Should you vote?

Mise said:

I don't see any rational reason to not want to vote in this country.

Click to expand...

Funny you say that, because voting in itself offers no tangible gain for the individual whatsoever (unless you are that one vote which decides it all, naturally, but that is less likely than winning the lottery I suppose), which is why voting is actually deemed irrational in terms of what the scholarly world perceives as rational behavior*

*I say in their terms, because actually this to me seems to originate in a rather narrow-minded way to interpret rationality. Because technically it doesn't make sense to make it a requirement of rational behavior to seek tangible gains. After all, don't all our desires come down to non-tangible dimensions? Urges, needs, feelings... They are all fundamentally intangible. By that criteria, it is by definition impossible to behave rationally, as rational behavior requires goals it orientates on, but goals require intangible gains to exist in the first place.
An actual correct way to say it could be for instance "Voting is of weak rationality". Because the intangible gains voting may provide tend to be of low priority for the voter in comparison with other gains.

As to weather one should:

Excluding the factor of being informed: If one has the possibility to also turn in a ballot which conveys the voters rejection of all candidates or perhaps the system itself, I think there is no reason to not go voting other than "meh". But I suppose electronic voting may not allow for that.
Considering the factor of being informed: To tell someone that voting is unconditionally important seems absolutely silly to me. Because in contrast to say love, I don't believe than voting is much of worth in itself. Rather, being merely a tool, you shouldn't tell people "just swing the hammer, somehow, and it all will be fine".

But that is all gray theory which doesn't account for the actual trends on the ground. In practice, compulsory voting may or may not be a good deal. I wouldn't know how to say. But I am kind of inclined to believe it is an overall good force.

Traitorfish said:

What if a psychic octopus drops in from outer space and mind-controls the electorate into filling every position with a squirrel?

Click to expand...

Then the government buildings will be full of nuts, and everything will be normal. What's your point?

@Sill: believe it or not, the scholarly world recognises that an action can be rational without providing any tangible benefit to the person performing the action, and has recognised this for thousands of years... I'm not sure it's true that "rational self-interest" has abbreviated to simply "rational" in common speech, but if it has then it is a rather recent phenomenon.

Saving a stranger's life provides no tangible gain to the individual who saves it, and even if it did, people don't go around saving strangers' lives because they think they stand to benefit from it personally -- yet we would all agree that it is rational to save a life and irrational to allow other people to die when saving the life would be just as easy as letting them die. If there were two buttons in front of you, one that saved a life, and one that killed someone, and pressing either button had no tangible consequences whatsoever on your life, it would clearly be irrational to press the button that killed someone, and entirely rational to press the button that saved someone. Clearly, then, actions that provide tangible benefit to the individual are not the only actions that are rational...

Valka D'Ur said:

Then the government buildings will be full of nuts, and everything will be normal. What's your point?

Click to expand...

Valka D'Ur said:

Then the government buildings will be full of nuts, and everything will be normal. What's your point?

Click to expand...

This post has to be nominated for some kind of award

Mise said:

@Sill: believe it or not, the scholarly world recognises that an action can be rational without providing any tangible benefit to the person performing the action, and has recognized this for thousands of years...

Click to expand...

You are absolutely right of course. And I in deed was talking about rational self-interest rather than merely rationality. Even then though, I have to admit that to speak of the scholarly world in general terms probably was kind of bombastic from me Yet, this actually is something taught at universities.

But I also thought you were talking of rational self-interest rather than merely rationality, because I wonder how you could possibly see no rational reason to not vote otherwise? After all, if you don't orientate on self-interest - on what measure of success did you orientate when looking for rationals to not go voting?

Mise said:

If there were two buttons in front of you, one that saved a life, and one that killed someone, and pressing either button had no tangible consequences whatsoever on your life, it would clearly be irrational to press the button that killed someone, and entirely rational to press the button that saved someone. Clearly, then, actions that provide tangible benefit to the individual are not the only actions that are rational...

