somebody <x### [at] ycom> wrote:
> People can certainly affect what happens by voting. A *person*, on the other
> hand, has, in the history of humanity, never affected the outcome in a
> general election by his or her vote, as far as I know. Likelihood of that
> happening to me is not remotely worth the effort. In conclusion, voting for
> me (or any individual) is irrational because: 1) I am not people, but a
> person. 2) There are no legal consequences 3) There is no social pressure.

  To some people voting is an act with a strong symbolism in it.

  There are countries where people don't get to choose who will rule them.
Many of such countries lack the most basic human rights, and people suffer
on the hands of the opressors who rules them by force.

  Regardless of what one might think of free democratic societies, people
who live in such countries are very lucky. To some people voting is not
just electing who will represent your opinion. The them, voting is a symbol
representing that freedom. It's like a symbol of appreciation. "I vote
because I *can* vote, because I live in a country where people can elect
their leaders, and I really appreciate that. Maybe my vote won't count much,
but just the fact that I *can* vote is a huge, huge thing. There are
countries where people can't vote nor elect their leaders."

  When someone doesn't vote because he doesn't care, it's like he doesn't
appreciate that he can vote in the first place, that he lives in a free
country not ruled by dictators. Many of these people would certainly miss
their right to vote if they lived in a country where they can't. Often
people don't miss something unless they lose it.

  Sure, one person voting might not in itself affect anything, and it may
even be that in some/many "free" countries the results of voting is
heavily influenced eg. by the media, and thus not completely fair. However,
that doesn't remove the symbolism inherent to suffrage.

  Some people also think that someone who doesn't vote doesn't have the
moral right to complain about the government nor the political situation
in their country because by not voting they have shown that they don't
care, and thus complaining afterwards would be hypocrisy.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 5/2/2009 7:24 AM, somebody wrote:
> People can certainly affect what happens by voting. A *person*, on the other
> hand, has, in the history of humanity, never affected the outcome in a
> general election by his or her vote,

By general, do you mean national?

There have certainly been cases where national elections have been 
decided by a few thousand votes, but I believe you're correct that it's 
never come down to a single vote before.

On the other hand, local elections (which arguably have a much more 
immediate effect on the voters) frequently do come down to a few dozen 
votes, and have on occasion been decided by a single vote.

-- 
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> Kevin Wampler wrote:
> 	And so I'm saying that there are people for whom working towards
> changing the future for those hundreds of years down the road may
> actually be beneficial to themselves (in this life). Therefore, that
> person is acting rationally - contrary to somebody's assertion.

Touche.  I should have read your post more carefully.

> 	I never cared for the usage of the term in economics. It's often
> inconsistent with what most people consider rational.

I agree with that.  I basically use the term only in your sense as well, 
and substitute some synonym when I mean in in the economic sense.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> country not ruled by dictators. Many of these people would certainly miss
> their right to vote if they lived in a country where they can't. Often

	Most people I know who can vote but don't feel differently.

	I think people should vote if they care about the issues, and
legitimately feel knowledgeable about them. I really don't think people
should vote just to celebrate their right to.


-- 
Best file compressor around: DEL *.* (100% compression)


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   Mass extinctions caused by natural disasters (such as a meteor smashing
> the Earth or ice ages) are inevitable. Mass extinctions caused by a sentient
> species, who is doing it on purpose and for selfish reasons, is very much
> avoidable.

It's not avoidable if it is in man's nature to be selfish and an ass.

Post a reply to this message

Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
>         I think people should vote if they care about the issues, and
> legitimately feel knowledgeable about them.

  That would mean at least 90% of people wouldn't vote at all.

  The vast majority of votes are done for irrelevant reasons like "I have
always voted for this party", "my father has always voted for this party
and taught me to do so as well", "he made such a good speech" (without
ever hearing anyone else's speeches), "she is a woman, and as a woman I have
to support her", or even "he is so handsome". Reasons for *not* voting for
someone include ridiculous ones like "according to polls he won't win, so
I'm not going to waste my vote on him".

  Yeah, this is a sad state of affairs. But my point is that if you are
voting as a symbol of celebration for suffrage, then it's probably a much
better reason than most. (In fact, I would say that if you are doing it
as a symbolic act, you are very likely to be more aware of the politics
of your country than most other voters.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

nemesis <nam### [at] nospam-gmailcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> >   Mass extinctions caused by natural disasters (such as a meteor smashing
> > the Earth or ice ages) are inevitable. Mass extinctions caused by a sentient
> > species, who is doing it on purpose and for selfish reasons, is very much
> > avoidable.

> It's not avoidable if it is in man's nature to be selfish and an ass.

  Man's nature can change with proper education. The trajectory of a
meteorite can't.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

"Chambers" <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote in message
news:49fc7bfa@news.povray.org...
> On 5/2/2009 7:24 AM, somebody wrote:

> > People can certainly affect what happens by voting. A *person*, on the
other
> > hand, has, in the history of humanity, never affected the outcome in a
> > general election by his or her vote,

> By general, do you mean national?

More or less. Anything with voters in the thousands or more.

> There have certainly been cases where national elections have been
> decided by a few thousand votes, but I believe you're correct that it's
> never come down to a single vote before.
>
> On the other hand, local elections (which arguably have a much more
> immediate effect on the voters) frequently do come down to a few dozen
> votes, and have on occasion been decided by a single vote.

Possible, since there are so many elections everyday somewhere, but highly
improbable for any single election that I had a right to vote.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
>>         I think people should vote if they care about the issues, and
>> legitimately feel knowledgeable about them.
> 
>   That would mean at least 90% of people wouldn't vote at all.

	Dunno. Most people I know who vote seem to be fairly ignorant on many
of the issues. That's a side effect of the reason they don't vote -
they're just not interested in the issues.

-- 
Marge: "When I married you, I knew we wouldn't live in luxury."
Homer: "And I kept that vow."


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> John VanSickle <evi### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> If man is merely a product of nature, then his predation of other 
>> species is perfectly natural.  I am quite sure that many of the species 
>> to go extinct before the time of man were doing quite well, until 
>> another species came along and bumped them off.
> 
>> The history of the planet indicates that none of its natives have any 
>> right to any particular conditions prevailing for any period of time. 
>> Adapt to the change or make way for something that can.
> 
>> As others have pointed out, there have been many mass die-offs during 
>> the time of the earth's existence, from many causes.  This time around, 
>> man happens to be one of those causes.  That is no more wrong than for a 
>> shift in the earth's tilt, a sudden Ice Age, or the end of the same, to 
>> cause a massive die-off as well.
> 
>> And in fact, if no species ever went extinct, there would be no place 
>> for any other species to arise.  We owe our own existence to the fact 
>> that our niche was vacant when we came along.
> 
>   You seem to be justifying man's abuse of the environment for his own
> selfish purposes, disregarding all other life.

Since none of the other species shows any regard whatsoever for the 
effects of its behavior on other life, you are holding man to a 
different standard than other forms of life.  If man is merely a product 
of nature, this is illogical.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message