6 ms·

Remind HN: Vote

118 points by DanielBMarkham 14y ago

Okay my fellow American hacker knuckleheads. As citizens we are not supposed to do a lot of things, but being an informed voter is one of them. I know that Erlang innards is way more interesting than the usual partisan nonsense that goes on, and I know that as smart folks you've probably already realized that your vote, especially in places overwhelmingly one-party, won't decide anything. None of that matters. Voting is a civic duty. It's a rite. It's a shared ritual. It's not a game where we're trying to get our way. It's an shared obligation where we all agree that this is the way to make decisions instead of guns and clubs in the street. So no matter who you like or dislike, get out and vote. Please. We need you.

thebigrace 14y ago
Agree 100%. Even if your vote doesn't matter, spend a tiny portion of your day to be counted.
- rwmj 14y ago
  The corollary is that even "wasted" votes (eg. for no-hoper third party candidates) matter. Mainstream politicians take those into account and adjust their policies accordingly. They do this because those votes for third parties dilute their own voting base, and they want to avoid splitting off even fractions of their own constituency. Examples from the UK: - The Conservatives are desperate to take on policies from UKIP and even the BNP, even though those two parties have no chance of gaining real power. - The Green party has 1 MP and next to no chance everywhere else, but they have (or had, until the recession) a huge influence on politics.
  - martswite 14y ago
    > - The Conservatives are desperate to take on policies from UKIP and even the BNP, even though those two parties have no chance of gaining real power. Just out of interest which policies are you talking about?
    - rwmj 14y ago
      Limits on immigration. Extreme antipathy towards Europe (eg. the recent budget argument). More in this article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19661190 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19661190
  - thisone 14y ago
    The US has no third party that is anywhere near as viable as even UKIP or the BNP.
    - antidoh 14y ago
      That may change, if the two parties continue to do nothing but spit at each other.
mariusz79 14y ago
It's a privilege not a duty.
- yuchi 14y ago
  Actually that's not right. Your rights are given by your duties. I don't think democracy is the best political solution, but it's practically the best we can hope for. But as far as we live in one, we must expose our opinion and vote. It's the only thing left. When you vote you are part of the society, you cast your decision with your co-citizens. PS: I'm italian, we lost our faith in democracy a lot ago.
  - mariusz79 14y ago
    Even when you don't vote you are part of the society. In addition you should consider that not actively voting is also a form of voting.
gabemart 14y ago
I find the "motivation to vote" problem a really interesting one from an economics perspective. The marginal effect of one vote in a federal election is statistically indistinguishable from zero. How do you motivate rational agents to undertake an action with nonzero costs for zero marginal benefit? In real life, the reasons for voting are soft and squishy, and millions of people vote, so this problem does not immediately seem serious. But I wonder, if you imagine a hypothetical system where every person acted purely rationally, how could you create a political system where voting made sense on a personal level, rather than out of some nebulous sense of civic duty? The most obvious answer is to make voting compulsory as Australia does. I wonder if there are any other solutions?
- jellicle 14y ago
  I have suggested a one-in-a-million chance to win one million dollars. Voters would receive a voting stub that was also a sweepstakes entry. Just take the number of voters, divide by a million, round up, and award that many $1 million prizes. The cost of running an election is perhaps in the $2/voter range, so this would increase costs by 50%. Publicizing the names of the winners - "Bob Smith won $1 million - for voting!" - would go a long way toward increasing voter turnout, I expect.
tjaerv 14y ago
Democracy is the worship of jackals by jackasses. -- H. L. Mencken
jacques_chester 14y ago
If it was a duty, then voting would be compulsory (as it is here in Australia). Edit: obligatory-link-to-blogger-I-host -- http://skepticlawyer.com.au/2012/11/06/the-dynamics-of-division/ http://skepticlawyer.com.au/2012/11/06/the-dynamics-of-divis...
- mseebach2 14y ago
  "Duty" can refer to a moral obligation which I'm pretty sure is the sense DBM referred to.
  - jacques_chester 14y ago
    Lots of moral obligations are also subjects of legislation, because it can empirically confirmed that some people won't act morally without sanction.
    - mseebach2 14y ago
      Yes? And there are plenty of immoral laws. Morality and legality often intersects but neither implies the other. FWIW, I consider compulsory voting an immoral law, even though I generally consider voting a moral obligation. A democratic government derives its legitimacy from the people, as opposed to god (theocracy) or heritage (heritable monarchy). Voting is the means by which the people reaffirm the legitimacy of the political system that is in charge. When the very same political system compels the people to vote, ie. give it legitimacy, the value of the act of voting is watered down.
      - jacques_chester 14y ago
        Many people feel that compulsory voting is immoral. However, insofar as the legitimacy of the system of government depends on the franchise, it follows that a more thorough exercise of the franchise increases the legitimacy of the outcome[1]. There are however perfectly practical reasons to have compulsory voting. The biggest is that it dampens oscillations and creates pressure on the whole political system to focus on the median voter. If you gave me a dictatorial remit to reform the US electoral system, compulsory voting would be one of the policy options I would choose. The others would be instant runoff voting, possibly the abolishment of the electoral college, holding elections on a Saturday and creating an independent electoral commission. [1] Sophistry, of course. You can counter-argue that only willing exercise of the franchise grants legitimacy. But of course, it is economically irrational for any voter to turn out; just as it is irrational to pay taxes voluntarily. For any such system to work, compulsion is a necessity. You cannot make it go away, only decide where it is most required.
dsr_ 14y ago
Please take a moment before you vote to figure out what your long term interests are. Consider that the Supreme Court will probably get a new member or two in the next four years; they are appointed by the President. The President does not introduce laws, but he runs the department that interprets and enforces them.
tokenadult 14y ago
The counterpoint to this message was shared by a friend of mine on Facebook (he is a high-tech company manager) right after it was published. "Your Vote Doesn't Count: Why (almost) everyone should stay home on Election Day" http://reason.com/archives/2012/10/03/your-vote-doesnt-count http://reason.com/archives/2012/10/03/your-vote-doesnt-count didn't convince me (I'll be voting today), but both the mathematics and the political science in this article are interesting for rationales for NOT voting. Vote or not as you wish. As Winston Churchill said, "Many forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." AFTER EDIT: Today's news includes an analysis of why voter turnout in the United States is only around 60 percent of persons eligible to be voters, http://news.yahoo.com/why-40-americans-wont-vote-president-231957289.html http://news.yahoo.com/why-40-americans-wont-vote-president-2... a lower percentage than in some other democratic republics. Thanks for the first comment received below this one, which points out that local elections can matter for voters as well as the presidential election. I have some very close races to vote in today in the state Legislature and on proposed amendments to the state constitution.
- duck 14y ago
  Why (almost) everyone should stay home on Election Day The problem with that reasoning is that you're not just voting for the next president, but usually on a local ballot as well which is OFTEN very close. Government really is a local thing, although we often miss that, so I think every election is an important one.
- zerostar07 14y ago
  That article seems to grossly ridicule the motives of voters. Voters don't have to be either vanity freaks who think their vote will change the outcome or deluded armchair altruists. What if people simply vote because not only most others do, but because they want to weigh in their modest (even ill-informed) opinion. History shows it's the best way to figure out who should run an office.
  - 14y ago
crntaylor 14y ago
Anyone who hasn't seen it should read Peter Norvig's Election FAQ, particularly the section "Is it rational to vote?" [1] Short version: "Yes. Voting for president is one of the most cost-effective actions any patriotic American can take." Slightly longer version: "The value of not voting is that you save an hour of your time. The value of voting is the probability that your vote will decide the election (1 in 10 million if you live in a swing state) times the cost difference (potentially $6 trillion). That means the expected value of your vote is $600,000." [1] http://norvig.com/election-faq-2012.html#rational http://norvig.com/election-faq-2012.html#rational
- mseebach2 14y ago
  That makes sense only if one of the outcomes is worth $6 trillion more than the other and you live in a swing state.
- the_gipsy 14y ago
  1. It is 1 in 10 million if you live in a swing state. 2. You expect $6 trillion, that figure is incorrect as mseebach2 points out. 3. The probability of winning the state lottery might be 1 in 10 million. So I'm far better off buying a lottery ticket, since in the improbable event of winning I would actually make money, in contrast to hoping that the improbable event of my vote tipping the balance and creating a stronger economy would improve my income (the contrary might be true).
  - mdemare 14y ago
    Nonsense, only in California are there more than 10 million voters. In Virginia, there are 3.8M, 1.9M per party. If the candidates are 2% apart, there's about a 1/100K chance of casting a deciding vote. Also: http://what-if.xkcd.com/19/ http://what-if.xkcd.com/19/
    - the_gipsy 14y ago
      I only cited the number from OP. What is nonsense, is valuing one vote $600,000.
jellicle 14y ago
The reasons why people do not vote are many. They do not include "I was unaware this was election day".
- akent 14y ago
  [citation needed] Of course there are people who do not know or forget that it is election day.
