Voting USA 2012?

[Light]

Actually, after all the exorbitant spending Barack did, I think a fiscal conservative would do good to put all that obese government expenditure on a diet and help the economy get in better shape. And Romney's not stupid enough to screw up on the social issues:

Wikipedia

In the 1994 Senate race, Romney aligned himself with Republican Massachusetts Governor William Weld, who believed in fiscal conservatism and supported abortion rights and gay rights, saying "I think Bill Weld's fiscal conservatism, his focus on creating jobs and employment and his efforts to fight discrimination and assure civil rights for all is a model that I identify with and aspire to."

I'm not voting though. Otherwise I would loose my sacred right to complain about how much I hate politics.

 

[Datura]

Actually, after all the exorbitant spending Barack did, I think a fiscal conservative would do good to put all that obese government expenditure on a diet and help the economy get in better shape.

What makes you think cutting back government spending will improve the economy? Fiscal conservatism is why we're in this mess in the first place.

And regarding Romney, you must understand that Governor Romney and Presidential Candidate Romney are two completely different people. While he may have been laid-back on social issues in the past, pandering to the increasingly-radical GOP for primary votes has changed things completely. Go ahead and Google Romney's recent statements on women's health, gay marriage, workers' rights and labor unions, affirmative action and other non-discrimination laws, or immigration laws. If you think he is "moderate" on any of these issues, or if you think he is an advocate for any kind of marginalized or struggling person, you are certainly mistaken.

Oh, but it's okay. He can just change his views to appease whoever he needs on his side. So if the fact that he's the kind of person who jokes about firing 4,300 people while running on a platform of jobs, jobs, jobs! isn't enough to convince you that he is a terrible human being, then his complete inconsistency should be enough to send you over the edge.

 

[Autumn]

re: votes don't matter: i had this discussion with my mom once and then she informed me that there was a debate over whether america's official language would be english or german and english won by a vote

ALSO I am turning 18 two days before the election this year!! if I can get registered as a voter votin' for obama

 

[Cerberus87]

If I was American I would not vote. The day enough people don't vote, they'll start to rethink the system.

If I HAD to vote, though (like we do in Brazil, much to my dismay), it would be Obama. No way I'd support Romney and Condoleeza Rice.

Also I find it amazing that the Americans live with a Constitution that fits in a piece of paper. The Brazilian Constitution is so bloated it makes it frustrating to study Constitutional Law with all the little rules.

 

[goldenquagsire]

Basically, modern politicians IMO, are getting more and more.. Corrupt....

If anything, I'd say they're getting less corrupt, at least in Britain. Things like the cash for access scandal and the expenses scandal get widespread attention thanks to a strong, independent press and (to a lesser extent) the forces of Internet Twitter Democracy Warriors or whatever you're supposed to call them. These things have always happened, but now politicians are getting called out for it.

Also, before we start getting carried away let's remember that there's a difference between fiddling your expenses claim and, say, the Burmese junta. Trying to equate a reasonably democratic government with an actual totalitarian state is just hyperbole and serves only to miss the point completely.

 

[Coroxn]

... Why?

Because one vote can never make a difference, and it shouldn't, anyway. Most systems have things to avoid this, so that if it is ever that close other clauses come into effect instead.

If someone walks up to you and says "you have a choice, you can get punched in the face or the dick" and you say "eh, I don't care enough to make this decision", then you can't complain if they punch you in the face or dick. You didn't even try to stop them. But if you say "no, I don't like either of those options" and actually try to avoid getting punched and then get punched anyway, you at least tried.

But, seeing as your answer matters not at all, it's basically the person saying "I don't care for your preference" and hitting you any way they prefer. And avoiding getting punched in this system transfers as what in voting? Killing the candidates? Leaving the country? Bringing the government down?

 

[Teh Ebil Snorlax]

But, seeing as your answer matters not at all, it's basically the person saying "I don't care for your preference" and hitting you any way they prefer. And avoiding getting punched in this system transfers as what in voting? Killing the candidates? Leaving the country? Bringing the government down?

Of course your answer matters. According to your logic, indifference and opposition are the same thing, which is obviously a crock of horseshit. Also, most people will take an analogy as is, but if you want to keep pushing it, avoiding getting punched is successfully finding a third option, which, though unlikely in the American system, is not impossible. The point isn't about whether the person hits you or not, it's about whether you show that you care about the outcome of the decision. It's not about the decision, it's about you. Voting is the continuation of an argument, if you give up on arguing about a decision, how can you complain about the result?

 

[Music Dragon]

Because one vote can never make a difference, and it shouldn't, anyway. Most systems have things to avoid this, so that if it is ever that close other clauses come into effect instead.

That's ridiculous. A single vote makes no difference? So then, do ten votes make a difference? A hundred? A thousand? A million? Where do you draw the line?

 

[Coroxn]

Of course your answer matters. According to your logic, indifference and opposition are the same thing, which is obviously a crock of horseshit. Also, most people will take an analogy as is, but if you want to keep pushing it, avoiding getting punched is successfully finding a third option, which, though unlikely in the American system, is not impossible. The point isn't about whether the person hits you or not, it's about whether you show that you care about the outcome of the decision. It's not about the decision, it's about you. Voting is the continuation of an argument, if you give up on arguing about a decision, how can you complain about the result?

But if your input is irrelevant, and could have had no conceivable effect in the outcome, then not inputting anything is functionally the same as inputting. 100% no difference. If voting is the continuation of an argument, its one where your input is not listened to in the throng of the thousands of other voters. One, individual person, has absolutely no effect on the result of a presidential election, so why should not bothering remove the right to complain when it changes nothing?

It's like seeing a woman way ahead of you falling off a three-story building to her death, and you can either run to try and save her (even though she'll hit the ground on your second step) or not. Running or not has no effect on whether or not she survives, obviously. But then you say "Oh God that's awful! Why was she up there? How did she fall?" and then people jump on you saying you don't have the right to say anything on the matter because you didn't try to run, even though it would have made no difference.

I'm sorry if I'm annoying you (because it seems by your tone that I am a little) and that is 100% not my intention. I just don't understand.

That's ridiculous. A single vote makes no difference? So then, do ten votes make a difference? A hundred? A thousand? A million? Where do you draw the line?

An individual person has one individual vote They will not be getting ten, a hundred, a thousand, or a million votes, unless they're the owner of a cult or something similar. An individual, average person cannot influence the result of an election just by voting. The individual's vote is meaningless, functionally, to the result. A million votes, quite probably, is not meaningless. Depends on the size of the population.

 

[Music Dragon]

An individual person has one individual vote They will not be getting ten, a hundred, a thousand, or a million votes, unless they're the owner of a cult or something similar. An individual, average person cannot influence the result of an election just by voting. The individual's vote is meaningless, functionally, to the result. A million votes, quite probably, is not meaningless. Depends on the size of the population.

Still sounds pretty ridiculous to me. So what, are nine hundred ninety-nine thousand nine hundred ninety-nine votes meaningless? I repeat: where do you draw the line between a meaningless number of votes and a meaningful number of votes?

 

[Coroxn]

Still sounds pretty ridiculous to me. So what, are nine hundred ninety-nine thousand nine hundred ninety-nine votes meaningless? I repeat: where do you draw the line between a meaningless number of votes and a meaningful number of votes?

I don't know. It would depend on the amount of people in the vote, if you want a number. It's kinda irrelevant to what I'm saying. All that I'm saying here is that, when there are millions of people involved, one vote is meaningless. One. So people not using that one vote is no excuse to exclude or invalidate their opinion. Because it wouldn't have mattered if they voted.

 

[Light]

What makes you think cutting back government spending will improve the economy? Fiscal conservatism is why we're in this mess in the first place.

I dunno, I'm not an economist, but I have some intuitive sense that the national debt increasing by a trillion dollars over the last four years singly because of Obama's bailout is a bad thing. The government is spending more than it can afford to spend, and that right there is bad economics.

And regarding Romney, you must understand that Governor Romney and Presidential Candidate Romney are two completely different people. While he may have been laid-back on social issues in the past, pandering to the increasingly-radical GOP for primary votes has changed things completely. Go ahead and Google Romney's recent statements on women's health, gay marriage, workers' rights and labor unions, affirmative action and other non-discrimination laws, or immigration laws. If you think he is "moderate" on any of these issues, or if you think he is an advocate for any kind of marginalized or struggling person, you are certainly mistaken.

Well then, someone really needs to edit that wikipedia page.

Oh, but it's okay. He can just change his views to appease whoever he needs on his side. So if the fact that he's the kind of person who jokes about firing 4,300 people while running on a platform of jobs, jobs, jobs! isn't enough to convince you that he is a terrible human being, then his complete inconsistency should be enough to send you over the edge.

That's pretty much every politician, ever. Also, the fact that you regard him as "a terrible human being" shows that you have been polarized by the media. :/

 

[Music Dragon]

I don't know. It would depend on the amount of people in the vote, if you want a number. It's kinda irrelevant to what I'm saying. All that I'm saying here is that, when there are millions of people involved, one vote is meaningless. One. So people not using that one vote is no excuse to exclude or invalidate their opinion. Because it wouldn't have mattered if they voted.

