PDA

View Full Version : Why Your Vote Will Never Matter


Nowisnotthetime
09/04/07, 08:45 PM
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y71/ShiftShapers/ballotcartoon.jpg

Stop Voting, Change the Country

Why Your Vote Will Never Matter

By JAMES ROTHENBERG

Well, it looks like the 2008 election campaign is in full swing, or is it? Does anyone know who the Greens are running? Or the Socialists? Or the Progressives or Populists or Workers World? Nah, I guess we don't need them to get started. They can fill in the chorus parts at the end of the play. All we need is Big Politics. Come and get it. One party for the price of two!

Democrats and Republicans alike beseech us to get out there and vote, and why not? Besides making these self-anointed guardians of democracy seem open and civic-minded, there is the reassuring prospect that each will get their standard split (results will not vary greatly from 50/50). The virtual monopoly control of election apparat enjoyed by these two parties make them confident they will not have to face serious challenges from minor party candidates.

We are counseled that every vote matters, even a single one. While this may be true on the Supreme Court, a school board, or even a village election, as the vote count grows larger the odds alone make it progressively more unlikely that a single vote could be decisive.

The pivotal Florida count in the 2000 presidential election may seem to support one-vote-matters theory. Out of 5,861,785 votes cast in the State a mere 537 vote margin decided the whole shebang (via the Supreme Court). Okay, so 537 is not 1 but it's tantalizingly close considering the total number of votes. Didn't this prove that a single vote could, in principle, make the difference?

Forget it! It's not a matter of odds. It's a matter of appearance. In an election of sufficient size and importance, a single vote will never be decisive. That is the Florida lesson. Remembering Florida, think what would happen if the difference was a single vote, which, taking the Florida figures, works out to a margin of .000017 percent. Since this is hideously less than the margin of error in the count it would never be allowed to stand. It would be challenged and re-challenged until the margin raised high enough to quell some of the surrounding noise. All of which means one thing. Your vote will never matter!

Both parties see it as a bad sign when voters stay away from the polls. It signifies that people may have stopped paying attention. Democrats and Republicans each struggle to maintain the illusion that they are uniquely suited to guide the country that they alone deserve to lead by dint of tradition.

The absurdity is compounded each election cycle by these stalwart defenders of the status quo each promising to bring about the next great change, exploiting the public's thirst for it.

While we are encouraged to vote for change, in our system it works the opposite way. At the present stage, the entrenched power of Big Politics is such as to render any rival upstart stillborn. It won't happen at the ballot box, not in the expected sense. Voting is their game and you can't beat someone at their own game.

When 100 million people vote each major party will get between 40 and 60 million each, leaving mavericks the crumbs and millions of votes to overcome. Since mavericks are the only people who represent true change (supply your own proof), what we get is reluctance to change.

If only 1 million people vote each major party will have ulcers at the prospect of their vulnerability to the maverick. The fewer people who vote, the fewer needed to upset the power balance. Is this a partial explanation of why the establishment frets about low voter turnout?

So the message is if you really want to see things shaken up, stay away from the polls. This will take some discipline considering how it counters the prevailing advice. Your vote may be personal to you, but to those in control it is a commodity. It is bought and paid for in accordance with a formula (dollar/vote correspondence) well known to those in the field (applied electioneering), only you're not supposed to know this, even though you really know this.

You may feel that you vote freely, but ask yourself why you don't feel free to vote for a minor party candidate. Ask yourself why you don't want to "waste" your vote, yet instead reward with it the very parties responsible for this state of futility.

The army teaches a valuable survival lesson. When you are captured, the best time to escape is as soon as you can, because it gets harder as you go on. This presupposes something so obvious that it can be overlooked. That you know you are captive! Applying this to discussed circumstances, our primary obstacle may be that we do not fully recognize that all is futile.

James Rothenberg can be reached at: jrothenberg@taconic.net

http://www.counterpunch.org/rothenberg08202007.html

Nowisnotthetime
09/04/07, 10:24 PM
So wait... is this supposed to convince people to vote, or not vote?

While I don't think it's very difficult to understand if you read it, it essentially says "not voting" sends a message in and of itself, along with third party voting being good too. Mainly it's saying stay away from the Democrats and Republicans.

Shatter590
09/04/07, 10:40 PM
While I don't think it's very difficult to understand if you read it, it essentially says "not voting" sends a message in and of itself, along with third party voting being good too. Mainly it's saying stay away from the Democrats and Republicans.

not exactly news though. dems suck, reps suck. but thanks to the two party system and the general ignorance of the american public, this will not change. like south park said, youre always gonna need to choose between a douche and a turd.

doesnt stop me from voting, in any case, esp with local elections.

Siren Silently
09/05/07, 07:28 AM
Although I support the parties that are not in the mainstream, I realize they will never win and voting for them is like nulling so when I come of age I'd just vote democrat anyway.

WCC335
09/05/07, 08:33 AM
This article is interesting, but I certainly don't agree that not voting at all sends a stronger message than voting Green, for instance.

Shatter590
09/05/07, 10:18 AM
the way i see it, and have rationalized it, not voting means you also lose the right to bitch about the political clime. dont vote, dont complain.

Skadrist
09/05/07, 10:23 AM
I am actually going to vote for Christopher Walken in 2008. I live in Texas and there is sure as hell no chance any democrat will win here so I might as well throw my vote a way in the name of the lulz.

Shatter590
09/05/07, 10:31 AM
I am actually going to vote for Christopher Walken in 2008. I live in Texas and there is sure as hell no chance any democrat will win here so I might as well throw my vote a way in the name of the lulz.

http://faroutshirts.com/images/cthulhu4Prez-preview-5.png

Nowisnotthetime
09/05/07, 10:43 AM
Although I support the parties that are not in the mainstream, I realize they will never win and voting for them is like nulling so when I come of age I'd just vote democrat anyway.

