The G's provided extremely pleasant hospitality today, and the topic of
discussion was voting.  Other topics were discussed.

17 responses total.

The first question for me, is, why should I vote at all?  Those campaigns
that say "make a difference; vote"  strike me as fraudulent, or illogical.
The clear fact of the matter is that my one vote doesn't in fact make a
difference, in any tangible way.  Clinton would have won, whether or not
I cast my vote.  Of course, if a lot of other people didn't bother to vote,
then maybe the outcome would have been different--but that is irrelevant.
My voting or not voting has no bearing on the voting behavior of other
people.

Arguments in favor of voting seem analogous to a possible argument that
we should voluntarily pay taxes.  We may all agree that paying taxes is
necessary for government to function, for the benefit of all.  Yet, if
everyone else pays taxes ans I don't, then society will function well, 
and I'll get the benefit without the cost.  Of course, if no one else
pays taxes then society collapse, which is unfortunate.  But in that case,
even if I *do* pay my taxes, it doesn't help, and it just makes me even
worse off.  Most rational self-interested people in such a system would
not pay taxes, which is why payment of taxes is actually a legal obligation,
rather than a choice.  In a number of countries voting is also required, and
not voluntary.  That sort of makes sense to me, based on the foregoing logic,
although it also seems like some sort of infringement on personal liberties.

I could only come up with two possible explanations for why I should vote
(which I normally do, without being sure why).  One is that voting itself
may provide some utility.  In my case it is actually kind of fun--my
polling place is in a quaint little town hall; neighbors and friends are
there, and there's kind of a festive atmosphere.  In most situations it's
a nuisance, though.  The other reason is based on the idea that politics
is actually a kind of spectator sport.  Like most people, I followed
election returns on tv, that night.  Obviously there is no practical
reason to do that--it is just exciting and interesting.  And it seems to
be something like a horse race, in that you get more excited, and enjoy
the event more, if you've bet on a horse--even if the money is not really
significant.  Voting is equavalent to placing a bet, and is necessary
to fully enjoy the spectacle.  I guess voting in close races is more
valuable in that regard, too.

This response has been erased.

Great minds seem to think alike, Valerie.  That is exactly how the
argument progressed yesterday.  It is also the argument made in a
book I'm now reading by Douglas Hofstadter.  I'm not convinced.  Just
as you suggest, there seems to be a sort of superstitious notion buried
in there, that your behavior somehow influences other people's behavior.
What if you couldn't vote 'til two days after everyone else voted?
Everyone else already knows the outcome, but you haven't been told yet.
Do you still have the same motivation?

I vote because it's the right thing to do.  Because it's important to my
children and my neighbors to see me vote, so that they know that I'm willing
to go out of my way to do the right thing -- even if it isn't convenient. 
And yes, I do believe that my vote makes a difference.  Alone, it doesn't make
a big difference - but think.  If I vote, then my voice is heard.  It may not
be the deciding factor, and my candidate may not win this time.  But next
time, the politic whowhos are going to be analyzing why I voted the way I did,
and probably both parties (all parties?) are going to be trying to figure out
how to win my vote.  So, unless I'm way out in left field, both sides are
going to try to address my concerns.  In the long run I make a difference.
In the long run my children, hjaving seen me go out and vote, and having
heard me talk about my beliefs and which candidates do and don't address my
concerns, will see that they too can have a voice.  Not a big one, truew --
but a necessary one.  In the "Greek Chorus" that is our democracy every voice
is needed to find the correct balance.  Not can be allowed to overwhelm the
others, but every voice that is missing also does harm by unsettling the
balance just a little.

This response has been erased.

Hmmm...that is interesting, Misti.  I think it raises two points that I
hadn't considered.  One is that voting is just sort of a social obligation,
a correct form of behavior--just because it is.  Like wearing a tie to
work.  The tie itself doesn't matter, but wearing it does.  To be recognized
as a decent member of the community, and to feel yourself that you are, you
have to wear the thing, and cast your vote.

The other thing is that the vote has some practical significance as a result
of vote totals being observed, rather than just outcomes of the election.
That at least gives your vote *some* meaning, although it is probably a very
very very small one.

Valerie--that is just what Hofstadter said.

It's easy to justify my own voting, since I *know* that if I
don't go out and vote for my party, nobody else will.  Even if I
do vote, very few other people will vote Libertarian, which makes
it even more important that I do so.

I suppose the real question is why I encourage others to vote,
knowing that just about everyone I talk to is going to vote for
one of the two major parties, and make my own vote that much
less important.  I'm a pretty flaming Libertarian, though, which
means helping others express themselves freely, even to my own
detriment.

This response has been erased.

