This thread started as the TS claiming to want to know why people vote. It continued as an exchange between the TS and now, at least one other participant, as an effort to justify not voting on the basis of it having no effect, being statistically non-significant (note that non-significance is not a test of equality, but that is a statistical issue) and being ineffectual. Whether or not it is simply a provocative and disingenuous position, as I have suggested, The TS and supporters’ position is clear: There is no reason to vote because it doesn’t matter.

Just as the TS asked why one would vote while claiming that it is meaningless, I ask why a person does not vote. While the original position offers the premise that voting is ineffectual, and thus, irrational, my opinion is that those who engage in the “I don’t vote” behavior, in general, do so for one of three reasons, but I welcome the offer of additional reasons.

1. Religious and/or genuine (not just convenient) philosophical views. This, I believe, is the rarest of categories, but does exist. A member of the Jehovah’s Witnesses religion falls into this category. I note that, in general, people who don’t vote for this reason do not proselytize in this regard. That is, they do not directly encourage others not to vote (or challenge why they do), but may very well encourage others to join their religion.

2. Too lazy. This, I believe is the most common category. It takes an effort to vote. You have to register (in most States) and you have to identify yourself. You also need to educate yourself on the ballot and the issues and the candidates – at least in order to vote rationally. Moreover, there exists the comfort of diffusion of responsibility, making it easy to “hide”. They don’t issue “I didn’t Vote” stickers. In this thread, the hiding is done by presumed anonymity. I note that those in this category are the ones to pronounce loudly that voting simply does not matter, despite all evidence to the contrary.

3. Narcissism. These are the folks that believe that they are above the system and not a part of the system, again, despite all evidence to the contrary. They believe that they are not a part of the very system that they depend on every moment of their lives. These are the folks that think they are smarter than 95%-99% of the people out there. They know that voting doesn’t matter because of their perceived superiority – they have proclaimed it, thus, it is fact. While they also intellectually claim that people are more similar than dissimilar, it only applies to others and not themselves, because they are special. They claim a right based on self-selection and that right allows them to rationalize that they do not need to engage in civic duties like voting or jury duty, since they are above civilization. While I have some forgiveness for the luxury of youth when they behave that way, in my view, any mature adult in this category is clearly misguided to the point of dysfunction, if not pathology. These are the folks who howl the loudest when they believe they are the victim of some civil action.

The issue comes up around election time since that is when we hear the call to vote most often. It is when their “I don’t vote because it doesn’t matter” position is scrutinized the most. That is understandable.

 

You're actually describing the pizza or Chinese food dinner election: my wife wants Chinese, my daughter wants pizza, and it's up to me to break the tie. Clearly, every vote matters in such elections; mine is no more privileged than my wife's or daughter's, and with a different voting order, one of them could end up as the tie-breaker instead of me. This has never been in doubt.

But dinner elections don't scale to mass elections; systems have to be put in place and that introduces systematic error. The way elections are run, there is no realistic scenario where a 100,000 to 100,000 tie is a statistically meaningful election. In your scenario, where I am the privileged tie-breaker vote, the very fact of my being called to cast the deciding vote is a random event. Had a recount been ordered before calling me for my vote, it is practically certain that the count would not be 100,000 to 100,000, and so I wouldn't be called and my vote wouldn't matter. Within the +/- ε margin of error, the 100,000 to 100,000 result is just as likely as any other (x+ε) to (x-ε) result.

It doesn't matter whether it is statistically meaningful or not. Elections are not carried out in a nice room with the only result being a philosophical discussion about statistical significance. The purpose of an election is to elect a person to a position and whether the result is or is not statistically meaningful doesn't mean diddly. If, on that last recount, the person wins by one vote (which does happen), then whether that is the actual vote total is completely immaterial. Put in the terms that you are using, every vote that WAS counted was critical to creating the ACTUAL outcome of that election. Since the overwhelming majority of votes WERE counted, the odds that a given vote counted are well in excess of 99.99+%

 

in my view, any mature adult in this category is clearly misguided to the point of dysfunction, if not pathology.

An alleged 'category', might I venture, subsuming that of those with an established pattern of denigration, pathologization and puerile rants against any who share views in variance with their own, wot?

