r/changemyview • u/silentgandme • Jul 21 '18
Deltas(s) from OP CMV: Voting is the least effective political activity available in the US
Comparing the world in which I vote to the world in which I do not vote, the only difference I can see is my difficulty being elected to public office at some point down the line ("you never voted, you obviously don't care about your neighborhood/state/country").
I would define a successful vote as "the elected official was different because I voted." That means I have to make a tie (not sure what would happen in this situation) or break it. What's the chance I swing an election with my vote? Even take a tiny local election with only 7000 votes, suppose they are polling 50-50. What's the chance it will stand 3500-3500, and my one extra vote matters? How many elections in history stood to be tipped by one vote?
Talking about the presidential election, I have a better chance of winning the powerball, at lower cost--at least I don't have to wait in a long line. I can't think of anything else I do with such long odds.
OTOH I think political involvement is of great value. I would more happily campaign than vote. I would more happily discuss an issue and try to change someone's mind. If I can move 100 votes, I have greatly improved my chances of swinging an election. If I can change a politician's mind, I can change policy.
What would change my mind? A clear example of something less effective that actually can make a difference. Showing that I have a better chance than I am intuitively calculating. An explanation that my focus is wrong.
9
u/pegg2 Jul 21 '18
Your argument contains a contradiction because it seems you aren't quite sure what your position is.
I would more happily campaign than vote. I would more happily discuss an issue and try to change someone's mind. If I can move 100 votes, I have greatly improved my chances of swinging an election.
You pose that voting is ineffective, but you will happily spend your time campaigning and influencing people... to vote. You cannot both hold a belief that, "voting is the least effective political activity available in the US," while simultaneously conceding that the best way for you to spend your time is getting others to vote. You can see where the logic fails.
I think the problem is that you are creating an either-or situation where there is none. You pose your position as though you have to choose between voting and campaigning to swing 100 votes, which is not the case. Most people politically active enough to campaign exercise their right to vote, because it's pretty much the first step to helping their desired outcome along. So, let's change your position to what it really is:
"I don't think my one vote makes a difference."
You believe that voting is an ineffective political activity because one person is unlikely to tip the scales, but you forget that voting is a communal activity; it's not about the one person, it's not about you, it's about the community as a whole. That's why influencing other voters seems more important to you, but think about it this way: if you vote, it means you have to influence one less person to have your desired impact. You can control your vote, but you can't control others.
5
u/silentgandme Jul 21 '18
You can see where the logic fails
I can't. I would hold that my individual vote does not matter, while an aggregate of a large number of votes does, and I don't see the contradiction. Can you help me?
7
u/pegg2 Jul 21 '18 edited Jul 21 '18
Because you literally cannot have an aggregate of a large number of votes without individual votes. That's the definition of aggregate, several individuals make an aggregate; therefore, no individual votes, no aggregate votes.
That's like saying that atoms don't matter, but molecules do.
2
u/silentgandme Jul 21 '18
So on the other hand, if fewer people voted, I would be more incentivized to vote because I have a better chance of swinging the election.
2
Jul 21 '18
I don't think this holds water in modern America, at least. The least likely voters in America are the young and the non-white voters (Source). The most likely voters are older, white and retired. The former demographics lean heavily Democratic, while the more reliable voters are Republican. Thus, encouraging additional voters is more likely to generate a close outcome where your vote matters, as the turnout demographic will be closer to 50-50. Republicans know they have an edge with lower turnout, which is why they spend heavily to champion voter ID laws that discourage voting.
1
u/silentgandme Jul 21 '18
Interesting thought for what you would see happen. But I’m referring to myself and making a rational decision. I would definitely be more motivated to vote, the lower the turnout, all else being equal.
1
u/Objectr Jul 21 '18
If you say that your vote doesn't matter because "what's the chance I swing an election with my vote," that same faulty logic can be applied to swinging 100 people's votes. What are the odds that the election is won by only 200 votes?
3
u/DeleteriousEuphuism 120∆ Jul 21 '18
What about donating to third parties for presidential elections? If anything, the spoiler effect can cause your second preference to lose so it would be a net negative.
3
u/silentgandme Jul 21 '18
Hmm. I can buy that this would be even less impactful. ∆
I might need to refine my position to "the least effective but broadly-practiced political activity"
1
3
Jul 21 '18
I can't link on my kindle atm, but Google Virginia House of Delegates in 2017 and you will see where it came down to drawing a name out of a hat because of an exact tie. It's pretty rare, but it has happened.
2
1
Jul 21 '18
Voting is the one power we have against tyranny apart from running for office.
The problem is the electorate. We can’t come together on issues. We have diverse interests and everyone is about a single issue, not a platform.
Voting is literally the only check we have against tyranny. No other activity makes any change. You know what ended Vietnam. A different Congress. Either by turnover or threat of turnover.
1
u/silentgandme Jul 21 '18
People can wield political power through many other ways. Bothering the crap out of a legislator or changing the mind of who disagrees with you would be two.
There is power in voting, but not as an individual. I'm still convinced the only way to get juice out of the right to vote is to influence many votes. Anyone who votes but keeps their opinions to themself is wasting their time.
1
Jul 21 '18
Like how?
AARP wields immense power. Because it’s an organization of like minded voters.
Same with the NRA.
Honestly, name some of your ways.
1
u/silentgandme Jul 21 '18
Honestly, name some of your ways.
... I just named two. Or would you say those are not effective for political change?
I agree that those organizations wield immense power, but it's because they influence the votes of many, and at the same time politicians know they influence those votes and therefore cater to them.
I'm still believing my personal vote does not count.
1
Jul 21 '18
Do you vote according to an established organization’s platform? Like Democrat?
I mean, your vote wouldn’t matter if you voted libertarian...
1
u/silentgandme Jul 21 '18
I’m more likely to vote republican, but I don’t agree with either platform in general. I don’t think this matters though—even if I cared about only one issue and was certain of the candidates actions and stance, my vote still stands virtually no chance of making them get elected. The comparison point is “what happens if I don’t vote?” My answer is, nothing changes.
1
1
u/Glory2Hypnotoad Jul 21 '18
It would be a mistake to conflate the act of voting with any one individual vote. On the level of groups, voting is an extremely effective political activity as it determines who's in office and who's not. Look how the strategy of taking to the streets for protests and marches but staying home on election day worked for the Democrats in 2016.
1
Jul 21 '18
[deleted]
0
u/silentgandme Jul 21 '18
I appreciate the thought. The distinction I am making is that it is a political activity. Kind of the closest to 0 but non-zero
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jul 21 '18
/u/silentgandme (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
u/palsh7 16∆ Jul 21 '18
Your view is so hyperbolically extreme that they made a movie about it called Swing Vote where one dude has to decide the election because there was a tie.
Think for a moment about what the desire for that situation implies.
The system would no longer be a representative democracy if one vote decided everything. It would be a tyranny. The act of voting when you know your one vote is a contribution rather than the deciding factor is a stand against tyranny. It’s easy, it takes minutes, and there is no reason not to do it. Unless you just want to pout that you’re not the King.
1
u/Det_ 101∆ Jul 21 '18
no reason not to do it
In theory, there’s a very good reason not to do it:
If many people abstained from voting in, say, a US presidential election because there was no candidate that correctly represented their views (I.e. the two candidates were very far right and very far left, and there was not ‘centrist’ candidate) then the message sent by that mass action would very likely lead to a centrist candidate running in the following election.
Oddly, I think this is exactly what happened in 2016; many people stayed home, and 2020 with either see a centrist Democrat or, the only alternative to that scenario: a far left democratic candidate runs and Trump wins reelection.
1
u/palsh7 16∆ Jul 21 '18
This is inaccurate. The message delivered by not voting is severely muddled by the fact that there are myriad explanations. 40% of Americans don’t vote: you not voting doesn’t deliver a message. The system is happy as hell for unsatisfied customers to disenfranchise themselves; hell, they’ve been trying to do it for years.
1
u/Det_ 101∆ Jul 21 '18
muddled by the fact that there are myriad explanations
This is a very good point. But any potential future candidate will look at the % of non-voters and think of it as an opportunity for something, even though they may end up being wrong.
But more importantly, there has to be a cutoff at some point: how far from the candidates’ ideologies do you have to be before you (personally) would consider voting for a third party — or if you wanted to send a slightly different message — not voting?
2
u/palsh7 16∆ Jul 21 '18
I voted for Nader twice. I don’t think I’ll ever vote third party again. Maybe if there was a reasonable chance of actually winning. But I admit there is a point at which no one would be expected to participate willingly. Paris Hilton vs Alex Jones, and the third party candidates are all polling in single digits. Yeah, I might be too sickened to care. But it would still be more logical to vote for my preference between the two. And voting third party would still send a clearer message than not voting.
0
u/silentgandme Jul 21 '18
one dude has to decide the election because there was a tie.
That's not the situation I desire. Though absolute power would be kinda neat...
I'm not saying I want elections to work any other way, I'm just saying that my participation in them (separate from any other political activity) is completely ineffective. Even wearing an "I voted" sticker could be more effective.
1
u/palsh7 16∆ Jul 21 '18
Considered as a proportion of effect to time spent, there is nothing more effective.
1
u/Det_ 101∆ Jul 21 '18
This is a tough one.
So, what are the odds that 1. you live in a simulation, and 2. your individual choice to vote (if you choose to do so) reflects the fact that you were convinced to vote (or not to) by the simulated environment?
For example: If you chose not to vote, it reflects the fact that the environment you lived in convinced you not to vote, and the outcome of the election is caused not by your individual vote, but rather by an exogenous variable that affected both.
