Support NeoGAF

[Izayoi]

So get your priorities straight, and stop trying to make "statements" when you're behind the voting curtain, and start making them out in the open, at a protest, canvassing for a primary candidate, in a letter to your congressman, or however else you can get in their damn faces. Try to change what's on the ballot before you get it, instead of just showing up and voting to void what progress has been made just because you don't like how it works.

Amazing post, thank you.

 

[Stumpokapow]

Like I said in a previous post though, non action is an action in itself. A map point has to be put up for not voting as well - meaning it negatively impacts no one.

First, voters are not confidently able to self-represent voting intent. This is why likely voter screens are complex and even then likely voter models are not 100% perfect. So when someone says "I wasn't going to vote, but now I'm voting third party", we need to assign a degree of uncertainty to the first clause. I recognize that this is, in some way, a false consciousness argument, and those are typically weak, but I think it's also obvious. People are not perfect at representing themselves in any way, and voting is no exception.

Second, the reasons for non-voting are not uniform. It is generally believed that high information is associated with voting and low information with not voting. In other words, the general hypothesis is that, in aggregate, non-voters care less, rather than the alternate hypothesis that they care equally but like the choices less. Your hypothesis is predicated on the idea that most non-voters are abstaining from voting actively, and so when they do choose to vote, it is what it is. That's not true. Most non-voters are abstaining from voting passively. If they choose to vote third-party, that's great, but whatever triggers someone's cross-over from being low-information / non-voting to being high-information / voting, we shouldn't take their vote as a given. Now that someone is paying attention, we can take the opportunity of their additional receptiveness to new information. So I don't think it's fair to say that "I wasn't going to vote until I heard about Jill Stein" means "I would never under any conditions vote for Barack Obama" (substitute any name for any other name in this). If we assign a non-voter who chooses to vote Stein a 10% chance of otherwise choosing Obama, or being receptive to choosing Obama, then Stein still effectively costs Obama 0.1 of a vote. This is math.

Third, as I mentioned to you earlier, if you are voting on the basis of legitimacy or conscience rather than electoral math, the third party case is still weaker and the major party case is still stronger. Legitimacy is important, it's not just about electoral math, it's also about making a point, but I still believe the point is better made by a major party vote. There is still a legitimacy cost to Obama associated with a Stein vote, even if the electoral math does not shift at all.

A lot of people do not understand that while voting is democracy, it is not political activism.

etc.

This is a cranky old man version of everything I've said in this thread. Come yell at my class of 18-22 year olds.

Sea_Manky: Best admin in GAF history!

 

[lopaz]

A lot of people do not understand that while voting is democracy, it is not political activism.

When you go vote for president, or any office where the two major parties are reasonably close in size and third parties are orders of magnitude smaller, you are presented with exactly two choices. No matter what you do, no matter how much you want it to be different, you will be making one of those choices more likely, and the other one less likely. Of these two choices, one will be closer to your personal policy desires than the other.

If you vote for the one closer to you, you will make the one closer to you more likely.

If you vote for the one farther from you, you will make the one farther from you more likely.

If you vote for a third party, you will make the one closer to you less likely.

If you don't vote at all, you will make the one closer to you less likely.

It doesn't matter how much you don't like it and want a different system, the math does not care. You will, whether by action or inaction, make one of these two options more likely, and the other one less likely. That's the American ballot box.

You are not voting for your political conscience, or to change the system, or any of that activist stuff. You are simply making a choice between the two policy platforms that have been presented on the ballot. One will be closer to your policy preferences than the other. Your vote will not change what is put on the ballot, or how the votes are counted, or how the electorate in general shifts.

You're just choosing one of two policies, of which only one will be implemented.

That's democracy.

But it's not activism.

Political activism is where all the hard work is. Activism is where OWS, the LGBT movement, and the Tea Party live. Where they go out, make noise, protest, run primary candidates, get on TV, make ads, donate, blog, tweet, and all the rest. That is the ONLY thing that changes what you see in those two choices in the final ballot. Obama didn't start talking about wealth inequality because some people cast protest votes or stayed home in 2010, OWS forced him to do that. Romney didn't drive farther and farther right because some people voted for Constitution party candidates, the Tea Party made him do that. Voting doesn't make politicians do anything. When they lose, they turn around and start planning for the next election by finding ways to appeal better to the people who are making all the noise. When they win, they listen to the people who make all the noise to avoid losing popularity. The only thing the votes do is choose which of the two gets a turn to implement policy.