Click to expand...

I'll just quickly sum up the basics again so we are clear: Rationality itself is just goal-orientated calculus. It can serve any goal, hence any action can be rational. But before you can make that call, you need to know the goal.
Now, that if it costs you nothing either way it is preferable to save than end a life is not self-evident just as much as rationality is not self-serving. It depends on what goals constitute rational behavior.

Well I think you've missed the most important word in my post: "want". I can, of course, see rational reasons not to vote: if your wife is in hospital, if you are out of the country, etc etc. But it's important to stress that I was talking about wanting to vote, not the act of voting itself. If my wife is in the hospital, I may want to vote, but my circumstances prevent me from doing so. Indeed, if there is no legitimate choice on the ballot (i.e. I find all choices to be morally repugnant), then I may want to vote -- that is, I want there to be an option on the ballot that I find worthy of my vote -- but the ballot itself leaves me with no choice but to abstain. In short, I see no rational reason not to want to cast a vote for a candidate that you think would do a good job of running the country.

You may think this is a trivial point, but a lot of people don't even want to vote: they just don't care one way or the other, and they don't want to care either. They don't care who is on the ballot, or what else they are doing that day. They just don't want to vote. Ever.

Weather we talk about voting or wanting to vote makes to me no difference regarding what I have said or we discussed
Even if we exclude the possibility of candidates not being to ones liking, even if we assume that the to the voter literally perfect candidate is up for a vote. The vote itself still won't mean anything in political terms. It won't change anything other than some obscure percentage number beyond the dot.
And you have trouble to see why someone could - in full rationality - not care for said obscure digit? You have yet to offer a single reason why. Sure, politics matter. Your - the individual's - vote doesn't.
And I am still confused what is your measure of rationality if not rational self-interests. Or is it after all?

So you're telling me that if there were two buttons in front of you, one of which cast a vote for your ideal candidate, and one of which did absolutely nothing, you would choose to press the button that did absolutely nothing?

No, but I am also a victim of civic ethics. I dig that stuff. It makes me feel like doing the right thing, which makes me feel good. So if I push for my candidate, I have virtually zero costs but some emotional gain. What I am saying is, that this kind of feeling of responsibility or some other emotional thingy of the sorts is all there is voting has to offer as gain. So if you lack such an emotional engagement, you lack reason to care one bit for voting.
I am saying that even though I think it is bad to not want to vote, I accept that without the emotional thingy it is quit rational. Unless you pin-point the goal constituting rational behavior to something which lies beyond the individual. Like ethics.

I'm just trying to deconstruct this discussion into buttons.

If there were two buttons in front of you, one that gave 1 penny to your favourite charity, and one that did absolutely nothing, which would you push?

For the sake of argument, let's assume that we're talking about an election where (a) there are only 2 candidates, (b) both candidates have a realistic chance of winning, and (c) the elections are free and fair. So broadly the situation in the US. What I'm trying to say is that, if you accept that one candidate is your ideal candidate, and that it would therefore be better for the candidate to be elected than for that candidate to not be elected, then it is rational to prefer hitting the "vote" button than the "do nothing" button. This is true even if your vote is just 1 vote out of 100,000,000, and is nothing more than a fraction of a decimal point in the overall %. The penny the button gives to your favourite charity is analogous: you give to charity because it is better to give to charity than to do nothing, even if the penny is just a fraction of a decimal point in the overall accounts. (And this is true even if that charity has no hope of entirely eradicating malaria, for example, or if the charity would eradicate malaria without your 1 penny donation.)

Mise said:

I'm just trying to deconstruct this discussion into buttons.

Click to expand...