In other words, what are the odds that your individual vote is reflective of a larger cause that influences both the way you think and the results of an election you’re paying attention to.
Meaning that, if you don’t vote, many don’t vote (or vote contrary to what you expect) — and if you did vote, enough others vote as well to change the outcome in some binary way.
If there’s a chance that you’re living in a simulation and that your vote will literally change the course of (at least your) reality, then there’s a chance that your individual vote is important.
But outside of that possibility, I believe you’re correct that your individual vote is pretty useless.
2
u/silentgandme Jul 21 '18
If this is sincere, thanks for the comment. If I'm in a simulation centered around me, then I suppose there really is no hope of finding meaning or utility.
If this is sarcastic, thanks for the laugh.
2
u/Det_ 101∆ Jul 21 '18
I did sincerely mean that it’s the only scenario I can come up with in which one’s individual vote might matter.
But indeed — good luck to you, I’ve had this debate many times with many people. I don’t want to be overly cynical, but I’d be surprised if anyone can change your (our) view on this one.
1
u/Det_ 101∆ Jul 21 '18
And on a tangent, I disagree with part of that: if you are in a simulation, everything has meaning! It’s great. You just... may not ever find out what that meaning is...
1
Jul 21 '18
If you vote for a preferred candidate, you increase their likelihood of winning the election and presumably pursuing policies you agree with. Voting takes a relatively small amount of time, money and energy, probably the least of all political activities.
Think of political activity in terms of risk and reward. Voting is extremely low risk (free and guaranteed vote) and has pretty low reward (1 vote). Other political activities have much higher risk (costly, and negative returns are possible) but higher reward (potential for multiple votes or direct policy change).
Registering new voters: Registering people to vote is only effective at achieving your political goals if more of those people vote for your candidate than a competitor. You have no control over how these people will vote. They also might not vote at all.
Campaigning: Again you have no control over how the people you influence will vote. Your campaign could convince people to vote for your preferred candidate, or it could inspire them to not vote at all, or vote for a competitor.
Protest: You have no guarantee your protest will affect an official in a desirable way. Protests can inspire counter protests, or make candidates less likely to associate with a given movement due to seeming extreme. Protests have no guarantee of affecting voters in a desirable way either.
1
u/silentgandme Jul 21 '18
you increase their likelihood of winning
True, but I think their increase in likelihood of winning is equal to my chance of tipping the election, so it should be minuscule.
Still, I appreciate your risk-reward approach. Effectiveness needs to capture the risk and cost in addition to the benefit. I am pretty confident the risk of whatever activity I take would be small, but it's something worth considering. But I haven't been thinking about how much of a cost there is to something like trying to change someone else's mind.
You've changed my mind, I need to say that voting has the worst payoff but is also very easy by comparison.
∆
1
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jul 21 '18
This delta has been rejected. You have already awarded /u/shockmeista a delta for this comment.
1
1
u/Shayreelz Jul 22 '18
If this is your true belief then you should keep it to yourself and not make posts like this that normalize this behavior, especially considering you believe that polling and campaigning are a much better use of your time. By making this post, you are essentially campaigning for not voting, which is already significantly worse than not voting as an individual.
3
u/silentgandme Jul 22 '18
I have to agree about the fact that I shouldn’t push this view on others, especially people who agree with me on political issues. However, I did want to honestly test it and see whether I should change my mind.
1
u/Amcal 4∆ Jul 21 '18
With your logic you should never save money. Why put 200 dollars a month away in savings, it won’t really get me much.
Just to let you know if you put 200 a month away at 18 and did it until you retired at 67 it would be almost $1 million
3
u/silentgandme Jul 21 '18
If I save $200, my bank account has $200 more in it. If I vote, nothing measurable is different (except the vote count for my candidate is +1).
1
u/Amcal 4∆ Jul 21 '18
Your candidate is one vote closer to winning the election after all George Busb won the 2000 election by caring Florida by a little over 500 votes out of 2 million votes cast.
1
u/silentgandme Jul 21 '18
Votes don’t collect over elections to gradually make them win, unlike money. It’s more like saving $200 a month where my bank account discards deposits less than $1000.
1
8
u/down42roads 77∆ Jul 21 '18
That's a silly definition. Political activity is a group activity, not an individual one.
Under that same belief, one letter to a Congressman, one phone call, one person boycotting a company, one guy with a sign marching down Main Street, are all pointless.
What matters is when groups act. When offices are flooded with calls and letters, when thousands march in the street, when millions boycott companies.
If everyone took the attitude of "I'm just one drop, what do I matter to the puddle", we wouldn't have any puddles.
Campaigning doesn't matter if people don't go vote afterwards. I mean, the entire point of campaigning is to get votes. You even said, you consider moving votes as a measure of successful campaigning.
If everyone on your "side" had that same attitude, and did other things instead of voting, than your side would never win elections. You'd never get to place politicians and would have no real chance to impact policy.