence the minority of people who do vote, and who do not represent the majority opinion, are the ones that influence the outcome.

jondubois 8y ago
I'd rather be part of the masses who think rationally. If it were up to me, the system would look very different but it's not. I have 0 influence. The best I can do for myself is leave the country if it gets bad. If everyone thought like me, then society would churn through governments like toilet paper and life would be better for people like me who only stand to benefit from change.
- InitialLastName 8y ago
  If you don't think it can change for the worse, I'd like to point you towards some properly failed states.