Which ties in with my own election pet peeve - seeing the pundits
on TV or in the newspapers analyzing "what the electorate was
thinking" when they voted.  I.e. when we see that Clinton won with
49% of the vote (but a higher percentage of the electoral votes,
of course), but that most of the freshman Republican congressmen
won with 54% of the vote or thereabouts, and these people make
pronouncements:  "The voters basically like the status quo, and
decided to keep the incumbents in office this time."
Huh?  By my count, more than half wanted somebody other than Clinton,
and nearly half wanted to get rid of those congressmen.

Trying to describe an electorate of 90 million individuals as though
they had one gigantic group mind, and acted accordingly, seems
ludicrous to me.  I don't recall having any dreams the night before
the election where we all got together in Dreamland and said,
"Let's keep Clinton, but keep Congress in Republican hands."
Or who knows, maybe there's a mad scientist out there with his
Mind Control Satellites (tm) who decides each election, then
programs us to follow his orders.  >8)

One of the pollsters that serve as consultants to MacNeil Lehrer
said that it was a misconception that non-voters favored incumbents
or were sending a message, or anything else.  He found that they had
very much the same attitudes and preferences as people who voted.

I'm thinking--why not just choose our leaders on the basis of careful
public opinion polls, and save the trouble and expense of a complete
election.  They are going to do future censuses that way, and reckon
they can get more accurate results than they have by actually going
door to door.

It has to do with the perception of privacy.  People feel more inclined to
vote their minds when they are alone in the voting booth and don't feel that
"everyone will know".  On the other hand, a government representative coming
into your home and asking nosey questions ... or leaving a a census form even,
is perhaps more intrusive than answering more or less anonymous pollsters.

I vote on the "civic duty" basis, too.  And, quite frankly, I'd probably be
evasive if I thought polls were going to decide elections.  I've seen too many
elections (and recounts) where just a few votes decided the outcome.  
  
In Ann Arbor, back in the 70s a couple elections were decided by fewer than
5 votes.  Even Kennedy's election in 1960 could have been a Nixon decision
if one vote in every precint in the country had voted the other way.
[This is what I remember anyway, as folklore from the time.  Maybe polygon
or dpc can give an accurate summation].  
 
So I vote because a good citizen should, AND because my vote *has* made a
difference in the past.  

It's often suggested that since an individual's vote doesn't have much effect,
that vote isn't worth casting.  Well, suppose the opposite were true.  Suppose
my vote alone could determine who should be president of this country of
250,000,000 people.  That would be evil.  What right does Jan Wolter have to
tell 250,000,000 people who their leader should be?  Since I don't believe
in dictatorship, if my vote counted for far more than 1 part in 250,000,00
of the decision, I would have to decline to vote.  So I'm arguing exactly the
opposite way:  if your vote did have a significant impact, then you shouldn't
vote.

Voting isn't something an individual does.  The goal isn't for me to "making
a difference."  Voting is something a society does.  The goal is for me to
participate in the decision-making processes of my society.  When I vote, I
don't just state my opinion, I also acceed to the will of the majority.

Individuals in the society act in ways that may not make personal sense, but
do make collective sense.  Being a member of a society has benefits, so
participating in the functions of your society makes sense.

We do such things daily.  In most cases, following societal norms either has
direct benefits (driving on the correct side of the road) or violating them
has penalties artificially imposed by society (paying taxes).  We could
resolve the moral dilemma pretty easily, by simply making a law requiring
that everyone vote and penalizing anyone who doesn't (say, $100 fine).  Now
you have a nice clear personal reason for voting.  Avoid the $100 fine.
Does that make better?

I don't think so.  I think the voluntary nature of voting means that it is
one of the few times when we get to affirm that, yes, we are part of this
country and we are so by choice.  It's a community ritual, and a good one.

And what community ritual are you enacting when you vote no on
everything at a grex Board meeting, janc?  >8)

Seriously, though, I couldn't agree more.  The voluntary nature
of voting is part of what makes it special.  I think it was
mentioned in another conference, that in Australia, voting is
mandatory, to the point where Australian citizens living abroad
need to jump through all kinds of bureaucratic hoops to get
their absentee ballots in on time, or get nailed with some kind
of fine.  That sounds horrifying to me, that the Australian
government exudes that kind of authority to make people vote.

Actually, I would disagree with one point in #13, that it would
be horrible if one person's vote decided the fate of 250 million
citizens.  I wouldn't mind if my vote did so, since that's probably
the only way my candidates could ever be elected.  >8)

Well put, Jan, but that seems like an extremely process-oriented view.  In
effect you are saying that the outcome of the election doesn;t matter, so long
as you performed the satisfying social ritual.  My starting point is that the
outcome is the only thing that matters.  The outcome would have been the
same, and I'd be just as happy, if we had cancelled the election and let
Robh choose the candidate (I guess.)  I agree that is not a good *system*,
but we aren't really arguing about systems here.

The outcome would have been the same if I'd done the choosing?
I think not...

I agree with Jan, too,  -- though he describes it a little different than I
do.

Response not possible - You must register and login before posting.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss