5 ms·

here's what bothers me about this as a voter I such a microscopically small degree of contol of any of those questions (functionally 0), that they don't seem p

by pitt1980 12y ago

here's what bothers me about this as a voter I such a microscopically small degree of contol of any of those questions (functionally 0), that they don't seem productive to even care about if I care about them, then I have to get upset when things don't go my way, I have to either get into arguments with people I know or actively try to avoid arguments where is the net positive?

NotAtWork 12y ago
I mean, if you care more about not arguing with your relatives than you do that the CIA abducted and tortured people, then you have little incentive to engage with the wider political process. Of course, most people think that the US government abducting foreign nationals and torturing them at black sites is a considerably bigger problem than their mother-in-law being grumpy at them for a couple days, and want to do something about it.
- pitt1980 12y ago
  how do my in-laws being grumpy help foreign nationals tortured by the CIA? how has that made the world a better place? other than now I feel vaguely superior to my in-laws "who just don't get it"
  - NotAtWork 12y ago
    If one person in every family made their in-laws grumpy about the CIA torture scandal, then the entire nation would (at least once, over the course of months/a year) have an actual discussion about the situation. That discussion then goes on to inform their views on various topics, including who they should vote for in the next election. Government officials, at the end of the day, are chosen because the circles get filled in on ballots, and the circles get filled in from a choice made on the aggregate of our experiences, including discussions with friends and family. The difference is that if we talk about it, even if it makes people uncomfortable, then the nation discusses these issues and takes them in to account when voting. If we don't, then the nation doesn't. The rate at which pissed off people bother their family members about what they're pissed off about directly influences the course of national politics, even if the particular result of any particular discussion is some pissed off in-laws and a small percentage chance a bubble gets filled out differently in a few months.
    - pitt1980 12y ago
      but I can't make one person in every other family talk to their in laws about CIA torture I can only affect my small corner of the universe how would the world be different if 1 person in every family told their in laws that they appreciated them as human beings maybe that would change the world more, maybe there would be less pent up fustration and anger for Fox News (or whatever political bogeyman you ascribe to) tap into and frame with a political lense
    - aestra 12y ago
      > If one person in every family made their in-laws grumpy about the CIA torture scandal, then the entire nation would (at least once, over the course of months/a year) have an actual discussion about the situation. That discussion then goes on to inform their views on various topics, including who they should vote for in the next election. Only in fantasy land. The problem? Nobody ever actually has a rational discussion or becomes informed about anything. Just shouting matches and insults get thrown around, nothing ever gets accomplished. Everyone now hates each other. You aren't going to change someone's deeply held beliefs even if those beliefs are based on complete and total lies. The backfire effect. http://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/06/10/the-backfire-effect/ http://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/06/10/the-backfire-effect/ The Misconception: When your beliefs are challenged with facts, you alter your opinions and incorporate the new information into your thinking. The Truth: When your deepest convictions are challenged by contradictory evidence, your beliefs get stronger. http://www.skepdic.com/backfireeffect.html http://www.skepdic.com/backfireeffect.html
    - TeMPOraL 12y ago
      > If one person in every family made their in-laws grumpy about the CIA torture scandal, then the entire nation would (at least once, over the course of months/a year) have an actual discussion about the situation. That discussion then goes on to inform their views on various topics, including who they should vote for in the next election. No, no, no, no, no. Things don't work like that. Even ignoring the backfire effect another commenter mentioned, you have this huge campaigns, PR and media machine optimized for politicians to make people have discussions politicians want. Media are actually mind-controlling nations and the funny thing is, people will tell you that they know it, and yet they act as if they weren't aware.
snowwrestler 12y ago
One voter has little effect. Many voters together can have a big effect. But not if each one of them, individually, decides not to bother.
- pitt1980 12y ago
  there are many many uses of my time that can affect changes to make the world a better place if nothing else I can spend that time being a better parent and spouse voting ranks extremely low on the active uses of my time to make the world a better place
  - snowwrestler 12y ago
    Voting takes little time (about 15-30 minutes in my precinct) but has a lasting effect for years. Measured on a per-minute basis, there are few ways you can have as large an impact as voting.
    - pitt1980 12y ago
      little time, and even less impact
    - glenra 12y ago
      What "lasting effect" does it have, given that the vote changes nothing? Are you just referring to the effect it has on the voter, which is that it makes him or her a bit less rational?
      - snowwrestler 12y ago
        I don't think it's very rational to say that a vote "changes nothing," but I also don't think there's anything I could post that would change your mind, so I guess we'll just agree to disagree on this one.
        glenra 12y ago
        At a national level, the chance of your vote changing the outcome is less than your chance of being struck by lightning or killed by a plane falling on you. Most votes aren't even close at all - you knew what candidate your state would pick going in and it picked that by a margin of, say, a million votes. But hey, let's suppose one of those few, rare, much less than once-in-a-lifetime cases comes up where the vote is so close that your one vote WOULD make a difference. In that case we can say two things: (1) that outcome is closer than the margin of error on our vote-counting technology, so the outcome will actually get decided in the courts (2) If the country is THAT divided between the two candidates, they're probably so similarly positioned on the {net good/net bad} scale that your vote didn't really matter then either - you got to pick which of two functionally-identical candidates we got. (or if they're not, they're close ENOUGH that you have no way of being sure you made the right choice between them - you'd do as well to flip a coin. Rationally speaking, the effect of voting for a candidate is identical to the effect of rooting for a sports team. It does nothing to modify the outcome of the match, but it does make YOU have a bit more ego invested in whoever you picked.
TeMPOraL 12y ago
I think people frame voting in the wrong way. It's true that your particular vote has functionally zero impact on anything. I see the problem with voting being perceived as an act of making a decision, of trying to control something. It's not. It's just an awkward implementation of government polling people's brains for their opinion. Since you can't just pull information out of people's head directly, you need them to respond with required information themselves. But if you vote, you're not choosing anything. You're just providing a data point.

NotAtWork 12y ago

I mean, if you care more about not arguing with your relatives than you do that the CIA abducted and tortured people, then you have little incentive to engage with the wider political process. Of course, most people think that the US government abducting foreign nationals and torturing them at black sites is a considerably bigger problem than their mother-in-law being grumpy at them for a couple days, and want to do something about it.

pitt1980 12y ago
how do my in-laws being grumpy help foreign nationals tortured by the CIA? how has that made the world a better place? other than now I feel vaguely superior to my in-laws "who just don't get it"
- NotAtWork 12y ago
  If one person in every family made their in-laws grumpy about the CIA torture scandal, then the entire nation would (at least once, over the course of months/a year) have an actual discussion about the situation. That discussion then goes on to inform their views on various topics, including who they should vote for in the next election. Government officials, at the end of the day, are chosen because the circles get filled in on ballots, and the circles get filled in from a choice made on the aggregate of our experiences, including discussions with friends and family. The difference is that if we talk about it, even if it makes people uncomfortable, then the nation discusses these issues and takes them in to account when voting. If we don't, then the nation doesn't. The rate at which pissed off people bother their family members about what they're pissed off about directly influences the course of national politics, even if the particular result of any particular discussion is some pissed off in-laws and a small percentage chance a bubble gets filled out differently in a few months.
  - pitt1980 12y ago
    but I can't make one person in every other family talk to their in laws about CIA torture I can only affect my small corner of the universe how would the world be different if 1 person in every family told their in laws that they appreciated them as human beings maybe that would change the world more, maybe there would be less pent up fustration and anger for Fox News (or whatever political bogeyman you ascribe to) tap into and frame with a political lense
  - aestra 12y ago
    > If one person in every family made their in-laws grumpy about the CIA torture scandal, then the entire nation would (at least once, over the course of months/a year) have an actual discussion about the situation. That discussion then goes on to inform their views on various topics, including who they should vote for in the next election. Only in fantasy land. The problem? Nobody ever actually has a rational discussion or becomes informed about anything. Just shouting matches and insults get thrown around, nothing ever gets accomplished. Everyone now hates each other. You aren't going to change someone's deeply held beliefs even if those beliefs are based on complete and total lies. The backfire effect. http://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/06/10/the-backfire-effect/ http://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/06/10/the-backfire-effect/ The Misconception: When your beliefs are challenged with facts, you alter your opinions and incorporate the new information into your thinking. The Truth: When your deepest convictions are challenged by contradictory evidence, your beliefs get stronger. http://www.skepdic.com/backfireeffect.html http://www.skepdic.com/backfireeffect.html
  - TeMPOraL 12y ago
    > If one person in every family made their in-laws grumpy about the CIA torture scandal, then the entire nation would (at least once, over the course of months/a year) have an actual discussion about the situation. That discussion then goes on to inform their views on various topics, including who they should vote for in the next election. No, no, no, no, no. Things don't work like that. Even ignoring the backfire effect another commenter mentioned, you have this huge campaigns, PR and media machine optimized for politicians to make people have discussions politicians want. Media are actually mind-controlling nations and the funny thing is, people will tell you that they know it, and yet they act as if they weren't aware.

snowwrestler 12y ago

One voter has little effect. Many voters together can have a big effect. But not if each one of them, individually, decides not to bother.

pitt1980 12y ago
there are many many uses of my time that can affect changes to make the world a better place if nothing else I can spend that time being a better parent and spouse voting ranks extremely low on the active uses of my time to make the world a better place
- snowwrestler 12y ago
  Voting takes little time (about 15-30 minutes in my precinct) but has a lasting effect for years. Measured on a per-minute basis, there are few ways you can have as large an impact as voting.
  - pitt1980 12y ago
    little time, and even less impact
  - glenra 12y ago
    What "lasting effect" does it have, given that the vote changes nothing? Are you just referring to the effect it has on the voter, which is that it makes him or her a bit less rational?
    - snowwrestler 12y ago
      I don't think it's very rational to say that a vote "changes nothing," but I also don't think there's anything I could post that would change your mind, so I guess we'll just agree to disagree on this one.
      - glenra 12y ago
        At a national level, the chance of your vote changing the outcome is less than your chance of being struck by lightning or killed by a plane falling on you. Most votes aren't even close at all - you knew what candidate your state would pick going in and it picked that by a margin of, say, a million votes. But hey, let's suppose one of those few, rare, much less than once-in-a-lifetime cases comes up where the vote is so close that your one vote WOULD make a difference. In that case we can say two things: (1) that outcome is closer than the margin of error on our vote-counting technology, so the outcome will actually get decided in the courts (2) If the country is THAT divided between the two candidates, they're probably so similarly positioned on the {net good/net bad} scale that your vote didn't really matter then either - you got to pick which of two functionally-identical candidates we got. (or if they're not, they're close ENOUGH that you have no way of being sure you made the right choice between them - you'd do as well to flip a coin. Rationally speaking, the effect of voting for a candidate is identical to the effect of rooting for a sports team. It does nothing to modify the outcome of the match, but it does make YOU have a bit more ego invested in whoever you picked.

TeMPOraL 12y ago

I think people frame voting in the wrong way. It's true that your particular vote has functionally zero impact on anything. I see the problem with voting being perceived as an act of making a decision, of trying to control something. It's not. It's just an awkward implementation of government polling people's brains for their opinion. Since you can't just pull information out of people's head directly, you need them to respond with required information themselves. But if you vote, you're not choosing anything. You're just providing a data point.