American Voters

[sbw]

nemesis told zhang bob "americans aren't as jaded as you" in his college major thread. lets find out.

Scott

edit: wealth could be an explanation either for voting or for not bothering to do so, incidentally.

[libertarianjim]

nemesis told zhang bob "americans aren't as jaded as you" in his college major thread. lets find out.

Scott

edit: wealth could be an explanation either for voting or for not bothering to do so, incidentally.

Wealth is a pretty good predictor of political involvement.

[coffeezombie]

Wealth is a pretty good predictor of political involvement.
Age is too. And I'm sure home ownership is another important factor.

[cryingmime]

none of the above? I don't vote because it really doesn't make a difference either way, for the rich or for the poor. you're damned if you do, and you're damned if you don't.

r

[Hustler]

The real reason not to vote is that it doesn't matter for statistical/economic reasons. In any election, your one vote isn't going to make a difference. Therefore, if your time is worth anything, it is wholly illogical to vote. The exception to this is if you live in a very small town (a few hundred or less), then your one vote could make a difference, though that is still unlikely and economically unviable for someone who values his time at all.

[Nemesis]

The real reason not to vote is that it doesn't matter for statistical/economic reasons. In any election, your one vote isn't going to make a difference. Therefore, if your time is worth anything, it is wholly illogical to vote. The exception to this is if you live in a very small town (a few hundred or less), then your one vote could make a difference, though that is still unlikely and economically unviable for someone who values his time at all.
What if all those people who think along your lines actually went out to vote? Do you have any idea how many democrats didn't vote in the last 3 or 4 presidential elections? Alot.

[zhang_bob]

Do you have any idea how many democrats didn't vote in the last 3 or 4 presidential elections? Alot. About as many as the Republicans.


Btw I would have voted, voting is important.

[Claverhouse]

Btw I would have voted, voting is important.

This is why I don't believe in any form of democracy.


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[zhang_bob]

This is why I don't believe in any form of democracy.

Why?

[kwis]

Theres really no point to voting. Unless you think it makes a difference(you're wrong).

[Lurker]

The non-wealthy are the ones who should always vote, since they have the most to lose.

[cafe]

We were going to vote in the primaries here but forgot. The primaries are the only elections that matter here for local elections. Only democrats actually get elected, so if you want any say at all, you have to help pick the democratic candidate.

[Claverhouse]

<_< Why?

Since any system that involved the implemented wishes of the person I quoted would not be desirable to live under.

Of course, if there was ever a system in which real democracy ruled, the direct ability of every single person to control the nation's destiny and the lives of everybody else, things would be different: I'd only leave the house with no less than three Glock pistols.


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Snowflake]

Since any system that involved the implemented wishes of the person I quoted would not be desirable to live under.

Of course, if there was ever a system in which real democracy ruled, the direct ability of every single person to control the nation's destiny and the lives of everybody else, things would be different: I'd only leave the house with no less than three Glock pistols.


Claverhouse :ph34r::rofl:

Fascism all the way!!

BTW: I voted that I'm wealthy simply for the intention of fucking up the poll.

[Nemesis]

About as many as the Republicans.


Btw I would have voted, voting is important.
I would love to know where you get your ridiculously outlandish stats.

[zhang_bob]

I would love to know where you get your ridiculously outlandish stats.My brain, like most people.


Since any system that involved the implemented wishes of the person I quoted would not be desirable to live under.



Don`t be worried only 1 of the 4 people I have voted for has won.

Btw what the fuck do you know about what I believe?

[Nemesis]

My brain, like most people.
It's actually spelled a-s-s.

[Snowflake]

It's actually spelled a-s-s.For you it would be, because you have no brain to realize the proper spelling of brain.

[Claverhouse]

Btw what the fuck do you know about what I believe?

Absolutely nothing, and it can stay that way. But your beliefs, righteous or ignoble or whatever, have no bearing on the principle.

Democracy is when the majority, because they are the majority, have the right to set fire to whomever they want.


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[libertarianjim]

The real reason not to vote is that it doesn't matter for statistical/economic reasons. In any election, your one vote isn't going to make a difference. Therefore, if your time is worth anything, it is wholly illogical to vote. The exception to this is if you live in a very small town (a few hundred or less), then your one vote could make a difference, though that is still unlikely and economically unviable for someone who values his time at all.