Hey Raymond! -Please- take a few deep breaths and re-read this thread! No one is proselytizing non-participation, 'shaming' or otherwise discouraging others' decision to vote! -- We (i.e. the TS and myself) are merely curious as regards the motivation back of individuals' decisions to vote given the statistical non-significance of said act (please note my use of the 'stronger' "non-significance" as opposed to "insignificance")...

By way of 'clearing the air': I am greatly pleased many choose to vote, hence:

That said, it is likewise undeniable that we'd be in 'a whole lot of hurt' sans elections and large numbers willing to participate therein! -- Governmental answerability is key to anything remotely resembling democracy!

Best regards
HP

 

An alleged 'category', might I venture, subsuming that of those with an established pattern of denigration, pathologization and puerile rants against any who share views in variance with their own, wot?

Hey Raymond! -Please- take a few deep breaths and re-read this thread! No one is proselytizing non-participation, 'shaming' or otherwise discouraging others' decision to vote! -- We (i.e. the TS and myself) are merely curious as regards the motivation back of individuals' decisions to vote given the statistical non-significance of said act (please note my use of the 'stronger' "non-significance" as opposed to "insignificance")...

By way of 'clearing the air': I am greatly pleased many choose to vote, hence:


Best regards
HP

A hurt dog will holler.

"are merely curious as regards the motivation back of individuals' decisions to vote" and yet when the issue of the motivation to NOT vote comes up, you twist and shout.

Warmest Regards,

 

@Hypatia's Protege

Thank you.

And thank you for introduction of this interesting topic sans the least hint of partizan politics!

Very best regards
HP

 

and yet when the issue of the motivation to NOT vote comes up, you twist and shout.

1) We asked why you choose to vote -- sans prejudice...

2) You did not ask why we abstain - but, rather, embarked, upon a rant marked by psychobabble-infused 'name calling'

Get it?

Sincerely - best regards
HP

 

It doesn't matter whether it is statistically meaningful or not. Elections are not carried out in a nice room with the only result being a philosophical discussion about statistical significance. The purpose of an election is to elect a person to a position and whether the result is or is not statistically meaningful doesn't mean diddly. If, on that last recount, the person wins by one vote (which does happen), then whether that is the actual vote total is completely immaterial. Put in the terms that you are using, every vote that WAS counted was critical to creating the ACTUAL outcome of that election. Since the overwhelming majority of votes WERE counted, the odds that a given vote counted are well in excess of 99.99+%

Your argument seems to be that as long as someone is elected, your vote matters. But I claim that the entire point of an election is to measure the decision of the majority. If that measurement is not statistically meaningful, then the election process has failed. How can a single vote matter when the aggregate doesn't matter? An election result that falls within the threshold of uncertainty is a random result.

 

1) We asked why you choose to vote -- sans prejudice...

2) You did not ask why we abstain - but, rather, embarked, upon a rant marked by psychobabble-infused 'name calling'

Get it?

Sincerely - best regards
HP

I did ask why a person does not vote....see, you can read it for your self, I underlined it now to make it very easy to read.

Just as the TS asked why one would vote while claiming that it is meaningless, I ask why a person does not vote. While the original position offers the premise that voting is ineffectual, and thus, irrational, my opinion is that those who engage in the “I don’t vote” behavior, in general, do so for one of three reasons, but I welcome the offer of additional reasons.

You are not quite accurate when you say "We asked why you choose to vote -- sans prejudice..." The original post very clearly asked the question of why people vote given that it is ineffectual - remember? Let me remind you:

I don't mean people in general, I mean individuals: why do you vote?

I'd guess that you have a better chance of dying on the drive to the voting booth than having your particular ballot actually affect the election (this may still be true even if you mail in your vote!). If your vote is ineffectual, why bother?

That is not without prejudice as you would like to rewrite the thread, it is downright saying that voting has no effect, so why would any rational person do it.

...and how did you react to me offering reasons why I believe people, in general, don't vote?

Like a hurt dog, claiming that I need to take a breath, that I need to check myself. But not just that, you went much further because the first thing that you wrote in response was: An alleged 'category', might I venture, subsuming that of those with an established pattern of denigration, pathologization and puerile rants against any who share views in variance with their own, wot? You can't un-ring that bell.

