4 ms·

That's a tactical mistake. You are throwing away your vote. I'm a libertarian. But I almost never vote Losertarian, because I want to influence the outcome. So

That's a tactical mistake. You are throwing away your vote. I'm a libertarian. But I almost never vote Losertarian, because I want to influence the outcome. So, I generally hold my nose and vote Republican, the Democrat Party being the party of Big Government, the enemy of Liberty!

DalekBaldwin 13y ago
That's a miscalculation of opportunity costs. You are throwing away the time you could have spent doing better things than voting. How many times have you cast the deciding vote in an election?
- afterburner 13y ago
  The opportunity cost of at most a few hours? Every two to four years?
  - DalekBaldwin 13y ago
    Sure. You could spend that time writing posts on Hacker News that influence more than one voter.
    - afterburner 13y ago
      oof, long shot...
moron4hire 13y ago
It's not wasting my vote if I don't want either the Democrat or the Republican. By your logic, the vote is equally wasted if I vote Republican and the Democrats win, because I "didn't influence the outcome". Voting isn't a lottery game, you're not trying to use your vote to predict the outcome. You use it to voice your opinion. My opinion is that the two candidates provided are neither adequate, therefore I will not endorse either. EDIT: And in parliamentary procedure, abstaining from voting is a valid option, and it is not a waste of a vote. You are specifically going on record as not approving of the choice being provided.
- cynwoody 13y ago
  >Voting isn't a lottery game, you're not trying to use your vote to predict the outcome. You use it to voice your opinion. No, it's not a lottery game. But it's nevertheless desirable to have the best possible ball park estimate of the situation before voting. E.g., if the candidates of the major parties are Bad and Worse, and you are certain that Worse is going to win, then you vote Libertarian (or for whatever your favorite third party). Worse wins, but at least you will have contributed to the protest vote total. However, if you are not certain, then you'd better vote for Bad, because voting for the Losertarian is only going to help elect Worse! That's what I mean by "influence the outcome". >And in parliamentary procedure, abstaining from voting is a valid option, and it is not a waste of a vote. You are specifically going on record as not approving of the choice being provided. A parliamentary body is a totally different situation. Many fewer voters. Much more frequent votes. And the votes are on the record, the voters having advocated their positions as effectively as they can.
  - moron4hire 13y ago
    what possible purpose could there be to knowing the outcome of an election before voting? The likelihood that one person can impact the vote is so slim that it does not make sense for the individual to strategize for the best outcome of their personal choice. They must strategize based on aggregate choice, which favors sticking to principles, as, you know, they are principle.
moron4hire 13y ago
It's not like the Republicans are the party of small government, nor have they functionally been so in any time in the last 20 years. This is what I'm talking about, people do not actually vote towards their conscience, they vote towards a lottery game.

DalekBaldwin 13y ago

That's a miscalculation of opportunity costs. You are throwing away the time you could have spent doing better things than voting. How many times have you cast the deciding vote in an election?

afterburner 13y ago
The opportunity cost of at most a few hours? Every two to four years?
- DalekBaldwin 13y ago
  Sure. You could spend that time writing posts on Hacker News that influence more than one voter.
  - afterburner 13y ago
    oof, long shot...

moron4hire 13y ago

It's not wasting my vote if I don't want either the Democrat or the Republican. By your logic, the vote is equally wasted if I vote Republican and the Democrats win, because I "didn't influence the outcome". Voting isn't a lottery game, you're not trying to use your vote to predict the outcome. You use it to voice your opinion. My opinion is that the two candidates provided are neither adequate, therefore I will not endorse either. EDIT: And in parliamentary procedure, abstaining from voting is a valid option, and it is not a waste of a vote. You are specifically going on record as not approving of the choice being provided.

cynwoody 13y ago
>Voting isn't a lottery game, you're not trying to use your vote to predict the outcome. You use it to voice your opinion. No, it's not a lottery game. But it's nevertheless desirable to have the best possible ball park estimate of the situation before voting. E.g., if the candidates of the major parties are Bad and Worse, and you are certain that Worse is going to win, then you vote Libertarian (or for whatever your favorite third party). Worse wins, but at least you will have contributed to the protest vote total. However, if you are not certain, then you'd better vote for Bad, because voting for the Losertarian is only going to help elect Worse! That's what I mean by "influence the outcome". >And in parliamentary procedure, abstaining from voting is a valid option, and it is not a waste of a vote. You are specifically going on record as not approving of the choice being provided. A parliamentary body is a totally different situation. Many fewer voters. Much more frequent votes. And the votes are on the record, the voters having advocated their positions as effectively as they can.
- moron4hire 13y ago
  what possible purpose could there be to knowing the outcome of an election before voting? The likelihood that one person can impact the vote is so slim that it does not make sense for the individual to strategize for the best outcome of their personal choice. They must strategize based on aggregate choice, which favors sticking to principles, as, you know, they are principle.

moron4hire 13y ago

It's not like the Republicans are the party of small government, nor have they functionally been so in any time in the last 20 years. This is what I'm talking about, people do not actually vote towards their conscience, they vote towards a lottery game.