confluence 14y ago
More specifically vote for Obama. For the love of America don't let the Republicans screw us all. Us international hners literally do not understand how the idiocy that is the Republican party continues to exist - we literally cannot understand it. 1 global financial crisis. 2 disastrous wars. 1 ruined economy. Don't screw it up a second time.
- jgrahamc 14y ago
  "Us international hners literally do not understand how the idiocy that is the Republican party continues to exist - we literally cannot understand it." It's a grave mistake to think that all non-US persons believe that Obama would be the best president, or that the Republican party is an aberration.
  - confluence 14y ago
    Idiots are universal no doubt. Internationally, however, Obama is overwhelming preferred along with the Democratic party: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/04/us-election-international-poll_n_2066972.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/04/us-election-interna...
    - protomyth 14y ago
      I am pretty sure if you did the poll in Pakistan, they would like us to pick someone else. The double drone hit with the second designed to kill civilian rescue workers is particularly bad.
      - confluence 14y ago
        I'm pretty sure that if Pakistan wasn't harboring Osama Bin Laden and other terrorists that continue to destabilize the region then America wouldn't have to. Pakistan has to get their act together.
        mseebach2 14y ago
sgt 14y ago
For those of you that aren't aware of the "Erlang innards" meme of HN, check out: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=512145 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=512145
Nursie 14y ago
Yeah, no. Your vote is your submission of your mandate to be governed and your preference of who does it. Not voting is a legitimate protest, IMHO, for one that doesn't believe in representative democracy (I believe in direct democracy or demarchy) and certainly for one who would see a pox both the houses of the leading two parties. I do vote, as a way to try to support change, but I understand and sympathise with those that don't for idealogical reasons.
- eob 14y ago
  Not-voting may be a form of protest from a philosophical standpoint, but it's an objectively awful one from a practical standpoint, since the political mechanism in place to affect change is precisely through the act of voting. It's like trying to affect evolutionary change by abstaining from sex. You'll be successful... in removing yourself from the equation.
- subsystem 14y ago
  I don't think abstention is a very good way to protest in a country with already low voter turnout.
  - jkn 14y ago
    Indeed, acting like someone who doesn't care is not exactly sending a loud signal that you disagree with the system.
    - Nursie 14y ago
      I'm not sure what you can do at that point though, because spoiling or leaving a blank ballot gets you put in with those who weren't competent enough to register a vote.
  - smcl 14y ago
    I did this in the last election I voted in (last UK general election) - spoiling my ballot by voting into an extra box I drew labelled "Robert Mugabe :)"
- 14y ago
shortlived 14y ago
Vote early, vote often, vote SUPREME www.verminsupreme.com
Toshio 14y ago
To me voting is a sort of contract. You get to vote who gets to rip you off with confiscatory taxes for the next four years. Whoever wins gets to confiscate your hard-earned money and laugh all the way to the bank. It's a contract I would rather not sign. Rather than voting someone into office, a far more important decision for an individual would be whether or not to sign such a contract. Unfortunately that's a decision you and I don't get to make. Taxation is dictatorship, you see.
- jkn 14y ago
  Then vote for someone who wants to remove all forms of taxation? But I can't tell if you seriously think society would be better without taxes. Would you like to have private police, a private army, private courts of law, a private environmental protection agency, etc?
  - Toshio 14y ago
    Society would certainly be better without payroll taxes. I'm willing to concede that consumption based taxes would be a necessary evil.
  - sparkie 14y ago
    >Then vote for someone who wants to remove all forms of taxation? It's not about who you vote for, it's about voting. You basically sign an unmarked contract where the name is left blank, and filled in after the election, and you put in your preference on the contract for who should fill that in. If your ideal is that you don't want to be restrained by such contract, you wouldn't sign the damn thing, putting your preference as someone who "might" not use the contract to restrain you.
  - scottjad 14y ago
    How private forms of several of the things you mentioned can work: "The Machinery of Freedom" by David Friedman http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTYkdEU_B4o http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTYkdEU_B4o
- scottjad 14y ago
protomyth 14y ago
One aspect of the election is local. These people can have a rather harsh effect on your life. From zoning to taxes to inane actions (e.g. soda sizes) that change your quality of life directly. Regardless of how you feel about national politics, it is worth some time to look at how your state representatives, city officials, and school boards voted. Your vote and speech does make a difference in these local elections and they can have large impacts.
edw519 14y ago
"I have solved this political dilemma in a very direct way: I don't vote. On Election Day, I stay home. I firmly believe that if you vote, you have no right to complain. Now, some people like to twist that around. They say, 'If you don't vote, you have no right to complain,' but where's the logic in that? If you vote, and you elect dishonest, incompetent politicians, and they get into office and screw everything up, you are responsible for what they have done. You voted them in. You caused the problem. You have no right to complain. I, on the other hand, who did not vote -- who did not even leave the house on Election Day -- am in no way responsible for that these politicians have done and have every right to complain about the mess that you created." - George Carlin
- ohrus 14y ago
  I love George Carlin, I think he's one of the greatest comedians to have ever lived. You can't seriously believe take this as truth though, can you? If you vote you caused the problem? That you cannot argue/complain that who you vote for turns out to be just another politician looking out for number one? By that 'logic' I have no right to complain if I hire someone who turns out to be completely incompetent? If you are governed by fools or charlatans everyone has the right to speak out, to bitch, whine, complain - voter or not. That's the right we have, and we're fortunate to have it. (Yes, we need better - but apathy changes nothing).
  - sparkie 14y ago
    Your hiring analogy is flawed, because you have the right to not hire anyone in the first place. > If you are governed by fools or charlatans everyone has the right to speak out, to bitch, whine, complain - voter or not. You have the right to complain about the fool, but you don't have the right to complain about being governed - since that's what you consented to when you tick the box. Before being asked "Which fool should govern?" should you not be asked "Do you want to be governed by a fool?"
    - polshaw 14y ago
      You consent to it just as much by not voting. You pay taxes to fund them FFS! You are doing less to change the system by not voting than you are by voting. It would be lovely to be asked "Do you want to be governed by a fool?", but you don't get that, ignoring the question you are asked is not bringing that closer. You could at least spoil you ballot if you wish to protest. Doing nothing will be interpreted as laziness, apathy and comfort. Not voting because you disagree with the system is fundamentally misguided, at least if you want to be pragmatic.
rileycrane 14y ago
And then let the world know: ivoted.co
p3drosola 14y ago
Voting is a rite, not right.
argumentum 14y ago
Voting alone has little to nothing to do with participating in political life. Imagine if you earned karma on HN by voting rather than by being voted up. Participating as a citizen means trying to understand what makes society work, applying this knowledge to your own life, and using reason to convince others of your views. It also means listening to others' reasoning and being open to being convinced to change your own views. The keys are Reason and Freedom. You have these abilities and rights by virtue of being Human. Use them, that is true citizenship.
mootothemax 14y ago
And if you don't feel represented, why not still go along but spoil your ballot? This way your dissatisfaction with the process will be recorded, and your vote won't be confused with that of someone who just couldn't be bothered to turn up.
antidoh 14y ago
If a boat is loose and being pulled out by the tide, everyone on the beach pulls on the rope. One individual on the rope doesn't make a difference, but if no one pulls, the boat is lost. So we all pull.
polshaw 14y ago
Here is (imo) THE strongest reason you have to vote.. If your demographic votes, *all* politicians care about it. Why do you think medicare is untouchable? (cf. 'obamacare').
DanBC 14y ago
(http://ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html http://ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html) (http://ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html http://ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html) (http://imgur.com/a/As0m5 http://imgur.com/a/As0m5) Some comments in this thread are thoughtful and interesting. But many of them are an excellent demonstration of why political items are not welcome on HN.
cayblood 14y ago
“If you are bored and disgusted by politics and don't bother to vote, you are in effect voting for the entrenched Establishments of the two major parties, who please rest assured are not dumb, and who are keenly aware that it is in their interests to keep you disgusted and bored and cynical and to give you every possible reason to stay at home doing one-hitters and watching MTV on primary day. By all means stay home if you want, but don't bullshit yourself that you're not voting. In reality, there is no such thing as not voting: you either vote by voting, or you vote by staying home and tacitly doubling the value of some Diehard's vote." ---David Foster Wallace
ekm2 14y ago
In reality, there is no such thing as not voting: you either vote by voting, or you vote by staying home and tacitly doubling the value of some Diehard's vote. ~David Foster Wallace
carsongross 14y ago
Voting is how the state tricks the gullible into thinking they have a say. I'll give you a quick preview: more war, more bailouts, more confiscation of property. Regardless.

