Arguments for voting

[Questioninggeller]

I need some help thinking of arguments against the thesis that one should not vote because single vote never decides an election and there is no instrumental value in voting.

So in this sense voting is merely symbolic expression, and if it is just symbolic expression than it is naracssim that has no purpose in voting for a national election.

Why vote for national elections, your vote cannot decide the election?

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Questioninggeller
I need some help thinking of arguments against the thesis that one should not vote because single vote never decides an election and there is no instrumental value in voting.

Wouldn't that argument (no-voting doesn't decide elections) depend strongly on the voting patterns of the area you are in? For example, here in Canada, the area that I'm in always votes for the Liberal party candidate, regardless of how corrupt or inept the politician is. Yet there are other areas where the voting is very close, and a single vote COULD make the difference.

I can't think of a single argument, but I can think of several small ones:

- As mentioned before, one vote COULD make a difference in an area where the vote is very close. (I've heard of politicians getting voted in with a margin of about 6 votes out of thousands.)

- Even if your vote cannot be a deciding factor, it increases the percentage votes either for or against a politician. (One fact I like to toss out is the fact that our current prime minister got elected on only about 40% of the vote. Although it does not limit his power, it may force him to be more responsible than if he had received 50% or more.)

[Bearguin]

Originally posted by Segnosaur

(One fact I like to toss out is the fact that our current prime minister got elected on only about 40% of the vote. Although it does not limit his power, it may force him to be more responsible than if he had received 50% or more.)

More responsible???

Crap, I'd hate to see that guy any less responsible.

Living out West, there is a defeatest attitude of "by the time I get to vote, it's decided anyway". I counter this by voting on my way to work but I do it more out of civic duty than actually believing it makes a difference.

[padakr]

I think the argument that one should not vote because single vote never decides an election...is what my logic professor called an 'argument of the beard'.

I'm not sure if I remember that right, it's been almost 20 years.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Questioninggeller
I need some help thinking of arguments against the thesis that one should not vote because single vote never decides an election and there is no instrumental value in voting.

You could make an appeal on the grounds of Kantian ethics: If everybody voted their conscience, the world would be a better place. You can't control what everybody else does, but you can control what you do. Sometimes the best thing you can do to create an ideal world is to act as if you are already in one.

You could also argue on the basis of establishing trends rather than deciding who is elected. If their vote adds to the total of a minority party, it could help it gain legitimacy, and maybe weaken the foothold the majority party has in that district.

That said, I don't see what the big deal is with low voter turnout. Do we really want people who don't care enough to vote filling up the ballot boxes? What good are votes from unmotivated and undereducated citizens?

Jeremy

[Questioninggeller]

Originally posted by padakr
I think the argument that is what my logic professor called an 'argument of the beard'.

I'm not sure if I remember that right, it's been almost 20 years.

Could you explain... sounds interesting.

[Questioninggeller]

Originally posted by toddjh


You could make an appeal on the grounds of Kantian ethics: If everybody voted their conscience, the world would be a better place. You can't control what everybody else does, but you can control what you do. Sometimes the best thing you can do to create an ideal world is to act as if you are already in one.

You could also argue on the basis of establishing trends rather than deciding who is elected. If their vote adds to the total of a minority party, it could help it gain legitimacy, and maybe weaken the foothold the majority party has in that district.

That said, I don't see what the big deal is with low voter turnout. Do we really want people who don't care enough to vote filling up the ballot boxes? What good are votes from unmotivated and undereducated citizens?

Jeremy

Good point, I could bring the Kantian phil. into the argument.
Thanks.

[Denise]

I vote because I like to b*tch about elected officials. If someone doesn't vote even though they can, then they have no right to b*tch. According to me anyhow.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Questioninggeller
I need some help thinking of arguments against the thesis that one should not vote because single vote never decides an election and there is no instrumental value in voting.

So in this sense voting is merely symbolic expression, and if it is just symbolic expression than it is naracssim that has no purpose in voting for a national election.

Why vote for national elections, your vote cannot decide the election?

You can make a reference to Plato's Republic too.

The English word idiot comes from the ancient Greek word idiotis . Idiotis was the person who rather spent his time in his house, alone, than participating in the affairs of the city-state, in elections etc...

According to Plato, someone who chooses to be an idiotis and abstain from the public discussions and elections could be nothing but an idiot...

Another nice reference has to do with the rules of the Athenean Republic. Those that they had to vote a certain day, they had to touch a rope soaked in red colour... That way, if they were seen far away from the Agora ( the place they should have been) they were holden up to public ridicule.( if you are interested in that, I can look for the exact reference. It must be in Aristotle's : "Athenean Republic" )

Just a Classic stroke of the brush to your arguments...

[Cain]

There are volumes of literature from the public choice school telling us why voting is stupid and irrational waste of time.

There's a famous exchange in Catch-22 where Yossarian says he's not flying any more missions. A sympathetic officer appeals to Kantian universalism: "But what if everyone felt that way?"
"Then I'd be a fool to feel any other way."

Economists call this the problem of the free-rider.

Why should we vote if it doesn't make a difference?

After (illegally) downloading a song on peer-2-peer file-sharing networks, I immediately cut/paste the MP3 to another directory. Removing it from my share directory means that no one will take up my precious bandwith, which means I'll be able to download MORE (illegal) songs. If everyone acted so selfishly file-sharing would disappear overnight.

The meta-game:

Stratagies are context dependent (we see this in chess, football, and even that collectable card game "Magic"). One must develop a strategy to compete with other stratagies in a realistic envrionment, not an idealized one.

Public choice theory leads to undesirable conclusions, however. As a way of maximizing utility, PCT might tell us that people should be allowed to sell their vote to the highest bidder.

[karl]

Originally posted by Cain
Public choice theory leads to undesirable conclusions, however. As a way of maximizing utility, PCT might tell us that people should be allowed to sell their vote to the highest bidder.

I was under the impression that most people already do that.

[Cain]

Originally posted by karl


I was under the impression that most people already do that.

Touché. No, you're quite right. But campaigns are structured in a way that people win through advertisements. Would anyone mind getting 35 dollars from Bush (if he's gonna win anyway)?

[Agammamon]

You get the government that you don't vote against.

[padakr]

Originally posted by Questioninggeller
Originally posted by padakr
I think the argument that is what my logic professor called an 'argument of the beard'.

I'm not sure if I remember that right, it's been almost 20 years.

Could you explain... sounds interesting.


I was going to try and dredge up some memory and make a clumsy attempt to express it, but a quick Google turned up web.uvic.ca/wguide/Pages/LogArgBeard.html (http://web.uvic.ca/wguide/Pages/LogArgBeard.html)

Which states:
This is a paradoxical argument which derives from the impossibility of answering the question "How many hairs does a man have to grow before he has a beard?" Since there is no specific number at which an unsightly clump of hairs becomes a beard, the argument is that no useful distinction can be made between a clean-shaven man and Santa Claus.

Another way of expressing the fallacy is in the argument that there is no harm in removing one hair from a beard since it will not stop it being a beard; the argument is superficially convincing until you realise that eventually the beard will indeed disappear, even if it is plucked one hair at a time.

Thus the argument of the beard suggests that there is no difference between those things which occupy opposite ends of a continuum, because there is no definable moment at which one becomes the other: day and night, or childhood and adulthood, for example. This fallacy often turns up in essays that discuss such subjects as the appropriate age for drinking, voting, or driving.


I look at the argument of "Why should I vote, it won't make a difference" as being the same as the example in the second paragraph "there is no harm in removing one hair from a beard since it will not stop it being a beard".

[jimlintott]

Couldn't it be argued that all elections are only won by one vote. The rest are just a bonus. I mean, don't you only need one more vote than your opponent to win.