Getting in the face of politicians en masse and telling them what you want is how you get them to start doing what you want. It's public, and messy, and hard. Voting on the other hand, is private, simple, and easy. You either pick the policy that's closer to you, or the one that's farther from you. Nobody's going to know how you voted, and nobody's going to care. Your political self image and opinions on the system are utterly irrelevant to the fact that you will end up either pushing in one policy direction, or the other, like it or not.

So get your priorities straight, and stop trying to make "statements" when you're behind the voting curtain, and start making them out in the open, at a protest, canvassing for a primary candidate, in a letter to your congressman, or however else you can get in their damn faces. Try to change what's on the ballot before you get it, instead of just showing up and voting to void what progress has been made just because you don't like how it works.

Nonsense. The whole reason we have voting in the first place is so everyone doesn't have to run around yelling at each other.

it's the job of politicians to try and come up with policies that will appeal to the most peoples' values, beliefs and interests. It's up to voters to vote according to those values, beliefs and interests

 

[Stumpokapow]

Nonsense. The whole reason we have voting in the first place is so everyone doesn't have to run around yelling at each other.

it's the job of politicians to try and come up with policies that will appeal to the most peoples' values, beliefs and interests. It's up to voters to vote according to those values, beliefs and interests

You don't believe in civil society, or political activism outside the ballot box, or that anyone other than an elected official influences policy or discourse? Wow.

 

[krypt0nian]

You don't believe in civil society, or political activism outside the ballot box, or that anyone other than an elected official influences policy or discourse? Wow.

Scary shit.

 

[BruiserBear]

CNN really has turned into a garbage network. Three minutes of show, three minutes of ads, three minutes of show, three minutes of ads, repeat ad nauseum. Have they repealed the laws on how much advertising you can show in an hour?

Plus non-stop partisan hacks for interview subjects, with softball irrelevant questions from the show hosts.

The scary thing is they're the best between the 3 major cable news networks in the U.S.

At least CNN tries to be fair.

 

[A.E Suggs]

Yeah, no.

When it comes down to the actual people being in the moment..yes it is. If you are talking about the people in power well the republican party is worst but don't be a fool in thinking the dems are somehow the good guys here just for seemingly fighting for whats right.

 

[Pctx]

Adding my 2 cents....

 

[Stumpokapow]

Good lord, what's with all the democrats in here fear mongering their "If you don't vote with us, you vote against us" line. No wonder there is never any change. Both major parties are equally as vile.

Even if both parties were equally as vile (on the cosmic objective vileness scoring system, which I don't agree exists but you're claiming it does), their vileness would be exposed in different ways on different issues, and thus individual issue salience would dictate that an individual candidate's apparent vileness to an individual voter is not 100% the same. The outcome of the presidential election is not EV0 for most people in the United States.

 

[Jonm1010]

Nonsense. The whole reason we have voting in the first place is so everyone doesn't have to run around yelling at each other.

it's the job of politicians to try and come up with policies that will appeal to the most peoples' values, beliefs and interests. It's up to voters to vote according to those values, beliefs and interests

If no one is voicing their opinions loud and collectively outside of the voting booth politicians are pissing in the dark hoping to hit the mark with what will influence voters and represent their constituents interests.

 

[kirblar]

Good lord, what's with all the democrats in here fear mongering their "If you don't vote with us, you vote against us" line. No wonder there is never any change. Both major parties are equally as vile.

And this is why Romney parroted Obama's positions during the debates.

 

[TheNatural]

You're intentionally only answering a selective part of my questions. Presumably because you understand the likely outcome of the conclusion.

Im not intentionally answering or not answering anything, other than I'm tired of this drawn out bullshit that basically comes down to an argument about what other people are trying to tell me what my vote is worth, and that's it. I'm not the one judging other peoples votes or the value of their votes - this is America. People can do whatever they damn well please.

I voted for who is closest to my views, and if that option wasn't there, I wouldn't vote period, it's that simple. It's not taking from, or negatively impacting any other candidates.

 

[q_q]

I'm more than happy to have third party candidates run for president to help expand the ideological boundaries and issues covered in the process but the presidential election is a job interview at the end of the day and I'm casting my vote for who I feel is best qualified to do that job, of the available applicants. One of the more significant metrics for qualification is how well the candidate runs their campaign and gathers genuine interest and support for their positions and general candidacy. If they never manage to drum up any more than low single-digit support for their candidacy, then that's a major failing in terms of job qualifications. It doesn't bode well for their ability to govern a diverse constituency with enough flexibility and to manage foreign affairs and relations with enough respect from the international community.

Spoken like a true Republican. Those third parties just need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and get those votes! Not like there is a major system in place designed to keep them out of the mainstream political scene. Oh wait...