Sure thing, but what did we discuss again? The want to vote, right? But in your scenario, you have eliminated this factor. I am not asked weather I want to push buttons to begin with, but am simply asked which one I want to push. I am kind of lost on what that is supposed to convey.
Would I pick the charity button? Yes, but not because it is the rationally superior choice compared to doing nothing. One cent will not help anyone, I am sure we can agree on that. So what is the point? I think what actually is at work here is a case where the choice you make is so irrelevant that one will just go with what sounds good for the lack of any better criteria. And there charity of course wins. Further on, it is a kind of ethical dogma that giving to charity is good. So it is a quit emotionally loaded choice. Emotionally loaded, but from what I can see not rationally substantiated. I mean - a rational choice of absolutely no relevant consequence? Let's remember that rationality is about achieving goals. When the goal is helping people, donating 1 cent for zero opportunity costs to charity to me appears nether rational nor irrational, but neutral. And rationally neutral, you can get all emotional and sentimental about it. You can just go with your gut.

So to me, your scenario merely excludes what was actually discussed in two ways:
(1) It denies you the choice to just not participate, to just not care.
(2) It creates a situation where rationality isn't of relevance.

Button 2 = not participating... If you don't want to vote, you push button 2, which does nothing. Or you could just tell me that you wouldn't push either button, I don't mind either way.

1 cent is better than 0 cents. 1 vote is better than 0 votes. All I am saying is doing an action that is better than another action is rational. That's what I mean by rational, and I really don't see how you can argue against it.

GhostWriter16 said:

"We don't want any government" isn't exactly an option generally...

Click to expand...

If you don't like the rules of the country you're lending ground of, you could always move.

Don't knock GW when he finally has the insight that not having a government isn't really an option.

Mise said:

Button 2 = not participating... If you don't want to vote, you push button 2, which does nothing. Or you could just tell me that you wouldn't push either button, I don't mind either way.

Click to expand...

You don't understand. By facing the buttons and being given the choice, I already am participating. Otherwise it is like having Australians go to mandatory elections and tell them they weren't mandatory because they can turn in an invalid ballot. By doing so, you have eliminated absolutely all opportunity costs. Whatever I do, I won't loose anything, not even time or effort as I am already in the middle of the situation. Nor will anybody else loose anything. And likewise, I won't gain anything and for all intends and purposes, nor does anybody else. I know, you somewhat disagree at this point at latest. So let's have a quick detour to the other part of your last reply

Mise said:

1 cent is better than 0 cents. 1 vote is better than 0 votes. All I am saying is doing an action that is better than another action is rational. That's what I mean by rational, and I really don't see how you can argue against it.

Click to expand...

I am hardly arguing that doing an action which is better to its alternative is rational. I argue that 1 vote or 1 cent was better than 0 vote or 0 cent.

One cent will not help anyone

Click to expand...

So okay, here is the situation. I tell you why 1 cent is not better than no cent. Why it is entirely rational to be indifferent. You reply: It is better. Period.
How in God's name so? To what end? According to what criteria? You haven't vested one bit of thought into this matter. That is none you cared to share. But you certainly managed to overlook what I had to say about that.

Now, let's get back to your scenario. As said, zero opportunity costs. By eliminating opportunity costs and by giving choices which for all intends and purposes are interchangeable, you leave no room for rationality. Making your scenario wholly inadequate to demonstrate what is the rational choice. Or rather, the rational choice is: "Err... whatever". I am kind of repeating myself here, but well, what else can I do at this point? If you disagree with "for all intends and purposes", please, provide a counter-example. Tell me the intend or purpose which is actually helped by one cent.

SiLL said:

You don't understand. By facing the buttons and being given the choice, I already am participating. Otherwise it is like having Australians go to mandatory elections and tell them they weren't mandatory because they can turn in an invalid ballot. By doing so, you have eliminated absolutely all opportunity costs. Whatever I do, I won't loose anything, not even time or effort as I am already in the middle of the situation. Nor will anybody else loose anything.

Click to expand...

Yes, it's specifically designed so that there is no cost to voting. If there is no cost to doing something, and there is no benefit to doing it, then you should be indifferent between doing it and not doing it. If the choices were "do nothing" and "do nothing", then I would be indifferent between those two choices, because neither of those choices do anything. I would say "I don't care which button I press: I would want to press the 2nd button as much as I would want to press the 1st". In your words, it "leaves no room for rationality".

But when my choices are "give 1 vote/penny to my preferred candidate/charity" and "do nothing", I will pick the first. You said earlier that you would also pick the first. I agree: it is rational to pick the first option over the 2nd option, and it is not rational to be indifferent between the two. The first button, which grants 1 vote / 1 penny to your preferred candidate/charity is better than the 2nd button, which grants 0 votes / 0 pennies to your preferred candidate/charity. There is no cost to giving the vote or penny, and there is a benefit, however small, in giving it. So the rational choice is to press the first button.

And likewise, I won't gain anything and for all intends and purposes, nor does anybody else. I know, you somewhat disagree at this point at latest. So let's have a quick detour to the other part of your last reply

Click to expand...

But there is a benefit from doing it, or else you would not do anything. You would be indifferent between pressing the vote button over pressing the do nothing button (or simply abstaining and not pressing either button).

I am hardly arguing that doing an action which is better to its alternative is rational. I argue that 1 vote or 1 cent was better than 0 vote or 0 cent.

So okay, here is the situation. I tell you why 1 cent is not better than no cent. Why it is entirely rational to be indifferent. You reply: It is better. Period.
How in God's name so? To what end? According to what criteria? You haven't vested one bit of thought into this matter. That is none you cared to share. But you certainly managed to overlook what I had to say about that.

Click to expand...

I'm not sharing it because none of that matters. Earlier, you said this:

SiLL said:

even if we assume that the to the voter literally perfect candidate is up for a vote

Click to expand...

I'm assuming that you want this candidate to win. The more votes a candidate gets, the more likely he is to win, in a democracy. All democratic systems are designed on this basis: voting for your preferred candidate increases the chances of your preferred candidate winning.

If there is a candidate that you want to win, and voting for that candidate increases his likelihood of winning, then it is rational to want to vote for that candidate.

Now, let's get back to your scenario. As said, zero opportunity costs. By eliminating opportunity costs and by giving choices which for all intends and purposes are interchangeable, you leave no room for rationality. Making your scenario wholly inadequate to demonstrate what is the rational choice. Or rather, the rational choice is: "Err... whatever". I am kind of repeating myself here, but well, what else can I do at this point?

Click to expand...

So you seem to be changing your mind here: you would be indifferent between pressing the vote button and pressing the do nothing button now? You earlier said that you would -- are you saying that you wouldn't, now?

You may claim that 1 vote or 1 penny is not better than 0 votes or 0 pennies, but if you were presented with those options, you would choose to give 1 vote/penny over giving 0 votes/pennies. Your actions in the scenarios I'm presenting don't stack up with what you are claiming.

I for one weigh opportunity costs and imperfect knowledge of the situation every time I have had to vote.

Fortunately, I live in a swing state and so it's easy to rationalize my participation on the "how important is one vote really?" grounds. And the polling place isn't very far from my parents', just a three-minute jog really, so it's not a real bite out of my day; I just went there after class yesterday. And both of the general elections I've been eligible to vote in have featured a clearly awful candidate (if not more than one) against whom I feel it is morally incumbent upon me to vote. So while I do consider all of the things SiLL mentions, I end up coming to Mise's conclusion.

Just to pre-emptively reiterate that I'm talking about wanting to vote, not about actually voting. If you are too lazy or deem the opportunity cost too great to render your vote, then it's rational not to vote. But stripping out all costs, and leaving only the choice of voting or not voting, it's rational to want to vote.

Ziggy Stardust said:

Don't knock GW when he finally has the insight that not having a government isn't really an option.

Click to expand...

Oh, I agree that a (very limited) state is essential, but some people don't believe that and think the entire system is illegitimate (I agree with them once government goes beyond what I perceive to be its necessary limits) and they don't really get that option so whether they vote for a "Lesser evil" or not doesn't legitimize the state if they are in fact right.