Note that you didn't offer any additional reasons for not voting. You didn't even claim that a sincere philosophy was a motivation. You jumped to the category that most spoke to you, and that speaks volumes, again in my view.

This may come as a shock to you, but this is not the first time the presumption of anonymity has emboldened people to attack. But what you failed to do, what you could not do, was come up with any other reasons for not voting, not at the general level and not at the personal level.

Tolerance is a bidirectional process. I am (albeit reluctantly in most cases, but not in the case of category #1 as I described) fine, with you or someone else not voting...I even said as much earlier - The right to not vote is as much of a right as to vote, I suppose.

Get it? It is not I who doesn't get it, it is you who doesn't like it, and how much you don't like it doesn't change it at all.

With the utmost respect, sincerity and regards...

 

You have missed my point I made earlier.
You do not know the outcome of the vote before the votes are tallied.
If you have convinced yourself that you are already outnumbered then there is no point in voting.
If you want to make a difference, you vote.
If you want to keep the status quo (i.e. stop the underdog) you vote.
If you want to give support to the underdog, no matter the odds, you vote.

 

This thread started as the TS claiming to want to know why people vote. . . . Whether or not it is simply a provocative and disingenuous position, as I have suggested, The TS and supporters’ position is clear: There is no reason to vote because it doesn’t matter.

You are the one being provocative. First you stated, without anything to back it up, that I am disingenuous and have political motives. This thread not withstanding, I've found your posts educated and thoughtful, so I tried private messaging you to see if I could clear anything up (the forum software told me that you don't accept private messages).

Then you implied that I must be either narcissistic or too lazy to vote (assuming you don't think I'm a Jehovah's Witness).

Do you not notice how you continue to discuss people in a conversation about ideas?

 

You have missed my point I made earlier.
You do not know the outcome of the vote before the votes are tallied.

Not knowing the outcome is assumed.

If you want to make a difference, you vote.

If I can remove your vote and the outcome doesn't change, how did your vote make a difference?

If you want to keep the status quo (i.e. stop the underdog) you vote.

This is the 2nd-order "mandate" effect I was talking about. I don't think this type of vote has any meaning: whether the mandate is considered strong or weak won't change if I remove your vote.

If you want to give support to the underdog, no matter the odds, you vote.

Here I think you bring up a good point. I hadn't considered the "support the underdog" scenario. Every vote for an underdog is, in some sense, support for the underdog, which could definitely have future effects, e.g., on the candidate's decision to try again next election, how much money they can raise in the next election, etc. I'm not sure how much a single vote matters in this 2nd-order sense -- it's probably a function of how much of an underdog -- but I concede that a single vote could have meaningful 2nd-order effect. (To be clear, I still believe a single vote for an underdog will have zero effect on the results of the election; I'm just not discounting future effects.)

 

You are the one being provocative. First you stated, without anything to back it up, that I am disingenuous and have political motives. This thread not withstanding, I've found your posts educated and thoughtful, so I tried private messaging you to see if I could clear anything up (the forum software told me that you don't accept private messages).

Then you implied that I must be either narcissistic or too lazy to vote (assuming you don't think I'm a Jehovah's Witness).

Do you not notice how you continue to discuss people in a conversation about ideas?

You bet I am being provocative and you bet I was critical of your motivations - I still am and I admit that openly, in fact I put emphasis on that. I will state that I also reacted poorly, mostly through frustration that you simply would not accept that votes count. You still don't, but will insist it is the aggregate and not the votes and so on and so forth, literally (well, not literally), for me ad nauseum. I can't convince you otherwise (nor did several other people in the thread), but I remain of the belief that it is simply nutty and I gave up trying to convince you otherwise. So, fine, I concede that I could have simply said, "your view seems nutty to me".

But, that is not hostility as you accused. Expressing an opposing view, with reasoning, does not automatically infer, imply or otherwise suggest hostility. Such expression does not confer hostility just as your original premise (stated here several times now) does not.

Then you implied that I must be either narcissistic or too lazy to vote (assuming you don't think I'm a Jehovah's Witness). Interesting that you did not acknowledge the very first sentence of the very first category, here let me remind you and underline it below to make it easier to spot:

1. Religious and/or genuine (not just convenient) philosophical views. Is it possible that you simply left out having a genuine philosophical view that compels one not to vote so as to be defensive at recognizing your motivations elsewhere? I just don't think so. It would have been the first thing I expected you to say - that for philosophical reasons, some people (you included or not included) choose not to vote. Had you done that, it is end of discussion (assuming sincerity and lack of evidence suggesting otherwise) and a much shorter thread, but instead you ignored that possibility all together, while simultaneously not offering any other category for reasons not to vote.

"Do you not notice how you continue to discuss people in a conversation about ideas?"

Huh? We are talking about people and voting, just not the idea of voting, actually voting and not voting (remember you were watching the results from Florida and that was the apple falling for you) and why they do one or the other - can you not see that? We are not talking about what Zen is, or isn't.

Or do you mean specific people? If so, I accept that you say so, as when I respond to and quote posts, it is necessarily talking about what that person wrote, but "methinks thou doth protest too much". Go ahead and offer the reasons why you, or anyone does not vote and how those three categories do, or do not explain why people do not vote.

You ask why people vote and I ask why people don't vote, that may not be not terribly convenient for you, if so, I understand, but it is hardly off topic. I really appreciate your compliment, but it doesn't change the issues - just as it is hard to accept that we are part of this challenging, sub-optimal, messed up, system, we, nevertheless, are.

As for the private messaging, I have communicated in private messaging before, but I too recently tried to private message someone and found I could not (and mentioned it in another thread). I suspect that I have some setting somewhere responsible for that, but much like the person in the latter thread, I don't feel compelled to go figure it out right now. Besides, I don't think you need to clear anything up, unless you want to offer additional reasons that people do not vote.

 

If I can remove your vote and the outcome doesn't change, how did your vote make a difference?

Because you do not know this a priori.

 

I did ask why a person does not vote.

Whereupon you followed up your 'question' with derogatory comments thinly disguised as 'speculation' -- A rhetorical 'question' is hardly a genuine inquiry under any conditions...

You are not quite accurate when you say "We asked why you choose to vote -- sans prejudice..." The original post very clearly asked the question of why people vote given that it is ineffectual - remember? Let me remind you:

I don't mean people in general, I mean individuals: why do you vote?

That a single vote is productive of no effect upon the outcome of large-scale elections (indeed, even in the incredibly unlikely event of a genuine 'draw', a single vote would be hopelessly 'buried in the noise') is a statement of fact - not opinion - Hence the notion of 'prejudice' is meaningless in this regard... --- Note that each of us have made it abundantly clear that we are neither criticizing nor disparaging voters... Indeed! Convincing 'the many' to abstain from voting would be as disastrous as it is (mercifully) impossible - and certainly not our aim!

...and how did you react to me offering reasons why I believe people, in general, don't vote?

By reminding you that this discussion is one of inquiry -- as opposed to condemnation... And, frankly, that your fora-wide pattern of 'rants' (whether genuine or merely 'theater') are unbecoming the educated, highly intelligent gentleman that you usually appear to be...

Had you merely responded with something of the form (as seems to be your stance): "I feel voting is every eligible citizen's civic responsibility" -- I assure you you'd have received neither argument nor denigration - merely a sincere 'thank you for your input'.

An alleged 'category', might I venture, subsuming that of those with an established pattern of denigration, pathologization and puerile rants against any who share views in variance with their own, wot? You can't un-ring that bell.

But then it was you who sounded that 'bell' (i.e. embarked upon personal rancor):

in my view, any mature adult in this category is clearly misguided to the point of dysfunction, if not pathology.

---Emphasis Added---

Would it ease your pique was I to own my refusal to 'dampen' it?

Note that you didn't offer any additional reasons for not voting.

And again:

I don't vote either - for said participation's statistical non-significance as well as my aversion to enrollment upon 'juror duty' rosters, survey lists, etc...

Simple as that! -- No 'additional reasons' exist...

This may come as a shock to you, but this is not the first time the presumption of anonymity has emboldened people to attack.

I attacked no one

As regards my alleged presumption of anonymity? No fear of that! -- Thanks to my carelessness I doubt any interested parties yet ignore my identity (I've personally 'heard' from several members over the years) --- But hey! I'll give you this -- your self-imposed lack of anonymity has done nothing to improve your manners - Inasmuch as you're no fool I'm obliged to score that as courage

and how much you don't like it doesn't change it at all.

Ya know... I heard a rumor to that effect at Ca. 3 YOA

With the utmost respect, sincerity and regards...

I genuinely hope you mean that -- For all the 'hard words' (on both sides) there are certainly no hard feelings here!

Very best regards
HP

 

You bet I am being provocative and you bet I was critical of your motivations - I still am and I admit that openly, in fact I put emphasis on that.

What reason do you have to question my motivations? My arguments have been based on logic not politics.

But, that is not hostility as you accused. Expressing an opposing view, with reasoning, does not automatically infer, imply or otherwise suggest hostility. Such expression does not confer hostility just as your original premise (stated here several times now) does not.

As I recall, you offered a single post with a reasoned opposing view (we may call it the sum is not greater than its parts argument). Your other posts have been explicitly hostile: rather than offer logic, you offered ad hominems. To put the distinction in stark relief, WBahn has also argued strongly that I am wrong, but the difference between his and your posts on the matter speaks for itself. I whole-heartedly welcome WBahn's arguments because they are precisely what I asked for: a reasoned and sober debate about the value of a single vote. In contrast, several of your posts reek of disdain for me and anyone who would agree with me.

Is it possible that you simply left out having a genuine philosophical view that compels one not to vote so as to be defensive at recognizing your motivations elsewhere? I just don't think so. It would have been the first thing I expected you to say - that for philosophical reasons, some people (you included or not included) choose not to vote.

It's mind-boggling how you insist that I have some motivation beyond believing that a single vote does not matter. It is neither a religious nor philosophical choice -- I gave the issue some thought and concluded that voting is ineffectual. When I asked my family for their opinions, they thought I was nuts, though none could or would give me a logical argument why. So I started a thread here. What do you think I stand to gain from this? What ulterior motives are you projecting on me?

My hope for this thread was to either a) strengthen my belief by putting it to the test against opposing beliefs, or b) abandon my belief because it is logically untenable. In either case, I hoped to have an intellectually stimulating debate. It seemed like a timely topic of conversation that I thought others might enjoy, too.

"Do you not notice how you continue to discuss people in a conversation about ideas?"

Huh? We are talking about people and voting, just not the idea of voting, actually voting and not voting (remember you were watching the results from Florida and that was the apple falling for you) and why they do one or the other - can you not see that? We are not talking about what Zen is, or isn't.

The people, in this case, are me and Hypatia's Protege; the idea is the concept of the value of a single vote. Do you not see how talking about the people is far less interesting than talking about the idea? To put it plainly: when WBahn attacks my argument, he does it without even the hint of attacking me. See the difference?

Go ahead and offer the reasons why you, or anyone does not vote and how those three categories do, or do not explain why people do not vote.

Those three categories are utterly meaningless to me. I have explained why I do not vote -- it should be bloody obvious, given my claim -- but I will explain it again. I do not vote because I do not believe that it will make a difference. If an amendment was up for vote on the issue that was the very dearest and nearest to my heart, I would not vote because I do not believe it would make a difference. Is that clear enough?

 

Whereupon you followed up your 'question' with derogatory comments thinly disguised as 'speculation' -- A rhetorical 'question' is hardly a genuine inquiry under any conditions...



That a single vote is productive of no effect upon the outcome of large-scale elections (indeed, even in the incredibly unlikely event of a genuine 'draw', a single vote would be hopelessly 'buried in the noise') is a statement of fact - not opinion - Hence the notion of 'prejudice' is meaningless in this regard... --- Note that each of us have made it abundantly clear that we are neither criticizing nor disparaging voters... Indeed! Convincing 'the many' to abstain from voting would be as disastrous as it is (mercifully) impossible - and certainly not our aim!


By reminding you that this discussion is one of inquiry -- as opposed to condemnation... And, frankly, that your fora-wide pattern of 'rants' (whether genuine or merely 'theater') are unbecoming the educated, highly intelligent gentleman that you usually appear to be...

Had you merely responded with something of the form (as seems to be your stance): "I feel voting is every eligible citizen's civic responsibility" -- I assure you you'd have received neither argument nor denigration - merely a sincere 'thank you for your input'.



But then it was you who sounded that 'bell' (i.e. embarked upon personal rancor):

---Emphasis Added---

Would it ease your pique was I to own my refusal to 'dampen' it?



And again:


Simple as that! -- No 'additional reasons' exist...



I attacked no one

As regards my alleged presumption of anonymity? No fear of that! -- Thanks to my carelessness I doubt any interested parties yet ignore my identity (I've personally 'heard' from several members over the years) --- But hey! I'll give you this -- your self-imposed lack of anonymity has done nothing to improve your manners - Inasmuch as you're no fool I'm obliged to score that as courage


Ya know... I heard a rumor to that effect at Ca. 3 YOA



I genuinely hope you mean that -- For all the 'hard words' (on both sides) there are certainly no hard feelings here!

Very best regards
HP

wah-wah-wah

I have said what I wanted to say and your angry howling tells me that you heard me loud and clear and have no comeback. If you don't like my rants there is an ignore user feature - I encourage you to use it, embrace it, cherish it, it's not voting and it will not put you on jury duty - it's as simple as that!

 

What reason do you have to question my motivations? My arguments have been based on logic not politics.


As I recall, you offered a single post with a reasoned opposing view (we may call it the sum is not greater than its parts argument). Your other posts have been explicitly hostile: rather than offer logic, you offered ad hominems. To put the distinction in stark relief, WBahn has also argued strongly that I am wrong, but the difference between his and your posts on the matter speaks for itself. I whole-heartedly welcome WBahn's arguments because they are precisely what I asked for: a reasoned and sober debate about the value of a single vote. In contrast, several of your posts reek of disdain for me and anyone who would agree with me.


It's mind-boggling how you insist that I have some motivation beyond believing that a single vote does not matter. It is neither a religious nor philosophical choice -- I gave the issue some thought and concluded that voting is ineffectual. When I asked my family for their opinions, they thought I was nuts, though none could or would give me a logical argument why. So I started a thread here. What do you think I stand to gain from this? What ulterior motives are you projecting on me?

My hope for this thread was to either a) strengthen my belief by putting it to the test against opposing beliefs, or b) abandon my belief because it is logically untenable. In either case, I hoped to have an intellectually stimulating debate. It seemed like a timely topic of conversation that I thought others might enjoy, too.



The people, in this case, are me and Hypatia's Protege; the idea is the concept of the value of a single vote. Do you not see how talking about the people is far less interesting than talking about the idea? To put it plainly: when WBahn attacks my argument, he does it without even the hint of attacking me. See the difference?


Those three categories are utterly meaningless to me. I have explained why I do not vote -- it should be bloody obvious, given my claim -- but I will explain it again. I do not vote because I do not believe that it will make a difference. If an amendment was up for vote on the issue that was the very dearest and nearest to my heart, I would not vote because I do not believe it would make a difference. Is that clear enough?

As I have already stated, if you truly believed that your vote makes no difference, you would have no logical reason to continue to harp on it for post after post, trying angle after angle, rephrasing and re-framing, attempting in vane to garner support for your uncertainty on the issue. In fact, you would have no reason to bring it up in the first place since you already know that people vote, in large part, because they think it makes a difference. If you had truly decided otherwise, you would simply practice what you preach and do it quietly, confidently and consistently.

You state that "Those three categories are utterly meaningless to me. I have explained why I do not vote -- it should be bloody obvious, given my claim -- but I will explain it again. I do not vote because I do not believe that it will make a difference. Yet you can neither take ownership of that "bloody obvious position" as a genuine life philosophy, while ignoring/denying all of the other things that you do in life that don't "make a difference" - by your evaluation - it is my hope that the day will come that you realize that ALL of those things matter, that they all make a difference.

This, "it is simple as that" explanation while simultaneous carrying on as though holding it as a high philosophical truth worthy of endless discussion on an electronic forum, strikes me as nutty and lacking credibility. You have said nothing to change my mind and I have read all of your posts in this thread.

"The people, in this case, are me and Hypatia's Protege; the idea is the concept of the value of a single vote. Do you not see how talking about the people is far less interesting than talking about the idea? "

No my friend, that is subterfuge. The PERSON in this case is YOU and it is not just an idea, it is an action. You don't now have the luxury of treating it as an idea only, a concept only, because inconvenient realities slap you in the face. You can not now, simply decide that the concept is divorced from action and that the action is conceptually divorced from the person - the proof for this is in the second sentence when you started the thread - "I don't mean people in general, I mean individuals: why do you vote?" You didn't say, "I would like to discuss this on the conceptual level only, not on the personal level specifically" - you made the point and you made it clearly.

I can't help you with strengthening or weakening your beliefs and I am no longer willing to continue a somewhat futile point/counter point discussion with you on that subject. Nor do I think that you don't believe that a person's vote counts. You will just have to accept that and move on, I encourage you to do that. I do believe that you are struggling with the issue and you have heard my opinions on the matter loudly and clearly - everybody finds their own way.

What is sad, to me, and I mean this seriously and sincerely, is when you state "If an amendment was up for vote on the issue that was the very dearest and nearest to my heart, I would not vote because I do not believe it would make a difference. Is that clear enough?

It is sad because you don't see that your not voting also makes a difference.

 

As I have already stated, if you truly believed that your vote makes no difference, you would have no logical reason to continue to harp on it for post after post. . . If you had truly decided otherwise, you would simply practice what you preach and do it quietly, confidently and consistently.

Frankly, this is flabbergasting to me. The way I form beliefs is to think through them, speak to others about them, then think more about them, weighing the various opinions and possibilities. It takes time to do this, and some beliefs survive the process, others don't. All of my beliefs are in various states of doubt, and I generally welcome good opportunities to question them. The alternative -- to accept a belief unquestionably -- is abhorrent. I don't think you disagree, so I have no idea what you're suggesting here.

Yet you can neither take ownership of that "bloody obvious position" as a genuine life philosophy, while ignoring/denying all of the other things that you do in life that don't "make a difference" - by your evaluation - it is my hope that the day will come that you realize that ALL of those things matter, that they all make a difference.

Again, you focus on the person and not the idea. What does my philosophy, or whether or not I think anything else in life makes a difference, have to do with the concept of the value of a single vote? In this context -- a public forum -- the idea is the interesting part, not me.

No my friend, that is subterfuge. The PERSON in this case is YOU and it is not just an idea, it is an action. You don't now have the luxury of treating it as an idea only, a concept only, because inconvenient realities slap you in the face.

What inconvenient realities are you talking about? What subterfuge? Get a grip. If you cannot bring yourself to decouple the idea from the action -- an action which clearly upsets you -- then you are not fit for this conversation.

You can not now, simply decide that the concept is divorced from action and that the action is conceptually divorced from the person - the proof for this is in the second sentence when you started the thread - "I don't mean people in general, I mean individuals: why do you vote?" You didn't say, "I would like to discuss this on the conceptual level only, not on the personal level specifically" - you made the point and you made it clearly.

I emphasized individuals as a way to steer the conversation away from generalized answers such as "because we live in a democracy". I have zero doubt why we hold elections. I have zero doubt that this is a good and vital way to run a government. I have loads of doubt on the efficacy of a single vote, and so I asked for opinions. Asking the question "Why do you vote?" is a way to get the conversation started. I didn't say "I would like to discuss this on the conceptual level only, not on the personal level specifically" because a) no one talks like that, and b) smart people generally know how to have conversations.

So, if your big beef with me is that I specifically asked why you vote -- with the implication that this was a personal/emotional debate, while I've otherwise made it abundantly clear that it is not -- then you have my apology.

I can't help you with strengthening or weakening your beliefs and I am no longer willing to continue a somewhat futile point/counter point discussion with you on that subject.

Umm, no, you haven't been engaged in a point/counterpoint on this subject. You've offered very little in the way of points or counterpoints about the freaking subject. Most of the time you've just been a dick.

 

Time gentlemen, please.

 

Second chance to voice your arguments as to Why vote?...