Remind HN: Vote

118 points by DanielBMarkham 14y ago

thebigrace 14y ago

Agree 100%. Even if your vote doesn't matter, spend a tiny portion of your day to be counted.

rwmj 14y ago
The corollary is that even "wasted" votes (eg. for no-hoper third party candidates) matter. Mainstream politicians take those into account and adjust their policies accordingly. They do this because those votes for third parties dilute their own voting base, and they want to avoid splitting off even fractions of their own constituency. Examples from the UK: - The Conservatives are desperate to take on policies from UKIP and even the BNP, even though those two parties have no chance of gaining real power. - The Green party has 1 MP and next to no chance everywhere else, but they have (or had, until the recession) a huge influence on politics.
- martswite 14y ago
  > - The Conservatives are desperate to take on policies from UKIP and even the BNP, even though those two parties have no chance of gaining real power. Just out of interest which policies are you talking about?
  - rwmj 14y ago
    Limits on immigration. Extreme antipathy towards Europe (eg. the recent budget argument). More in this article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19661190 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19661190
- thisone 14y ago
  The US has no third party that is anywhere near as viable as even UKIP or the BNP.
  - antidoh 14y ago
    That may change, if the two parties continue to do nothing but spit at each other.

mariusz79 14y ago

It's a privilege not a duty.

yuchi 14y ago
Actually that's not right. Your rights are given by your duties. I don't think democracy is the best political solution, but it's practically the best we can hope for. But as far as we live in one, we must expose our opinion and vote. It's the only thing left. When you vote you are part of the society, you cast your decision with your co-citizens. PS: I'm italian, we lost our faith in democracy a lot ago.
- mariusz79 14y ago
  Even when you don't vote you are part of the society. In addition you should consider that not actively voting is also a form of voting.

gabemart 14y ago

I find the "motivation to vote" problem a really interesting one from an economics perspective. The marginal effect of one vote in a federal election is statistically indistinguishable from zero. How do you motivate rational agents to undertake an action with nonzero costs for zero marginal benefit? In real life, the reasons for voting are soft and squishy, and millions of people vote, so this problem does not immediately seem serious. But I wonder, if you imagine a hypothetical system where every person acted purely rationally, how could you create a political system where voting made sense on a personal level, rather than out of some nebulous sense of civic duty? The most obvious answer is to make voting compulsory as Australia does. I wonder if there are any other solutions?

jellicle 14y ago
I have suggested a one-in-a-million chance to win one million dollars. Voters would receive a voting stub that was also a sweepstakes entry. Just take the number of voters, divide by a million, round up, and award that many $1 million prizes. The cost of running an election is perhaps in the $2/voter range, so this would increase costs by 50%. Publicizing the names of the winners - "Bob Smith won $1 million - for voting!" - would go a long way toward increasing voter turnout, I expect.

tjaerv 14y ago

Democracy is the worship of jackals by jackasses. -- H. L. Mencken

jacques_chester 14y ago

If it was a duty, then voting would be compulsory (as it is here in Australia). Edit: obligatory-link-to-blogger-I-host -- http://skepticlawyer.com.au/2012/11/06/the-dynamics-of-division/ http://skepticlawyer.com.au/2012/11/06/the-dynamics-of-divis...

mseebach2 14y ago
"Duty" can refer to a moral obligation which I'm pretty sure is the sense DBM referred to.
- jacques_chester 14y ago
  Lots of moral obligations are also subjects of legislation, because it can empirically confirmed that some people won't act morally without sanction.
  - mseebach2 14y ago
    Yes? And there are plenty of immoral laws. Morality and legality often intersects but neither implies the other. FWIW, I consider compulsory voting an immoral law, even though I generally consider voting a moral obligation. A democratic government derives its legitimacy from the people, as opposed to god (theocracy) or heritage (heritable monarchy). Voting is the means by which the people reaffirm the legitimacy of the political system that is in charge. When the very same political system compels the people to vote, ie. give it legitimacy, the value of the act of voting is watered down.
    - jacques_chester 14y ago
      Many people feel that compulsory voting is immoral. However, insofar as the legitimacy of the system of government depends on the franchise, it follows that a more thorough exercise of the franchise increases the legitimacy of the outcome[1]. There are however perfectly practical reasons to have compulsory voting. The biggest is that it dampens oscillations and creates pressure on the whole political system to focus on the median voter. If you gave me a dictatorial remit to reform the US electoral system, compulsory voting would be one of the policy options I would choose. The others would be instant runoff voting, possibly the abolishment of the electoral college, holding elections on a Saturday and creating an independent electoral commission. [1] Sophistry, of course. You can counter-argue that only willing exercise of the franchise grants legitimacy. But of course, it is economically irrational for any voter to turn out; just as it is irrational to pay taxes voluntarily. For any such system to work, compulsion is a necessity. You cannot make it go away, only decide where it is most required.

dsr_ 14y ago

Please take a moment before you vote to figure out what your long term interests are. Consider that the Supreme Court will probably get a new member or two in the next four years; they are appointed by the President. The President does not introduce laws, but he runs the department that interprets and enforces them.

tokenadult 14y ago

The counterpoint to this message was shared by a friend of mine on Facebook (he is a high-tech company manager) right after it was published. "Your Vote Doesn't Count: Why (almost) everyone should stay home on Election Day" http://reason.com/archives/2012/10/03/your-vote-doesnt-count http://reason.com/archives/2012/10/03/your-vote-doesnt-count didn't convince me (I'll be voting today), but both the mathematics and the political science in this article are interesting for rationales for NOT voting. Vote or not as you wish. As Winston Churchill said, "Many forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." AFTER EDIT: Today's news includes an analysis of why voter turnout in the United States is only around 60 percent of persons eligible to be voters, http://news.yahoo.com/why-40-americans-wont-vote-president-231957289.html http://news.yahoo.com/why-40-americans-wont-vote-president-2... a lower percentage than in some other democratic republics. Thanks for the first comment received below this one, which points out that local elections can matter for voters as well as the presidential election. I have some very close races to vote in today in the state Legislature and on proposed amendments to the state constitution.

duck 14y ago
Why (almost) everyone should stay home on Election Day The problem with that reasoning is that you're not just voting for the next president, but usually on a local ballot as well which is OFTEN very close. Government really is a local thing, although we often miss that, so I think every election is an important one.
zerostar07 14y ago
That article seems to grossly ridicule the motives of voters. Voters don't have to be either vanity freaks who think their vote will change the outcome or deluded armchair altruists. What if people simply vote because not only most others do, but because they want to weigh in their modest (even ill-informed) opinion. History shows it's the best way to figure out who should run an office.
- 14y ago

crntaylor 14y ago

Anyone who hasn't seen it should read Peter Norvig's Election FAQ, particularly the section "Is it rational to vote?" [1] Short version: "Yes. Voting for president is one of the most cost-effective actions any patriotic American can take." Slightly longer version: "The value of not voting is that you save an hour of your time. The value of voting is the probability that your vote will decide the election (1 in 10 million if you live in a swing state) times the cost difference (potentially $6 trillion). That means the expected value of your vote is $600,000." [1] http://norvig.com/election-faq-2012.html#rational http://norvig.com/election-faq-2012.html#rational

mseebach2 14y ago
That makes sense only if one of the outcomes is worth $6 trillion more than the other and you live in a swing state.
the_gipsy 14y ago
1. It is 1 in 10 million if you live in a swing state. 2. You expect $6 trillion, that figure is incorrect as mseebach2 points out. 3. The probability of winning the state lottery might be 1 in 10 million. So I'm far better off buying a lottery ticket, since in the improbable event of winning I would actually make money, in contrast to hoping that the improbable event of my vote tipping the balance and creating a stronger economy would improve my income (the contrary might be true).
- mdemare 14y ago
  Nonsense, only in California are there more than 10 million voters. In Virginia, there are 3.8M, 1.9M per party. If the candidates are 2% apart, there's about a 1/100K chance of casting a deciding vote. Also: http://what-if.xkcd.com/19/ http://what-if.xkcd.com/19/
  - the_gipsy 14y ago
    I only cited the number from OP. What is nonsense, is valuing one vote $600,000.

jellicle 14y ago

The reasons why people do not vote are many. They do not include "I was unaware this was election day".