Sorry, still absolutely absurd. If one vote doesn't make a difference, how could a million? Are you saying there's some threshold that needs to be crossed before votes start making a difference?

If 1000000 votes make a difference, then presumably 999999 votes also make a difference, and then presumably 999998 votes also make a difference, and then presumably 999997 votes also make a difference... and then you just keep going. At no point do meaningless votes magically become meaningful votes or vice versa. You can't seriously be suggesting that once you reach some fixed limit, say, 450 votes, those votes are meaningful, while at 449 - just short of that limit - votes are meaningless.

Obviously, a vote has to make a difference in order for a million such votes to make a difference. I'm really not seeing your logic here.

 

[Light]

If there are 1,000,000 votes, then 1,000,000 votes are 100% meaningful, 999,999 votes are 99.9999% meaningful, 999,998 votes are 99.9998% meaningful . . . 450 votes are .045% meaningful . . . and then my vote is only .0001% meaningful. That's awfully close to meaningless.

 

[Teh Ebil Snorlax]

But if your input is irrelevant, and could have had no conceivable effect in the outcome, then not inputting anything is functionally the same as inputting. 100% no difference. If voting is the continuation of an argument, its one where your input is not listened to in the throng of the thousands of other voters. One, individual person, has absolutely no effect on the result of a presidential election, so why should not bothering remove the right to complain when it changes nothing?

But you can't know ahead of time that it will be irrelevant. When you make the decision not to vote, you're assuming it will change nothing, when you can't possibly know that. And yeah, voting is the continuation of an argument, but you don't expect your argument to be considered when you vote, you're supposed to make it before you vote, explaining why you're voting that way and convincing other people to do the same.

The whole idea that one vote is meaningless because a million votes drown it out is inherently absurd - those million votes are a million of those meaningless one votes, so if one vote is meaningless, a million votes must be just as meaningless. The way you're presenting the argument is akin to saying that there's no point in driving a mile on the road from Cork to Dublin because there's another 150 miles to cross before you get to Dublin or saying microevolution is meaningless but macroevolution is meaningful - even though macroevolution is just cumulative microevolution.

It's like seeing a woman way ahead of you falling off a three-story building to her death, and you can either run to try and save her (even though she'll hit the ground on your second step) or not. Running or not has no effect on whether or not she survives, obviously. But then you say "Oh God that's awful! Why was she up there? How did she fall?" and then people jump on you saying you don't have the right to say anything on the matter because you didn't try to run, even though it would have made no difference.

No, it's not like that at all, because in that scenario you know already that you can't stop her falling. Now, if the woman is standing on the edge and you see her and call to her and she says you can't stop her from jumping off the edge, but you try to convince her not to do it and she does anyway, that's an appropriate analogy and I think that clearly demonstrates that at least trying is obviously better than just shrugging your shoulders and doing nothing, even if the result seems inevitable in retrospect.

 

[Music Dragon]

If there are 1,000,000 votes, then 1,000,000 votes are 100% meaningful, 999,999 votes are 99.9999% meaningful, 999,998 votes are 99.9998% meaningful . . . 450 votes are .045% meaningful . . . and then my vote is only .0001% meaningful. That's awfully close to meaningless.

And yet it can't possibly be 0% meaningful. I'm not saying a single vote makes a huge difference, I'm saying it necessarily makes a difference.

 

[hopeandjoy]

I dunno, I'm not an economist, but I have some intuitive sense that the national debt increasing by a trillion dollars over the last four years singly because of Obama's bailout is a bad thing. The government is spending more than it can afford to spend, and that right there is bad economics./

Stop right there. Bush Jr signed those bailouts, which have been almost payed back in full.

@ votes being meaningless: If a single vote holds no meaning, then where do those millions of votes come from? Thin air?

 

[Light]

@ votes being meaningless: If a single vote holds no meaning, then where do those millions of votes come from? Thin air?

From lots of .0001%'s. If you collect lots of aluminum particles floating around in the air, you can, in theory, build a robot.

 

[Music Dragon]

From lots of .0001%'s. If you collect lots of aluminum particles floating around in the air, you can, in theory, build a robot.

Lots of .0001%'s is not "no meaning". You can build a robot by collecting loads of aluminium particles, but you can't build a robot by collecting loads of nothing.

 

[Light]

Lots of .0001%'s is not "no meaning". You can build a robot by collecting loads of aluminium particles, but you can't build a robot by collecting loads of nothing.

I think, at least colloquially, "no meaning" and "practically no meaning" are pretty interchangeable. The fact that my vote has less than .0001% meaning, but that's still meaning!, is not really going to convince me my vote is meaningful. Because it's closer to meaningless.