I had an argument about this when I was in grad school. My classmate took your line, and I said it was important because if too many people fall away, then the outcome is affected, and that voting is important for feeling of political efficacy. He scoffed at this, and said no one makes a single material gain by going to vote.

Two weeks later was primary day. In very light turnout, I was the 100th person to vote at my precinct. In recognition, the poll workers gave me a Snickers bar.

In class the next day, I raised the point and waved the Snickers bar in his face. "See! I did get a material gain out of voting!" I proceeded to tear into the Snickers, and with my mouth full of peanut and nougaty goodness, I said, "Ahhhh, democracy is sweet."

[KuJo]

Since any system that involved the implemented wishes of the person I quoted would not be desirable to live under.

Of course, if there was ever a system in which real democracy ruled, the direct ability of every single person to control the nation's destiny and the lives of everybody else, things would be different: I'd only leave the house with no less than three Glock pistols.


Claverhouse :ph34r:

you know you wouldnt leave without a combat knife and an assault rifle too.

[Snowflake]

Democracy is when the majority, because they are the majority, have the right to set fire to whomever they want.The question then becomes, who, or what, is the majority?

Because frankly, the majority would have to define who the hell the majority was. But if the majority hasn't been defined yet, then how can the majority define the majority?

Problems, anyone?

Doesn't seem like it'd work to me. Back to fascism, I say!!

[Nemesis]

I had an argument about this when I was in grad school. My classmate took your line, and I said it was important because if too many people fall away, then the outcome is affected, and that voting is important for feeling of political efficacy. He scoffed at this, and said no one makes a single material gain by going to vote.

Two weeks later was primary day. In very light turnout, I was the 100th person to vote at my precinct. In recognition, the poll workers gave me a Snickers bar.

In class the next day, I raised the point and waved the Snickers bar in his face. "See! I did get a material gain out of voting!" I proceeded to tear into the Snickers, and with my mouth full of peanut and nougaty goodness, I said, "Ahhhh, democracy is sweet."
:rofl:

And that is why you're one of my favorite posters.

[zhang_bob]

Are you one of the people who think Ralph Nader should not be on the Ballot paper because he proberly cost Al Gore the presidential election?

[Claverhouse]

Two weeks later was primary day. In very light turnout, I was the 100th person to vote at my precinct. In recognition, the poll workers gave me a Snickers bar.

You and they should have been prosecuted for corrupt practices: that's exactly how the Roman republic fell.



you know you wouldnt leave without a combat knife and an assault rifle too.

How right you are...


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[zhang_bob]

Democracy is when the majority, because they are the majority, have the right to set fire to whomever they want.

I think you would get on well with Osama bin Laden.

[Claverhouse]

I think you would get on well with Osama bin Laden.

No, he believes in democracy, so long as those who vote believe in the same values he has: just like all democrats really.

I think you would get on with Tony Blair.


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Nemesis]

Are you one of the people who think Ralph Nader should not be on the Ballot paper because he proberly cost Al Gore the presidential election.
Even though he pretty much does absolutely nothing except for take votes away from the democrats, no I believe he had every right to run. When did I say that?

[Claverhouse]

*blinks at the thought that a Democratic administration would be any different to a Republican administration*

Nader was the only logical choice.


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[zhang_bob]

No, he believes in democracy, so long as those who vote believe in the same values he has: just like all democrats really.
:wtf:


I think you would get on with Tony Blair.
:huh: Why do you think that? The only people in/were in his party I like, don`t get on well with him.

[Nemesis]

You and they should have been prosecuted for corrupt practices: that's exactly how the Roman republic fell.
They tried that on Michael Moore (God, what a fucktard he is.) when he offered to do the laundry of everyone present in the stadium that he was speaking in, provided they just brought him proof that they had voted in the 2004 presidential election, but they couldn't get him. The judge said that Moore didn't offer a reward for voting for either candidate, he offered a reward for voting, and that he personally was more worried about keeping kids out of trouble and off the streets than about them getting their laundry done for them so long as they go out and vote, regardless of who they voted for.

The Republican party basically tried to get him for it because their panties were all in a bundle over the fact that younger people overwhelmingly tend to vote for democrats.

[Nemesis]

*blinks at the thought that a Democratic administration would be any different to a Republican administration*

Nader was the only logical choice.


Claverhouse :ph34r:
They aren't that different, but do you honestly think that a Democrat would have gone to war?

[TelecomClone]

I don't vote for a few reasons:

1. The Electoral College essentially makes it next to impossible to elect anything but a major party.
2. I don't buy the "lesser of two evils" argument. Shit is shit, and I won't endorse shit.
3. Lobbying is more powerful than voting, which renders the motion a waste of my time.
4. I'm pretty goddamn lazy.

[libertarianjim]

They aren't that different, but do you honestly think that a Democrat would have gone to war?

Their judicial nominees would have been a lot different.

[Nemesis]

Their judicial nominees would have been a lot different.
That too, and abortion rights wouldn't be under fire right now methinks.

[zhang_bob]

They aren't that different, but do you honestly think that a Democrat would have gone to war?Ask Al Gore.

[Nemesis]

Ask Al Gore.
I don't have too. He's publicly berated the president many, many times.

[Claverhouse]

:huh: Why do you think that? The only people in/were in his party I like, don`t get on well with him.

Because no matter what your disagreements with him, you share the same belief in the core values of democracy and the sovereignty of the people.

And he likes setting people on fire.


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[zhang_bob]

you share the same belief in the core values of democracy and the sovereignty of the people.What core values of democracy and the sovereignty of the people?




And he likes setting people on fire.Who said I like setting people on fire? You said you like setting people on fire.



Democracy is when the majority, because they are the majority, have the right to set fire to whomever they want.
Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Claverhouse]

The Republican party basically tried to get him for it because their panties were all in a bundle over the fact that younger people overwhelmingly tend to vote for democrats.

Then they grow old --- and with great age comes great responsibilities, such as holding on to every penny you've got and damn the rest --- and vote Republican.


They aren't that different, but do you honestly think that a Democrat would have gone to war?

Mr. Kerry was explicit. He voted for the war, but was against it. He would continue to support the military in the great task of defeating Saddam, but would bring them home at some point in time. Before the war he said there were WMD, after the war he said George W. had misled the American People on WMD. Presumably he meant that as one of the American People he had been misled by George W. and had made his previous assertions under that handicap.

The Democrats would have gone to war, if it would improve the world for future generations of Iraqis and transferred money to American business: then George W. and the Republicans would have called them irresponsible lunatics sacrificing American boys for a barren dream of empire.


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Claverhouse]

What core values of democracy and the sovereignty of the people?

You indicated you support democracy and voting and stuff, well so does Tony.


Who said I like setting people on fire?

I said Tony likes doing so, and earlier : Democracy is when the majority, because they are the majority, have the right to set fire to whomever they want.


You said you like setting people on fire.

Are you drunk tonight ?


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[zhang_bob]

You indicated you support democracy and voting and stuff, well so does Tony.
So does Nick Griffin, Sir Menzies Campbell and David Cameron. I don`t see how that means I would get on better with him.



I said Tony likes doing so, and earlier : Democracy is when the majority, because they are the majority, have the right to set fire to whomever they want.
What does this have to do with me?





Are you drunk tonight ?
Claverhouse :ph34r:Not yet.

[Hustler]

Two weeks later was primary day. In very light turnout, I was the 100th person to vote at my precinct. In recognition, the poll workers gave me a Snickers bar.

In class the next day, I raised the point and waved the Snickers bar in his face. "See! I did get a material gain out of voting!" I proceeded to tear into the Snickers, and with my mouth full of peanut and nougaty goodness, I said, "Ahhhh, democracy is sweet."

I guess I would rather pay $1.00 for a Snickers bar than go stand in line to vote and have a 1 in who-knows-how-many chance of winning a Snickers bar. If I even ate Snickers bars, which I don't.

[libertarianjim]

I guess I would rather pay $1.00 for a Snickers bar than go stand in line to vote and have a 1 in who-knows-how-many chance of winning a Snickers bar. If I even ate Snickers bars, which I don't.

