> one vote has occasionally made a difference in much smaller, local races. The good news with this kind of thinking is that it gives more weight to the people

> one vote has occasionally made a difference in much smaller, local races. The good news with this kind of thinking is that it gives more weight to the people who do vote. Where you are right is that in the US two-party system, both sides seem to feel free to push their luck to whichever degree they feel will give them a 50% chance of winning by a 1% margin. Or something. As long as the two parties are okay with (roughly) winning the presidency 50% of the time, THEN yes the voters' influence is negated. Party A might have had a strong lead, but feels free to take this as an indication that they can push harder in "their" direction bringing the odds back to 50/50. In this case, "your" vote has been purposefully reduced back to randomness. And yet even in this case, not voting simply gives more weight to the other side. One doesn't prevent the other.