Voting must be mandatory!

True freedom is also the choice not to participate at all (the right to silence). Mandating voting is just un-American.

 

NB: I have zero interest in a discussion about politics. My curiosity of the voting process stops at the point where politics enters. Please don't derail this conversation with politics.

Let's consider the reasonableness of this claim. If no one's vote counts, then how can any election be decided? Clearly votes counted since it is only by people casting votes that someone won and someone lost the election.

Indeed, let's consider the reasonableness. Election results are an emergent property of aggregates of votes. A sand heap is an emergent property of aggregates of individual sand grains; a cloud is an emergent property of individual water droplets; etc. The heap and the cloud are independent of the state of any single sand grain or water droplet. Since we can choose any grain or particle and the same would be true, the heap and cloud are independent of the state of any of its grains or particles.

Is it not reasonable to conclude the same about individual votes? I ask again: if I can remove your vote and the result doesn't change, then how exactly did your vote matter?

Whether someone wants to admit it or not, elections have consequences. If you choose not to participate, then you choose to meekly accept the consequences decided entirely by others. You give up your voice in the outcome and become bound by those that did not give up their voice (and whose voice is no louder or weaker than yours would have been).

By definition, the result of an election is always decided by others. By legislation, we have to accept the consequences of that decision. Whether you vote or not does not have any bearing on the two previous statements. What you call "meekly" accepting is simply recognition of the reality of the situation.

The association of voice with voting is a common one, and unintentionally apt. People say "let your voice be heard" at the ballot, but that is like trying to talk in a room full of shouting people: no one can hear what you're saying.

No. It means that if you look at all of the votes cast in all state and federal elections, one in 7,500 were cast in elections that ended in a tie or were decided by one vote. Half of those, of course, were cast in favor of the winning candidate in those races, or one in fifteen thousand. Looking at just federal elections, the number was more like one in a hundred thousand.

I'm still trying to parse the meaning of this stat. You seem to be connecting the overall total number of votes (which are spread across many elections) with the number of tie elections, but I don't see how they connect. What does the 1/7500 number indicate? If you vote 7500 times over the course of your life, you'll participate in one tie?

You absolutely have the right to decide not to vote. I have the right to think that it is a foolish decision. Just as you have the right to think that deciding to vote is a foolish decision.

Well said.

 

Voting must be mandatory!

That's not the way a democracy works. People have the freedom to participate or not participate.

For midterm elections, it's not uncommon for about half of the eligible voters to decline to participate.

 

Indeed, let's consider the reasonableness. Election results are an emergent property of aggregates of votes. A sand heap is an emergent property of aggregates of individual sand grains; a cloud is an emergent property of individual water droplets; etc. The heap and the cloud are independent of the state of any single sand grain or water droplet. Since we can choose any grain or particle and the same would be true, the heap and cloud are independent of the state of any of its grains or particles.

This is a demonstration of the limited scope of science and mathematics to express value in human societies not a lack of value for individual votes.

 

This is a demonstration of the limited scope of science and mathematics to express value in human societies not a lack of value for individual votes.

But the context is not the human value of a single vote, which I agree is ill-defined and outside the purview of science. Voting on principle is a perfectly legitimate reason to vote; I'm not arguing with that.

What I am arguing is the notion that every vote counts, i.e., in the context of election results. As elections are well-defined systems, they are firmly within the scope of math and science.

Put another way: if you vote because it makes you feel good, then there is no argument. But if you vote because you think it "makes your voice heard" or has some causal effect on the election, then my argument stands.

 

Looking over Florida's election results this morning, I'm wondering why people vote. 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?

Although I am responding to your TS post, I read the entire thread before doing so.

I think that you are “underthinking” the issue.

Voting is a democratic process, but the points that you raise do not acknowledge that process and I do not, for a moment, believe that you don’t understand the intention behind the process.

If there are 100 people and some people want Government to build a road and some do not, so a vote is held. The cost of building the road will be distributed among the 100 people. The distribution (through taxation) is not distributed equally. Use of the road, if it is built, will also not be distributed equally. The benefits and liabilities of the road, if it is built, are also not distributed equally.

The democratic process of voting, however, is designed to distribute the decision to build the road equally. Yes, I said designed. Every one (of a certain age and meeting a requirement) is eligible to vote. More votes for than against and we build the road. The process is integral to one concept of civilization/government, but that is not to say that alternative processes (one or a few decide for everyone) do not exist.

I know you understand this concept and I don’t understand why you insist that votes don’t count. Votes are precisely what get counted. The impact is distributed equally among votes; there is no other logical way of thinking about that in my view. You can’t credibly confuse votes in the eventual minority as counting any less than those in the eventual majority. It is as strange as, for example, claiming that voting is actually one big lottery and the ONLY vote that counts is the very one that sways the count one way or the other.

If I am to believe what I read, a tad less than 50% nationwide of those eligible actually cast votes in this recent midterm. The right to not vote is as much of a right as to vote, I suppose. But it is beside the point that you are raising (why vote if votes don’t count?) except to note that votes NOT cast definitely do NOT count (illegality, forgery, fraud, technical errors aside).

 

But the context is not the human value of a single vote, which I agree is ill-defined and outside the purview of science. Voting on principle is a perfectly legitimate reason to vote; I'm not arguing with that.

What I am arguing is the notion that every vote counts, i.e., in the context of election results. As elections are well-defined systems, they are firmly within the scope of math and science.

Put another way: if you vote because it makes you feel good, then there is no argument. But if you vote because you think it "makes your voice heard" or has some causal effect on the election, then my argument stands.

IMO your argument is counterfactual with the reality of how human societies operate. The loner voter in isolation is the corner case. We are individuals but in small groups we couple with other human minds/bodies in sync with shared ideals in resonance. These small groups sync with other groups up the food chain. The synchronizing effect of one, two, three individuals with limited coupling can spread to affect the entire structure.

 

If your vote is ineffectual, why bother?

In the area we live in we had a Proposition on the Ballot, in my neighborhood a local developer wants to build and accommodate for 1600 new students where I work. But, I didn't vote for it rather voted against it. Without opposition by petition we collected enough signatures to bring it to a vote, as of yesterday not all votes by mail have came in yet, Friday will declare most but not all, it will not conclude until the 20th then it will be determined. As of yesterday it was off by a single vote either way.

So, if it's that close why bother? In the primary in 2 years they will lose by an Electoral but, in the General Elections you have the most affecting you directly as would the developer who installs apartments across from an Elementary School which is just down the street from me, it will directly affect my property value not to mention foot traffic and added car traffic e.g. noise levels.

kv

 

Indeed, let's consider the reasonableness. Election results are an emergent property of aggregates of votes. A sand heap is an emergent property of aggregates of individual sand grains; a cloud is an emergent property of individual water droplets; etc. The heap and the cloud are independent of the state of any single sand grain or water droplet. Since we can choose any grain or particle and the same would be true, the heap and cloud are independent of the state of any of its grains or particles.

Is it not reasonable to conclude the same about individual votes? I ask again: if I can remove your vote and the result doesn't change, then how exactly did your vote matter?


By definition, the result of an election is always decided by others. By legislation, we have to accept the consequences of that decision. Whether you vote or not does not have any bearing on the two previous statements. What you call "meekly" accepting is simply recognition of the reality of the situation.

The association of voice with voting is a common one, and unintentionally apt. People say "let your voice be heard" at the ballot, but that is like trying to talk in a room full of shouting people: no one can hear what you're saying.

Each droplet of water or grain of sand contributes equally to the emergent properties you describe.

You asked how my vote mattered if you can remove it and the result doesn't change. Let's go with that.

What happens if you remove all the votes that don't matter?

Since your premise is that no one's vote matters, then that means you can remove all the votes without changing the result, which is obviously not the case.

Now, if you want your vote to really matter -- far, far more so than it does in a general election -- get involved at the precinct level. The platforms and candidates are decided by a remarkably small number of people who choose to take the time and make the effort to participate at the point in the process where it all begins.

 

Yes, locally every vote matters.

 

The democratic process of voting, however, is designed to distribute the decision . . .

This is the key statement. By distributing the decision power equally, the design eliminates the power of any single vote. That's my entire point!