I guarantee there were no lines that day. I was only the 100th person at 3 PM in an urban precint (Shadyside section of Pittsburgh).

[Hustler]

I guarantee there were no lines that day. I was only the 100th person at 3 PM in an urban precint (Shadyside section of Pittsburgh).

My point still stands, obviously. You could either go somewhere and pay $1.00 to get a Snickers or go somewhere and not stand in line for a 1/100 chance of getting a Snickers. Either way, the time of going back and forth is the major cost for you (and maybe the gas expense, these days, if the trip requires driving). Your time is worth something, isn't it? This is the argument against voting: your time could be better spent by doing something other than participating in a meaningless process. Your vote doesn't count. An election in which you vote is not going to be decided by one vote, especially if you live in a city as big as Pittsburgh, where the local elections won't even come down to one vote.

[PiccoloNamek]

There is no reason for me to waste my time voting, because there are so many more idiots than people who are informed about what they're actually doing.

[Architectonic]

The real reason not to vote is that it doesn't matter for statistical/economic reasons. In any election, your one vote isn't going to make a difference. Therefore, if your time is worth anything, it is wholly illogical to vote. The exception to this is if you live in a very small town (a few hundred or less), then your one vote could make a difference, though that is still unlikely and economically unviable for someone who values his time at all.

Of course this argument doesn't work in countries with compulsory voting. :mad:

[Hustler]

Of course this argument doesn't work in countries with compulsory voting. :mad:

It does if the time it would take you to vote is more valuable than the fine you receive for not voting.

[Architectonic]

It does if the time it would take you to vote is more valuable than the fine you receive for not voting.

So it isn't a valid argument for most people.
:mad:

(I don't believe in compulsory voting..)


I don't vote for a few reasons:

1. The Electoral College essentially makes it next to impossible to elect anything but a major party.
2. I don't buy the "lesser of two evils" argument. Shit is shit, and I won't endorse shit.
3. Lobbying is more powerful than voting, which renders the motion a waste of my time.
4. I'm pretty goddamn lazy.

And you're a mechanical device that doesn't have the right to vote. :ph34r:

[cryingmime]

I guess I would rather pay $1.00 for a Snickers bar than go stand in line to vote and have a 1 in who-knows-how-many chance of winning a Snickers bar. If I even ate Snickers bars, which I don't.
Snickers really satisfy me.... just like not voting.

r

[zhang_bob]

When did I say that?You did not say that, I was just asking what you thought.

[Wotton]

Architectonic: you could always move out of Australia for most of each year. You don't have to vote if you live elsewhere.

[sbw]

well, it looks like the people who agree with me didn't bother voting. that's so clever, you guys.

re-read posts #5 and #33--TC and hustler just, like, agreed about something, kinda.

also, nobody has defended voting at all, except for libjim (and I'm not convinced by his serious argument or his snickers argument). does anyone actually disagree with me about the entrenched, corrupt, 1-party system here in the states? (only 1 person mentioned lobbyists, I think it was TC, they are the most important part of the increasingly-corrupt system)

nobody has any defense of the act of voting, and most didn't even try. hope we cured your destructive idealism, nemesis--and thanks to all for your interesting responses.

Scott

[Snowflake]

Frankly, libertarianjim's snickers arguments was the exception, not the rule. It doesn't really count, except to one-up his fellow classmate (which IMO, just shows he's a prick).

[sbw]

Frankly, libertarianjim's snickers arguments was the exception, not the rule. It doesn't really count, except to one-up his fellow classmate (which IMO, just shows he's a prick).

really, snowflake?

(maybe we should call him pyle instead)

Scott

[C.J.Woolf]

I vote, but I've largely given up arguing with those who think voting is a waste of time. I'll make an exception now and say this:

Less than 500 out of a far larger number of people in Florida could have swung the 2000 presidential election, but each of them made an individual decision to stay home. I wonder how many of them regret it.

[C.J.Woolf]

Most INTPs seem to dislike politics, unions, and the like because they are about collective action, and INTPs fancy themselves as individuals standing apart from the common herd. But you can't get what you want in politics without collective action. It sucks, but there it is.

If it's of any consolation, there is no collective action without individuals.