 

[lopaz]

If no one is voicing their opinions loud and collectively outside of the voting booth politicians are pissing in the dark hoping to hit the mark with what will influence voters and represent their constituents interests.

that is what polling is for. Minority interests with very little support often make the loudest noise

 

[lopaz]

You don't believe in civil society, or political activism outside the ballot box, or that anyone other than an elected official influences policy or discourse? Wow.

I don't think gathering a large mass of people to cause disruption and shout at people is democracy. Some people may deem it necessary when the regime they live under is sufficiently oppressive to their interests, but it isn't democracy.

 

[mernst23]

Adding my 2 cents....

I'll bet you a grand that Romney doesn't win either Wisconsin or Pennsylvania. We can both send it to a mod right now and let him send the money to the winner.

 

[ReadingRambo]

I didn't vote today because I actually don't give a shit, I deal with whatever happens. That reasonable?

Not really.

 

[Ryce]

Adding my 2 cents....

Thanks for the laugh.

 

[pigeon]

Adding my 2 cents...

Surprised you wrote off New Hampshire.

 

[Rebel Leader]

was messing around that 270 to win map site and got them both tied at 269

 

[TheNatural]

First, voters are not confidently able to self-represent voting intent. This is why likely voter screens are complex and even then likely voter models are not 100% perfect. So when someone says "I wasn't going to vote, but now I'm voting third party", we need to assign a degree of uncertainty to the first clause. I recognize that this is, in some way, a false consciousness argument, and those are typically weak, but I think it's also obvious. People are not perfect at representing themselves in any way, and voting is no exception.

Second, the reasons for non-voting are not uniform. It is generally believed that high information is associated with voting and low information with not voting. In other words, the general hypothesis is that, in aggregate, non-voters care less, rather than the alternate hypothesis that they care equally but like the choices less. Your hypothesis is predicated on the idea that most non-voters are abstaining from voting actively, and so when they do choose to vote, it is what it is. That's not true. Most non-voters are abstaining from voting passively. If they choose to vote third-party, that's great, but whatever triggers someone's cross-over from being low-information / non-voting to being high-information / voting, we shouldn't take their vote as a given. Now that someone is paying attention, we can take the opportunity of their additional receptiveness to new information. So I don't think it's fair to say that "I wasn't going to vote until I heard about Jill Stein" means "I would never under any conditions vote for Barack Obama" (substitute any name for any other name in this). If we assign a non-voter who chooses to vote Stein a 10% chance of otherwise choosing Obama, or being receptive to choosing Obama, then Stein still effectively costs Obama 0.1 of a vote. This is math.

Third, as I mentioned to you earlier, if you are voting on the basis of legitimacy or conscience rather than electoral math, the third party case is still weaker and the major party case is still stronger. Legitimacy is important, it's not just about electoral math, it's also about making a point, but I still believe the point is better made by a major party vote. There is still a legitimacy cost to Obama associated with a Stein vote, even if the electoral math does not shift at all.



etc.

This is a cranky old man version of everything I've said in this thread. Come yell at my class of 18-22 year olds.

Sea_Manky: Best admin in GAF history!

It seems like a lot of what you and other argue here sounds like the political version of Pascal's Wager.

You're taking out the personal beliefs of someone and what they believe when they go to vote to say 'well if you HAD to pick the thing closest to what you believe, then you're hurting this.'

Imagine saying this to an atheist. "Well by choosing to be atheist, you've assured yourself of a possible Hell by not being religious, so why don't you just PICK ONE closest because you're wasitng your afterlife if there is one.'

I vote the way I believe because that's what I believe, and I don't give a fuck who it is, I'm not going to have someone tell me that it cost anyone anything, except the other people I didn't vote for, who I wasn't going to vote for anyway. Period.

 

[speculawyer]

Adding my 2 cents....

LOL on Wisconsin and PA. Ohio is his only shot.

 

[Pctx]

Surprised you wrote off New Hampshire.

We don't need it.

 

[Enron]

As a Republican, I urge those not happy with either party to cast a vote for Jill Stein in Ohio!

>.>

 

[eznark]

LOL on Wisconsin and PA. Ohio is his only shot.

I said it earlier this morning, but listening to the usual conservative suspects in Wisconsin, they are bizarrely and brazenly optimistic today.

 

[OriginofHysteria]

I just can't accept equality in vileness. The Republicans do abhorrent things quite a bit more often.

Democrats would need to be running underground dog fighting rings for that scale to equal out even a little.

Hahaha.

 

[Rentahamster]

Even if both parties were equally as vile (on the cosmic objective vileness scoring system, which I don't agree exists but you're claiming it does), their vileness would be exposed in different ways on different issues, and thus individual issue salience would dictate that an individual candidate's apparent vileness to an individual voter is not 100% the same. The outcome of the presidential election is not EV0 for most people in the United States.

Given that many proclaimed Bush's foreign policy of intervention and drone attacks were objectively immoral, it makes sense to ascribe that same level of immorality to Obama's policies, which have scaled back in some areas, escalated in some areas, but have more or less maintained the status quo.

But many folks forget about the great moral urgency once their guy is in office.

Same can be said about the war on drugs, and throwing innocent people in jail who have complied with state medical marijuana laws.

 

[Blablurn]

Adding my 2 cents....

 

[polyh3dron]

Adding my 2 cents....

 

[User 406]

Thing is, we actually have empirical evidence that the Republican and Democratic parties actually exist, and that one of them will win. So Pascal's Wager need not apply.

 

[la flama blanca]

No

Why?
I can't not give a fuck? I won't complain, I just deal with whatever happens.

 

[gatti-man]

That's some wishful thinking right thur.

 

[ElectricBlue187]

Adding my 2 cents....

I like how you made NV blue even though its closer than any of the midwest battleground states you made red

 

[Rebel Leader]

Did you see the 1972 election? Holy shit nixon



NIXON ALWAYS WINS

 

[mattiewheels]

Is trading your third party vote for an Obama vote to a non-swing state considered illegal? I wonder how many people have set that up, like people in Florida getting someone in Georgia to vote for Stein but voting Obama themselves.

 

[Josh7289]

A lot of people do not understand that while voting is democracy, it is not political activism.

When you go vote for president, or any office where the two major parties are reasonably close in size and third parties are orders of magnitude smaller, you are presented with exactly two choices. No matter what you do, no matter how much you want it to be different, you will be making one of those choices more likely, and the other one less likely. Of these two choices, one will be closer to your personal policy desires than the other.

If you vote for the one closer to you, you will make the one closer to you more likely.

If you vote for the one farther from you, you will make the one farther from you more likely.

If you vote for a third party, you will make the one closer to you less likely.

If you don't vote at all, you will make the one closer to you less likely.

It doesn't matter how much you don't like it and want a different system, the math does not care. You will, whether by action or inaction, make one of these two options more likely, and the other one less likely. That's the American ballot box.

You are not voting for your political conscience, or to change the system, or any of that activist stuff. You are simply making a choice between the two policy platforms that have been presented on the ballot. One will be closer to your policy preferences than the other. Your vote will not change what is put on the ballot, or how the votes are counted, or how the electorate in general shifts.

You're just choosing one of two policies, of which only one will be implemented.

That's democracy.

But it's not activism.

Political activism is where all the hard work is. Activism is where OWS, the LGBT movement, and the Tea Party live. Where they go out, make noise, protest, run primary candidates, get on TV, make ads, donate, blog, tweet, and all the rest. That is the ONLY thing that changes what you see in those two choices in the final ballot. Obama didn't start talking about wealth inequality because some people cast protest votes or stayed home in 2010, OWS forced him to do that. Romney didn't drive farther and farther right because some people voted for Constitution party candidates, the Tea Party made him do that. Voting doesn't make politicians do anything. When they lose, they turn around and start planning for the next election by finding ways to appeal better to the people who are making all the noise. When they win, they listen to the people who make all the noise to avoid losing popularity. The only thing the votes do is choose which of the two gets a turn to implement policy.

Getting in the face of politicians en masse and telling them what you want is how you get them to start doing what you want. It's public, and messy, and hard. Voting on the other hand, is private, simple, and easy. You either pick the policy that's closer to you, or the one that's farther from you. Nobody's going to know how you voted, and nobody's going to care. Your political self image and opinions on the system are utterly irrelevant to the fact that you will end up either pushing in one policy direction, or the other, like it or not.

So get your priorities straight, and stop trying to make "statements" when you're behind the voting curtain, and start making them out in the open, at a protest, canvassing for a primary candidate, in a letter to your congressman, or however else you can get in their damn faces. Try to change what's on the ballot before you get it, instead of just showing up and voting to void what progress has been made just because you don't like how it works.

I agree with this, at least with the way the system is now.

 

[Jonm1010]

Im not intentionally answering or not answering anything, other than I'm tired of this drawn out bullshit that basically comes down to an argument about what other people are trying to tell me what my vote is worth, and that's it. I'm not the one judging other peoples votes or the value of their votes - this is America. People can do whatever they damn well please.

I voted for who is closest to my views, and if that option wasn't there, I wouldn't vote period, it's that simple. It's not taking from, or negatively impacting any other candidates.

And all anyone else has been pointing out outside of the futility of a third party vote is how worthless presidential elections are at establishing a third party, building a third party, or influencing other parties with a third parties views.


You seem to want to ignore those facts and the advice along with it that if you actually believe in this party that your efforts need to be spent on things outside of a presidential vote.

Over 12 years old and the best you have for the green party is a list of a bunch of school board members and town hall meeting attendees self identifying, while a group only 4 years old has over a dozen congressional representatives, entire regions strongly adhering to their views and have basically collectively shifted an entire party toward their positions.

The point people are trying to make toward you is that if your support of the green party is relegated to presidential elections - and youre hoping for change and influence to bear fruit from it - you're chasing fools gold.

 

[A.E Suggs]

No

As long as he doesn't complain about the outcome he's good its his choice. If however he doesn't vote and he complains about something that could have been changed down the line if he had, well that changes things.

 

[Stumpokapow]

Im not intentionally answering or not answering anything, other than I'm tired of this drawn out bullshit that basically comes down to an argument about what other people are trying to tell me what my vote is worth, and that's it. I'm not the one judging other peoples votes or the value of their votes - this is America. People can do whatever they damn well please.

No one is allowed to question the values you use to make your vote. If climate change is important to you, that's fine. If people having lots of vowels in their last name is important to you, that's fine too. If you want the US to nuke Canada, by all means vote for that. If reducing the influence of corporate money is significant to you, vote for that. It's your vote. You put together all the issues and all the intangibles in the exact order and weight you want to add up to your voter profile which informs your vote.

But everyone can question how well your vote choice satisfies the values you've chosen versus how well other choices would have. Which is the nature of the criticisms people are making against third-party voting in the US in this specific election under this specific system.

And secondary to that, people can question how well the act of voting per se contributes to goals versus other civic actions in terms of the cost (in time, effort, thought, money for transportation, etc) versus the expected benefit. It may well be the case that choosing to vote and do nothing else is a strictly worse decision for you than choosing to donate once and not vote.

Right?

Is trading your third party vote for an Obama vote to a non-swing state considered illegal? I wonder how many people have set that up, like people in Florida getting someone in Georgia to vote for Stein but voting Obama themselves.

Vote pairing is legal provided that:
- You are not paid in any way to do so
- The agreements themselves are non-binding

In practice I'd argue that most people who are willing to put in the effort and coordination required to vote pair are probably engaged enough to be doing more useful things outside of voting

 

[speculawyer]

+1 for Obama from an old white male (but in a state where he'd win anyway)

FOR SCIENCE! (Evolution, Stem cells, green energy, people that understand how lady parts word, climate science, immunization, etc.)

I'm glad they have ballot measures because it would be so boring voting here otherwise.

I was kinda tempted to vote for Rosanne Barr and Cindy Sheehan out of a lark.

I voted for 'Lizard Person' for some local thing.

 

[Brak]

The scary thing is they're the best between the 3 major cable news networks in the U.S.

At least CNN tries to be fair.

True, although it doesn't really make it any more watchable. Ann Coulter wannabes spewing disingenuous half-truths, and CNN journalists regurgitating campaign talking points is really grating.

PBS needs to get in the 24 hour news game. They could just hijack the CBC News feed.

 

[TCRS]

Hmm... I hope Romney wins. Just to see what kind of shitstorm that would cause lol.

 

[Riddler]

CNN really has turned into a garbage network. Three minutes of show, three minutes of ads, three minutes of show, three minutes of ads, repeat ad nauseum. Have they repealed the laws on how much advertising you can show in an hour?

Plus non-stop partisan hacks for interview subjects, with softball irrelevant questions from the show hosts.

I'm sure msnbc,foxnews,CNN all have been like this forever. Only a few shows on these networks have fewer AD breaks.

 

[NH Apache]

We don't need it.

I'll be surprised if NH doesn't go red.

 

[Interfectum]

Hmm... I hope Romney wins. Just to see what kind of shitstorm that would cause lol.

There would be an entertaining shit storm for maybe a week... then four years of real shit. Would be totally worth it, huh?

 

[Cubsfan23]

yeah id actually rather watch fox news than cnn

 

[BruiserBear]

Hmm... I hope Romney wins. Just to see what kind of shitstorm that would cause lol.

I'll give you a quick preview. You'd be hearing the word "racism" a LOT.

 

[Gary Whitta]

Hmm... I hope Romney wins. Just to see what kind of shitstorm that would cause lol.

Hilarious! We need more people like you ROFLMAO!!!111

 

[polyh3dron]

yup CNN is the worst.

 

[diffusionx]

I agree with this, at least with the way the system is now.

It's the way the system has been since 1789.