akent 14y ago
[citation needed] Of course there are people who do not know or forget that it is election day.

confluence 14y ago

More specifically vote for Obama. For the love of America don't let the Republicans screw us all. Us international hners literally do not understand how the idiocy that is the Republican party continues to exist - we literally cannot understand it. 1 global financial crisis. 2 disastrous wars. 1 ruined economy. Don't screw it up a second time.

jgrahamc 14y ago
"Us international hners literally do not understand how the idiocy that is the Republican party continues to exist - we literally cannot understand it." It's a grave mistake to think that all non-US persons believe that Obama would be the best president, or that the Republican party is an aberration.
- confluence 14y ago
  Idiots are universal no doubt. Internationally, however, Obama is overwhelming preferred along with the Democratic party: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/04/us-election-international-poll_n_2066972.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/04/us-election-interna...
  - protomyth 14y ago
    I am pretty sure if you did the poll in Pakistan, they would like us to pick someone else. The double drone hit with the second designed to kill civilian rescue workers is particularly bad.
    - confluence 14y ago
      I'm pretty sure that if Pakistan wasn't harboring Osama Bin Laden and other terrorists that continue to destabilize the region then America wouldn't have to. Pakistan has to get their act together.
      - mseebach2 14y ago

sgt 14y ago

For those of you that aren't aware of the "Erlang innards" meme of HN, check out: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=512145 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=512145

Nursie 14y ago

Yeah, no. Your vote is your submission of your mandate to be governed and your preference of who does it. Not voting is a legitimate protest, IMHO, for one that doesn't believe in representative democracy (I believe in direct democracy or demarchy) and certainly for one who would see a pox both the houses of the leading two parties. I do vote, as a way to try to support change, but I understand and sympathise with those that don't for idealogical reasons.

eob 14y ago
Not-voting may be a form of protest from a philosophical standpoint, but it's an objectively awful one from a practical standpoint, since the political mechanism in place to affect change is precisely through the act of voting. It's like trying to affect evolutionary change by abstaining from sex. You'll be successful... in removing yourself from the equation.
subsystem 14y ago
I don't think abstention is a very good way to protest in a country with already low voter turnout.
- jkn 14y ago
  Indeed, acting like someone who doesn't care is not exactly sending a loud signal that you disagree with the system.
  - Nursie 14y ago
    I'm not sure what you can do at that point though, because spoiling or leaving a blank ballot gets you put in with those who weren't competent enough to register a vote.
- smcl 14y ago
  I did this in the last election I voted in (last UK general election) - spoiling my ballot by voting into an extra box I drew labelled "Robert Mugabe :)"
14y ago

shortlived 14y ago

Vote early, vote often, vote SUPREME www.verminsupreme.com

Toshio 14y ago

To me voting is a sort of contract. You get to vote who gets to rip you off with confiscatory taxes for the next four years. Whoever wins gets to confiscate your hard-earned money and laugh all the way to the bank. It's a contract I would rather not sign. Rather than voting someone into office, a far more important decision for an individual would be whether or not to sign such a contract. Unfortunately that's a decision you and I don't get to make. Taxation is dictatorship, you see.

jkn 14y ago
Then vote for someone who wants to remove all forms of taxation? But I can't tell if you seriously think society would be better without taxes. Would you like to have private police, a private army, private courts of law, a private environmental protection agency, etc?
- Toshio 14y ago
  Society would certainly be better without payroll taxes. I'm willing to concede that consumption based taxes would be a necessary evil.
- sparkie 14y ago
  >Then vote for someone who wants to remove all forms of taxation? It's not about who you vote for, it's about voting. You basically sign an unmarked contract where the name is left blank, and filled in after the election, and you put in your preference on the contract for who should fill that in. If your ideal is that you don't want to be restrained by such contract, you wouldn't sign the damn thing, putting your preference as someone who "might" not use the contract to restrain you.
- scottjad 14y ago
  How private forms of several of the things you mentioned can work: "The Machinery of Freedom" by David Friedman http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTYkdEU_B4o http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTYkdEU_B4o
scottjad 14y ago

protomyth 14y ago

One aspect of the election is local. These people can have a rather harsh effect on your life. From zoning to taxes to inane actions (e.g. soda sizes) that change your quality of life directly. Regardless of how you feel about national politics, it is worth some time to look at how your state representatives, city officials, and school boards voted. Your vote and speech does make a difference in these local elections and they can have large impacts.