Critical systems are often designed to hold internal "elections". For example, a discrepancy between sensor measurements can be resolved by a vote from the sensors. This prevents a faulty or otherwise misreading sensor from influencing the system. The point of voting is not to give a "voice" to the individual sensors; on the contrary, the point is to mute the voice of any single sensor. As you said, this is by design.

Please note that I am not arguing against voting as a means of electing government officials or passing legislation. Collective intelligence (at the expense of individual intelligence) is the only reasonable way to do government, and I am a strong believer in the constitutional republic that we call the U.S.A. What I am arguing against is the notion that any single vote has any actual bearing whatsoever on the that process.

 

IMO your argument is counterfactual with the reality of how human societies operate. The loner voter in isolation is the corner case. We are individuals but in small groups we couple with other human minds/bodies in sync with shared ideals in resonance. These small groups sync with other groups up the food chain. The synchronizing effect of one, two, three individuals with limited coupling can spread to affect the entire structure.

Love the video, and I think it's a good metaphor for how human groups can phase-lock. But change some of the parameters and entirely different phenomena result. Make the metronomes digital, or remove the coupling (to mimic, say, partisanship), and cacophony reigns. Change the bpm of each metronome (to mimic individuality) and you'll get a time-varying syncopation instead of lock-step. Make some of the bpm ratios irrational (to mimic extremism) and you'll get chaos.

In any case, the context here is not human society -- I don't need convincing that voting is truly meaningful in that context. The context here is the individual's choice to vote or not vote. So, unless you are suggesting that the reason individuals vote is because of some societal resonance (which is an interesting, if dark, proposition), then society has no bearing on my argument.

 

Each droplet of water or grain of sand contributes equally to the emergent properties you describe.

Which is to say, each contribution is vanishingly small. There is no other reasonable way to describe the contribution of any single particle. Do you agree or not?

You asked how my vote mattered if you can remove it and the result doesn't change. Let's go with that.

What happens if you remove all the votes that don't matter?

Since your premise is that no one's vote matters, then that means you can remove all the votes without changing the result, which is obviously not the case.

Your logic is flawed, as the conclusion "you can remove all votes without changing the results" does not follow from the premise "no single vote matters", so disproving the conclusion does nothing to the premise. You argued: If red is a color, then elephants are carnivores and then disproved that elephants are carnivores.

By definition, an emergent property is a property of the whole and not of its constituent parts. Obviously we cannot remove all the parts and still have the whole (much less the emergent property), so that's not a valid counterargument. The point still stands: a vote that can be removed without affecting an election's result does not matter -- by any reasonable definition of "matter" in the context of elections.

Now, if you want your vote to really matter -- far, far more so than it does in a general election -- get involved at the precinct level. The platforms and candidates are decided by a remarkably small number of people who choose to take the time and make the effort to participate at the point in the process where it all begins.

We agree, at least, that votes in a general election do not matter much. And I do agree with your larger point, that an individual can be far more effectual at the community level. The crazy irony is that almost no one shows up to vote for the stuff that they can actually have a say in, yet practically everyone who has any voting inclination whatsoever will show up for a presidential election (which, by the size of the turn-out and the ridiculous electoral college system, ensures that their vote will have precisely zero effect).

This phenomenon is a big reason why I'm curious of the thinking behind individuals who do vote. From my perspective, voting behavior does not tend to be rational behavior. And I mean the voting itself, not the choices they make in the booth!

 

Why vote? Because every vote counts.
It is not a question of whether your vote would make a difference or not.
You do not know the outcome before voting. Thus it is the aggregate of all votes that collectively makes a difference. That is democracy.

One million of pesos is composed of, no surprise, one million of pesos. Each peso, per se, is a trivial amount.

 

Using the previous example of 100 eligible voters.
If 3 voters vote PRO and 2 voters voted CON, then the PRO side wins.
The 95 apathetic citizens who did not vote have stated that they don't care which way the vote goes. They have no right to complain. That's the way it goes in a democratic vote.

 

Love the video, and I think it's a good metaphor for how human groups can phase-lock. But change some of the parameters and entirely different phenomena result. Make the metronomes digital, or remove the coupling (to mimic, say, partisanship), and cacophony reigns. Change the bpm of each metronome (to mimic individuality) and you'll get a time-varying syncopation instead of lock-step. Make some of the bpm ratios irrational (to mimic extremism) and you'll get chaos.

In any case, the context here is not human society -- I don't need convincing that voting is truly meaningful in that context. The context here is the individual's choice to vote or not vote. So, unless you are suggesting that the reason individuals vote is because of some societal resonance (which is an interesting, if dark, proposition), then society has no bearing on my argument.

I am suggesting that social resonance is a factor in individual actions like deciding to vote with groups as a way for the least effort of voting to produce the greatest effect for some cause. The choice of voting or not can't be explained in the simple mathematical terms of the value of one vote in isolation. It's the collective power of individuals working as teams for a desired result that matter.

 

What I am arguing is the notion that every vote counts, i.e., in the context of election results. As elections are well-defined systems, they are firmly within the scope of math and science.

Like I said in post#12, they must count or else there is NO REASON to exclude certain populations, just because they may not vote the "right way".

 

Which is to say, each contribution is vanishingly small. There is no other reasonable way to describe the contribution of any single particle. Do you agree or not?

Let's go ahead and stipulate agreement.

What is it you want? What system do you envision in which your "vote" (whatever form it might take) "counts" (by whatever metric "counting" is measured)?

You get together with four other friends and are trying to decide what movie to go see. For whatever reason, you must all go to the same movie and you have two choices. You really want to see one of the movies and you really do not want to see the other. Do you vote? Or do you not vote on the basis that your vote doesn't count? Let's say everyone votes and it ends up three to two. If you were one of the two, does that mean that your vote didn't count? What other method of making the choice would constitute every person's input "counting"?

So that it can scale, let's say that the your company is going to pay for a company-vacation to one of two destinations and you have a strong preference for one over the other. The company puts it up to a vote? If the company has ten employees, do you vote or not? If the company has ten thousand employees, do you vote or not? At what point does your vote "no longer matter"?

 

This is the key statement. By distributing the decision power equally, the design eliminates the power of any single vote. That's my entire point!

??????

Imagine picking 10 quantities. Each quantity is either -1 or 0 or +1 [subtlety notice: +1 is a vote 'for', 0 is 'did not vote' and -1 is a vote 'against'].

0 -1 -1 -1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1

If you take the sum of those 10 quantities, have you eliminated the power of any of the quantities? Of course not!

If you believe otherwise, identify which one(s) in the sequence had their power eliminated. If you say all of them, explain how you can end up with the correct sum after eliminating the power of all of them.

 

Let's go ahead and stipulate agreement.

What is it you want? What system do you envision in which your "vote" (whatever form it might take) "counts" (by whatever metric "counting" is measured)?

I have no interest in coming up with an alternative to voting, even if such a thing were possible. I'm simply curious why intelligent, rational people vote.

You get together with four other friends and are trying to decide what movie to go see. For whatever reason, you must all go to the same movie and you have two choices. You really want to see one of the movies and you really do not want to see the other. Do you vote? Or do you not vote on the basis that your vote doesn't count? Let's say everyone votes and it ends up three to two. If you were one of the two, does that mean that your vote didn't count? What other method of making the choice would constitute every person's input "counting"?

As I said, if the vote can be removed and the result of the election does not change, then your vote does not matter. This is true whether the vote is between 5 people or 5 million. Obviously, if the movie vote between you and your friends ends up 3 to 2 and you were on the 3 side, removing your vote would change the result. In this case, you can proudly say that your vote counted! But the probability that this happens goes to zero as the vote-size increases. I don't mean the probability that the vote will end up in a tie -- that gets very small, but not zero. I mean that as soon as the vote-size is large enough that there is systematic uncertainty of at least 1 vote, then any single vote becomes statistically meaningless.

For large elections, the uncertainty is much higher; even at the city level, routinely thousands of votes go missing, get damaged, are mis-scanned, etc. I was just reading about Florida's recount procedures and learned that military and overseas ballots haven't even been counted yet. How do their votes matter when they're not even literally counted? As the election size gets bigger, it gets worse, with the ultimate absurdity being the presidential election: people on the west coast might still be voting while the rest of the country has already elected a president. The value of their votes, by any metric you wish, is zero.