[sbw]

I vote, but I've largely given up arguing with those who think voting is a waste of time. I'll make an exception now and say this:

Less than 500 out of a far larger number of people in Florida could have swung the 2000 presidential election, but each of them made an individual decision to stay home. I wonder how many of them regret it.

looking at it another way...in a state of 16 million (florida), estimate 12 million eligible voters; that means if half show up, 6 million total votes are cast. (I'm making the math easy.) both the smoking-in-restaurants prohibition and the minimum wage hike were passed 70%-30% or more...so thats 4.2 mil to 1.8 mil on these referendums...so I would have had to bring TWO AND A HALF MILLION OF MY FRIENDS to the polls in order to change the outcome of these referendums. I don't know that many people...

like hustler said, its a statistical concern.

Scott

[booyalab]

*blinks at the thought that a Democratic administration would be any different to a Republican administration*

Nader was the only logical choice.


Claverhouse :ph34r:

They wouldn't have nationalized healthcare with the terrorist threat imminent, that idea was just propaganda, but taxes would still increase, and any military effort would be (or at least perceived as being) underfunded if we had gone to war under a Democratic administration, and we probably would have pulled out before capturing Saddam. Of course the assumption that we'd go to war might entail admitting Clinton made a mistake, and it would require liberals denying the lesson they learned from the Vietnam era, dont go to war unless you're under attack by aliens.

[C.J.Woolf]

looking at it another way...in a state of 16 million (florida), estimate 12 million eligible voters; that means if half show up, 6 million total votes are cast. (I'm making the math easy.) both the smoking-in-restaurants prohibition and the minimum wage hike were passed 70%-30% or more...so thats 4.2 mil to 1.8 mil on these referendums...so I would have had to bring TWO AND A HALF MILLION OF MY FRIENDS to the polls in order to change the outcome of these referendums. I don't know that many people...

like hustler said, its a statistical concern.
At least you can come out and vote when the polling shows a close race.

[aether]

It's easy not to vote in California because the state always votes Democrat. Is it true Al Gore might run for office again?

[Wotton]

does anyone actually disagree with me about the entrenched, corrupt, 1-party system here in the states?
I don't disagree with that--but I do vote, because while voting will almost certainly do nothing, not voting absolutely will.

I also try to encourage the people I know who want a significantly different outcome from the one I want (and those who think that Bush will get us where we both want to be) that voting is a waste of time.


(only 1 person mentioned lobbyists, I think it was TC, they are the most important part of the increasingly-corrupt system)
I doubt very much that the system is "increasingly corrupt". Compared to what era? Or what country? It's always been shit. It's probably better now than it used to be, even. We just hear more about current corruption because we happen to live in the present.

[Hustler]

Less than 500 out of a far larger number of people in Florida could have swung the 2000 presidential election, but each of them made an individual decision to stay home. I wonder how many of them regret it.

If they are at all logical, they should be glad they stayed home. 500 votes is a lot more than one vote. One vote still wouldn't have mattered. But, don't feel bad about it, because you're definitely not the first or last who is unable to understand this.

[sbw]

I doubt very much that the system is "increasingly corrupt". Compared to what era? Or what country? It's always been shit. It's probably better now than it used to be, even. We just hear more about current corruption because we happen to live in the present.

I guess its possible that its been the same all along. its also possible that the degree of graft and theft (both by the very top and the ranknfile in politics) has increased even while standard of living for poor and middle class people has improved, due to exponential economic (and monetary) growth.

Scott

[Claverhouse]

Less than 500 out of a far larger number of people in Florida could have swung the 2000 presidential election, but each of them made an individual decision to stay home. I wonder how many of them regret it.

How do you know they wouldn't have voted for Shrub if they had gone out ?

Rather like those muddled liberal accusations that 'black people were denied the vote there because ex-felons can't vote and 31% of blacks there were ex-felons --- and both black people and felons overwhelmingly vote Democrat'.

Apart from the fact that you'd be mental to believe that statistic, you couldn't prove that had these hypothetical people existed they wouldn't have voted Republican. The Republicans are just as welcoming of the felon vote as the Democrats, and no doubt have an equal number of felons in actual office.


Claverhouse :ph34r: