4 ms·

> It seems to me who is president does affect a lot of my life, from abortion, to Supreme Court rules that have majorly affected my life, to war, trade and the

by bamfly 3y ago

> It seems to me who is president does affect a lot of my life, from abortion, to Supreme Court rules that have majorly affected my life, to war, trade and the economy. It does—the problem is the value of a single vote. Odds are very poor—like, single-powerball-ticket-poor—that if you cast a vote for every single presidential election you can in your lifetime, anything about your life or anyone else's will be even slightly different. It's the least effective vote you can cast—yet seems like the only one people go out of their way to shame people over, if they don't vote. The smaller the vote (and, in the special case of presidential elections in the US, the less stupid and disenfranchising the rules) the greater the effect. Even narrowing a close vote by one, if you don't quite put it over the top, can make a difference at the very-local level.

Loquebantur 3y ago
If you don't vote for yourself, somebody else will. Your idea of "value of a single vote" is grotesquely misinformed. You do not vote to "sway the election" with your grandiose opinion. You do so in order to inform society of your position. It's not about "winning over the other side". That's already a ridiculous misrepresentation of society. There is no "other side" to begin with. Yes, the current incarnation of "democracy" is wildly lacking. But the point is to improve on it, not to throw away what countless generations strived to achieve just because it's not perfect yet.
- humanrebar 3y ago
  > You [vote] in order to inform society of your position. Except my position isn't well captured by the available candidates most of the time. Sure, I can write in a candidate, but how do I signal why that candidate is acceptable when the other options aren't?
- bamfly 3y ago
  > Your idea of "value of a single vote" is grotesquely misinformed. Most of my positions on the relative efficacy of various voter behaviors in the US system of government are heavily informed by my having been a poli-sci major in the US, and spending a fair amount of time studying those directly and absorbing expert analyses of them. Admittedly, some of those are unpopular—people love voting for the President (and then ignoring school board, city, and county elections, and not participating in any political parties). shrug
  - Loquebantur 3y ago
    Your idea of being an expert because you majored in a related topic is amusingly misinformed as well. You are kidding yourself. You need to critically look at how politics in real life works. On the level of presidential elections, the US is no "democracy" in any sensible meaning of the word to begin with. But that doesn't mean, votes there would be unimportant. The last few elections should make that exceedingly obvious. In small, local elections, your vote has a more transparent relationship to outcomes. But those outcomes tend to be inconsequential. Presidential elections are quite the opposite really.
    - bamfly 3y ago
      > Your idea of being an expert because you majored in a related topic is amusingly misinformed as well. You are kidding yourself. Never claimed to be an expert. I'm also not "grotesquely misinformed", unless the bar for "merely misinformed, but not grotesquely" is so high that at least 99% of people are "grotesquely misinformed" (which... IDK, maybe, in that case, I guess?). Not an expert, though, and, didn't claim to be. I have no idea why people are taking any of what I've written as "voting for President is bad and you shouldn't do it". I must not have written clearly, yet cannot find what's drawing that reaction anywhere in my posts (but maybe it's there and I'm just not seeing it!). I think I've just written about the best use of limited time & attention: smaller, and earlier in the process, is most effective; and how voter behavior instead reflects polar opposite priorities. Everyone voting in every election would, of course, be ideal (I mean, for me, just certain folks voting in every election would be ideal, but you get what I mean). > In small, local elections, your vote has a more transparent relationship to outcomes. But those outcomes tend to be inconsequential. I'm going to be blunter than I usually am on HN, because you're in dangerously-wrong territory and I'd hate for anyone to run with this outside of HN, for making decisions about voting or political participation: this is super fucking wrong. Local election & initiative outcomes matter a ton. I would encourage anyone who doesn't find themselves seeing, very clearly, why, after a few moments' though, to spend some time over a few days looking at national headlines—not just the one or two top ones, but a bunch each day—and marking down which levels of government are active in or generating each story (yeah, I know, I advised mostly avoiding the news in favor of books, but this is a decent way to do some informal statistical analysis). And that's just what makes national news! Consider which levels of government you interact with most. Which police patrol cruisers do you see most—the FBI? State bureau? Highway patrol? Probably not any of those, and I bet that was an ascending list least- to most-seen (while omitting the ones probably see more than any of those, by a large margin—city & sheriff, say?). School budgets and hiring administrators. Which levels of government are banning books? Very-local, or sometimes state. Who's setting library funding, running the closest 20 parks to where you live, hiring the government officials and setting their policies? Zoning rules? Who's running your utilities, or responsible for collecting your trash? There's so much and it very much matters.

by bamfly 3y ago

Loquebantur 3y ago

If you don't vote for yourself, somebody else will. Your idea of "value of a single vote" is grotesquely misinformed. You do not vote to "sway the election" with your grandiose opinion. You do so in order to inform society of your position. It's not about "winning over the other side". That's already a ridiculous misrepresentation of society. There is no "other side" to begin with. Yes, the current incarnation of "democracy" is wildly lacking. But the point is to improve on it, not to throw away what countless generations strived to achieve just because it's not perfect yet.

humanrebar 3y ago
> You [vote] in order to inform society of your position. Except my position isn't well captured by the available candidates most of the time. Sure, I can write in a candidate, but how do I signal why that candidate is acceptable when the other options aren't?
bamfly 3y ago
> Your idea of "value of a single vote" is grotesquely misinformed. Most of my positions on the relative efficacy of various voter behaviors in the US system of government are heavily informed by my having been a poli-sci major in the US, and spending a fair amount of time studying those directly and absorbing expert analyses of them. Admittedly, some of those are unpopular—people love voting for the President (and then ignoring school board, city, and county elections, and not participating in any political parties). shrug
- Loquebantur 3y ago
  Your idea of being an expert because you majored in a related topic is amusingly misinformed as well. You are kidding yourself. You need to critically look at how politics in real life works. On the level of presidential elections, the US is no "democracy" in any sensible meaning of the word to begin with. But that doesn't mean, votes there would be unimportant. The last few elections should make that exceedingly obvious. In small, local elections, your vote has a more transparent relationship to outcomes. But those outcomes tend to be inconsequential. Presidential elections are quite the opposite really.
  - bamfly 3y ago
    > Your idea of being an expert because you majored in a related topic is amusingly misinformed as well. You are kidding yourself. Never claimed to be an expert. I'm also not "grotesquely misinformed", unless the bar for "merely misinformed, but not grotesquely" is so high that at least 99% of people are "grotesquely misinformed" (which... IDK, maybe, in that case, I guess?). Not an expert, though, and, didn't claim to be. I have no idea why people are taking any of what I've written as "voting for President is bad and you shouldn't do it". I must not have written clearly, yet cannot find what's drawing that reaction anywhere in my posts (but maybe it's there and I'm just not seeing it!). I think I've just written about the best use of limited time & attention: smaller, and earlier in the process, is most effective; and how voter behavior instead reflects polar opposite priorities. Everyone voting in every election would, of course, be ideal (I mean, for me, just certain folks voting in every election would be ideal, but you get what I mean). > In small, local elections, your vote has a more transparent relationship to outcomes. But those outcomes tend to be inconsequential. I'm going to be blunter than I usually am on HN, because you're in dangerously-wrong territory and I'd hate for anyone to run with this outside of HN, for making decisions about voting or political participation: this is super fucking wrong. Local election & initiative outcomes matter a ton. I would encourage anyone who doesn't find themselves seeing, very clearly, why, after a few moments' though, to spend some time over a few days looking at national headlines—not just the one or two top ones, but a bunch each day—and marking down which levels of government are active in or generating each story (yeah, I know, I advised mostly avoiding the news in favor of books, but this is a decent way to do some informal statistical analysis). And that's just what makes national news! Consider which levels of government you interact with most. Which police patrol cruisers do you see most—the FBI? State bureau? Highway patrol? Probably not any of those, and I bet that was an ascending list least- to most-seen (while omitting the ones probably see more than any of those, by a large margin—city & sheriff, say?). School budgets and hiring administrators. Which levels of government are banning books? Very-local, or sometimes state. Who's setting library funding, running the closest 20 parks to where you live, hiring the government officials and setting their policies? Zoning rules? Who's running your utilities, or responsible for collecting your trash? There's so much and it very much matters.