3 ms·

> tactically IMO voting tactically makes about as much sense as choosing lottery numbers tactically. Perhaps it makes less sense, because people do actually wi

by lapcat 6mo ago

> tactically IMO voting tactically makes about as much sense as choosing lottery numbers tactically. Perhaps it makes less sense, because people do actually win the lottery. Unless you are a Supreme Court Justice, the odds that your vote will change the election outcome are practically nil. It's a bit odd to believe that you can't change who the candidates are, but you can nonetheless change which candidate wins. In fact, you can't do either. Collectively, we determine both, but each voter is only a grain of sand in the collective heap.

lovich 6mo ago
The snowflake doesn’t feel responsible for the avalanche
jen20 6mo ago
Tactical voting is far more important in the UK, where there are typically more than two candidates to vote for in any given seat, the government is not directly elected and most candidates are not selected in primaries. It's _incredibly_ common there to vote to unseat the current government, or avoid splitting the vote on one side of the spectrum or the other. For example, I personally voted for a candidate I had almost no agreement with because they were most likely to unseat someone who supported Brexit. And it worked.
- lapcat 6mo ago
  > I personally voted for a candidate I had almost no agreement with because they were most likely to unseat someone who supported Brexit. And it worked. Are you attributing the electoral result to your individual action?
  - jen20 6mo ago
    Yes - and to action the other thousand or so who made the difference between a win and a lose. Of course, I understand what your are clumsily and nihilistically trying to suggest, so here’s at least one example of an election won and lost by a single vote [1]. This is not the only one, naturally. [1]: https://www.npr.org/2018/12/14/676652930/city-council-candidate-who-didnt-cast-a-vote-for-himself-loses-by-1-vote https://www.npr.org/2018/12/14/676652930/city-council-candid...
    - lapcat 6mo ago
      > and to action the other thousand or so who made the difference between a win and a lose. That's my point. You have no control over those other thousand people. Even if you hadn't voted, or had voted the opposite, it wouldn't have changed the outcome. > clumsily and nihilistically Please read and respect the HN guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html I would love to be able to make a difference, or perhaps just to believe that I could make a difference. Unfortunately, I've learned the hard way that I can't. It's crucial to note, moreover, that determining the winner of an election is not the same as determining the winner's behavior in office. There's no evidence that the voters want FISA extended. But the military-industrial complex does, and it has the money to buy whoever happens to win. Somehow the damn thing keeps getting extended no matter who is in power. > here’s at least one example of an election won and lost by a single vote I don't deny that occasionally a small, local election is determined by a single vote. However, the topic of this submission is the US Congress. I found no Congressional elections decided by one vote over the past 100 years. That circumstance was more common (though still unlikely) in the distant past when the population was much smaller. In 1974, the US Senate election in New Hampshire (one of the smallest states by poulation) had a margin of 2 votes after the second recount, though the initial count was 355 and the first recount 10. This election was disputed and was eventually decided by a subsequent special election, with a margin of 27,000. In 1984, the US House election in Indiana's 8th District also had multiple recounts, the latest—controversial, partisan, dubious—having a margin of only 4 votes. In 2020, the US House election in Iowa's 2nd District again had multiple recounts, the latest having a margin of only 6 votes. This result was contested on claims of counting errors, but the contest was denied. As with the 2000 US Presidential election, whenever the count is very close, the results are usually decided politically (e.g., Bush v. Gore) rather than by the voters. Perhaps they can count votes more accurately in the UK.
      - jen20 6mo ago
        > However, the topic of this submission is the US Congress. The topic of the comment was about not voting because you think it makes no difference. If everyone develops that mentality, no-one will vote and elections will be decided only by the most extreme people. For those who do not believe tactical voting is not a thing in the US or is "stupid", look no further than the recent Texas Democratic primary, where selecting the best _candidate_ (rather than the person who might be closer to the ideals of many voters when in office) was achieved via exactly that means. > Perhaps they can count votes more accurately in the UK. There are no voting machines, everything is done by hand, under the strict observance of the campaign teams for each candidate. Every non-obvious vote is presented to all candidates teams with a proposed disposition. There are, to a first approximation, never allegations of process issues, because they would be so absurd on their face.

by lapcat 6mo ago

lovich 6mo ago

The snowflake doesn’t feel responsible for the avalanche

jen20 6mo ago

Tactical voting is far more important in the UK, where there are typically more than two candidates to vote for in any given seat, the government is not directly elected and most candidates are not selected in primaries. It's _incredibly_ common there to vote to unseat the current government, or avoid splitting the vote on one side of the spectrum or the other. For example, I personally voted for a candidate I had almost no agreement with because they were most likely to unseat someone who supported Brexit. And it worked.

lapcat 6mo ago
> I personally voted for a candidate I had almost no agreement with because they were most likely to unseat someone who supported Brexit. And it worked. Are you attributing the electoral result to your individual action?
- jen20 6mo ago
  Yes - and to action the other thousand or so who made the difference between a win and a lose. Of course, I understand what your are clumsily and nihilistically trying to suggest, so here’s at least one example of an election won and lost by a single vote [1]. This is not the only one, naturally. [1]: https://www.npr.org/2018/12/14/676652930/city-council-candidate-who-didnt-cast-a-vote-for-himself-loses-by-1-vote https://www.npr.org/2018/12/14/676652930/city-council-candid...
  - lapcat 6mo ago
    > and to action the other thousand or so who made the difference between a win and a lose. That's my point. You have no control over those other thousand people. Even if you hadn't voted, or had voted the opposite, it wouldn't have changed the outcome. > clumsily and nihilistically Please read and respect the HN guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html I would love to be able to make a difference, or perhaps just to believe that I could make a difference. Unfortunately, I've learned the hard way that I can't. It's crucial to note, moreover, that determining the winner of an election is not the same as determining the winner's behavior in office. There's no evidence that the voters want FISA extended. But the military-industrial complex does, and it has the money to buy whoever happens to win. Somehow the damn thing keeps getting extended no matter who is in power. > here’s at least one example of an election won and lost by a single vote I don't deny that occasionally a small, local election is determined by a single vote. However, the topic of this submission is the US Congress. I found no Congressional elections decided by one vote over the past 100 years. That circumstance was more common (though still unlikely) in the distant past when the population was much smaller. In 1974, the US Senate election in New Hampshire (one of the smallest states by poulation) had a margin of 2 votes after the second recount, though the initial count was 355 and the first recount 10. This election was disputed and was eventually decided by a subsequent special election, with a margin of 27,000. In 1984, the US House election in Indiana's 8th District also had multiple recounts, the latest—controversial, partisan, dubious—having a margin of only 4 votes. In 2020, the US House election in Iowa's 2nd District again had multiple recounts, the latest having a margin of only 6 votes. This result was contested on claims of counting errors, but the contest was denied. As with the 2000 US Presidential election, whenever the count is very close, the results are usually decided politically (e.g., Bush v. Gore) rather than by the voters. Perhaps they can count votes more accurately in the UK.
    - jen20 6mo ago
      > However, the topic of this submission is the US Congress. The topic of the comment was about not voting because you think it makes no difference. If everyone develops that mentality, no-one will vote and elections will be decided only by the most extreme people. For those who do not believe tactical voting is not a thing in the US or is "stupid", look no further than the recent Texas Democratic primary, where selecting the best _candidate_ (rather than the person who might be closer to the ideals of many voters when in office) was achieved via exactly that means. > Perhaps they can count votes more accurately in the UK. There are no voting machines, everything is done by hand, under the strict observance of the campaign teams for each candidate. Every non-obvious vote is presented to all candidates teams with a proposed disposition. There are, to a first approximation, never allegations of process issues, because they would be so absurd on their face.