edw519 14y ago

"I have solved this political dilemma in a very direct way: I don't vote. On Election Day, I stay home. I firmly believe that if you vote, you have no right to complain. Now, some people like to twist that around. They say, 'If you don't vote, you have no right to complain,' but where's the logic in that? If you vote, and you elect dishonest, incompetent politicians, and they get into office and screw everything up, you are responsible for what they have done. You voted them in. You caused the problem. You have no right to complain. I, on the other hand, who did not vote -- who did not even leave the house on Election Day -- am in no way responsible for that these politicians have done and have every right to complain about the mess that you created." - George Carlin

ohrus 14y ago
I love George Carlin, I think he's one of the greatest comedians to have ever lived. You can't seriously believe take this as truth though, can you? If you vote you caused the problem? That you cannot argue/complain that who you vote for turns out to be just another politician looking out for number one? By that 'logic' I have no right to complain if I hire someone who turns out to be completely incompetent? If you are governed by fools or charlatans everyone has the right to speak out, to bitch, whine, complain - voter or not. That's the right we have, and we're fortunate to have it. (Yes, we need better - but apathy changes nothing).
- sparkie 14y ago
  Your hiring analogy is flawed, because you have the right to not hire anyone in the first place. > If you are governed by fools or charlatans everyone has the right to speak out, to bitch, whine, complain - voter or not. You have the right to complain about the fool, but you don't have the right to complain about being governed - since that's what you consented to when you tick the box. Before being asked "Which fool should govern?" should you not be asked "Do you want to be governed by a fool?"
  - polshaw 14y ago
    You consent to it just as much by not voting. You pay taxes to fund them FFS! You are doing less to change the system by not voting than you are by voting. It would be lovely to be asked "Do you want to be governed by a fool?", but you don't get that, ignoring the question you are asked is not bringing that closer. You could at least spoil you ballot if you wish to protest. Doing nothing will be interpreted as laziness, apathy and comfort. Not voting because you disagree with the system is fundamentally misguided, at least if you want to be pragmatic.

rileycrane 14y ago

And then let the world know: ivoted.co

p3drosola 14y ago

Voting is a rite, not right.

argumentum 14y ago

Voting alone has little to nothing to do with participating in political life. Imagine if you earned karma on HN by voting rather than by being voted up. Participating as a citizen means trying to understand what makes society work, applying this knowledge to your own life, and using reason to convince others of your views. It also means listening to others' reasoning and being open to being convinced to change your own views. The keys are Reason and Freedom. You have these abilities and rights by virtue of being Human. Use them, that is true citizenship.

mootothemax 14y ago

And if you don't feel represented, why not still go along but spoil your ballot? This way your dissatisfaction with the process will be recorded, and your vote won't be confused with that of someone who just couldn't be bothered to turn up.

antidoh 14y ago

If a boat is loose and being pulled out by the tide, everyone on the beach pulls on the rope. One individual on the rope doesn't make a difference, but if no one pulls, the boat is lost. So we all pull.

polshaw 14y ago

Here is (imo) THE strongest reason you have to vote.. If your demographic votes, *all* politicians care about it. Why do you think medicare is untouchable? (cf. 'obamacare').

DanBC 14y ago

(http://ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html http://ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html) (http://ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html http://ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html) (http://imgur.com/a/As0m5 http://imgur.com/a/As0m5) Some comments in this thread are thoughtful and interesting. But many of them are an excellent demonstration of why political items are not welcome on HN.

cayblood 14y ago

“If you are bored and disgusted by politics and don't bother to vote, you are in effect voting for the entrenched Establishments of the two major parties, who please rest assured are not dumb, and who are keenly aware that it is in their interests to keep you disgusted and bored and cynical and to give you every possible reason to stay at home doing one-hitters and watching MTV on primary day. By all means stay home if you want, but don't bullshit yourself that you're not voting. In reality, there is no such thing as not voting: you either vote by voting, or you vote by staying home and tacitly doubling the value of some Diehard's vote." ---David Foster Wallace

ekm2 14y ago

In reality, there is no such thing as not voting: you either vote by voting, or you vote by staying home and tacitly doubling the value of some Diehard's vote. ~David Foster Wallace

carsongross 14y ago

Voting is how the state tricks the gullible into thinking they have a say. I'll give you a quick preview: more war, more bailouts, more confiscation of property. Regardless.