I would argue that a third party vote means way more that a Dem/Repub vote because that influences those parties to want your vote whereas most of us don't live in a swing state making the vote meaningless unless you vote third party.

xvszero
09/05/07, 10:47 AM
Sounds like some damn Commie is just mad no one votes for Commies in the US.

awakenarogue
09/05/07, 12:49 PM
ok: don't vote, because lower voter turnout will scare established parties, because it will take a smaller margin for them to lose to minor parties?...

if you want to give more power to minor players in politics; why not educate yourself, support those parties/candidates/whomever, and try to educate others on the reasons those parites should be supported. it seems like just not voting completely disconnects you from any impact you could have on the political process and creates a mentality where large political parties can sway mindless majority voters and negate the impact of any possible "mavericks" in politics..

Love As Arson
09/05/07, 02:18 PM
ok: don't vote, because lower voter turnout will scare established parties, because it will take a smaller margin for them to lose to minor parties?...

if you want to give more power to minor players in politics; why not educate yourself, support those parties/candidates/whomever, and try to educate others on the reasons those parites should be supported. it seems like just not voting completely disconnects you from any impact you could have on the political process and creates a mentality where large political parties can sway mindless majority voters and negate the impact of any possible "mavericks" in politics..
The article is not saying that individuals should not vote, but rather that they should support third parties, so that actual alternatives will arise. Personally, I support that endeavor insofar as it provides a wider opening for significant changes in the favor of the people, but there are limits to electoralism, which is why activism should also be an important component in this strategy.

awakenarogue
09/05/07, 02:36 PM
The article is not saying that individuals should not vote, but rather that they should support third parties, so that actual alternatives will arise. Personally, I support that endeavor insofar as it provides a wider opening for significant changes in the favor of the people, but there are limits to electoralism, which is why activism should also be an important component in this strategy.

While we are encouraged to vote for change, in our system it works the opposite way. At the present stage, the entrenched power of Big Politics is such as to render any rival upstart stillborn. It won't happen at the ballot box, not in the expected sense. Voting is their game and you can't beat someone at their own game.

When 100 million people vote each major party will get between 40 and 60 million each, leaving mavericks the crumbs and millions of votes to overcome. Since mavericks are the only people who represent true change (supply your own proof), what we get is reluctance to change.

If only 1 million people vote each major party will have ulcers at the prospect of their vulnerability to the maverick. The fewer people who vote, the fewer needed to upset the power balance. Is this a partial explanation of why the establishment frets about low voter turnout?

So the message is if you really want to see things shaken up, stay away from the polls. This will take some discipline considering how it counters the prevailing advice. Your vote may be personal to you, but to those in control it is a commodity. It is bought and paid for in accordance with a formula (dollar/vote correspondence) well known to those in the field (applied electioneering), only you're not supposed to know this, even though you really know this.
seems to me that this suggests not voting as a means to bring about change, i could've missed something, but i don't read this as meaning vote for third parties.

and as far as supporting this: i honestly don't see how this would support change for the good of the people. the people left voting would be those that are likely to follow major parties and not vote for minor candidates in the first place. if our vote is so minor that it has no impact on the political system, how is our not voting an impact either. i just don't see any noticeable impact from this.

boykosaurus
09/05/07, 04:23 PM
I don't know, I think I look forward to voting just because I can...though the system and the candidates suck most of the time

Spewk
09/05/07, 04:25 PM
if everyone believed this, no one would vote, and is that really what you want?

concernedparent
09/05/07, 10:08 PM
seems to me that this suggests not voting as a means to bring about change, i could've missed something, but i don't read this as meaning vote for third parties.

and as far as supporting this: i honestly don't see how this would support change for the good of the people. the people left voting would be those that are likely to follow major parties and not vote for minor candidates in the first place. if our vote is so minor that it has no impact on the political system, how is our not voting an impact either. i just don't see any noticeable impact from this.
"You may feel that you vote freely, but ask yourself why you don't feel free to vote for a minor party candidate. Ask yourself why you don't want to "waste" your vote, yet instead reward with it the very parties responsible for this state of futility."

DaveHallow
09/05/07, 10:33 PM
What a shitty defeatist article.

grizbo
09/06/07, 07:54 AM
Well, thrid-parties do actually make a difference. I mean, Ralph Nader basically ensured that George Bush beat Al Gore in 2000.

Nowisnotthetime
09/06/07, 09:29 AM
Well, thrid-parties do actually make a difference. I mean, Ralph Nader basically ensured that George Bush beat Al Gore in 2000.

Ugh, this always comes up. Please check out the Harvard study that essentially proves that this wasn't the case at all.

grizbo
09/06/07, 11:58 AM
Ugh, this always comes up. Please check out the Harvard study that essentially proves that this wasn't the case at all.

Oh. My bad.

sateendreem
09/06/07, 12:20 PM
I registered to vote because my dad said I couldn't talk politics with him if I didn't. No vote no complain kind of thing.

I have heard of voting for stupid reasons though. My sister said she worked with a guy who said he was voting for Bush because he "Looked more like a President than Kerry!" and a lady my mom worked with said she was voting for Bush because, "He had nearly the same religous beliefs as me."

There's a question of not voting, but who are we letting vote that shouldn't? Crazy flippin' world. An uneducated vote hurts all the same.

awakenarogue
09/06/07, 12:24 PM
"You may feel that you vote freely, but ask yourself why you don't feel free to vote for a minor party candidate. Ask yourself why you don't want to "waste" your vote, yet instead reward with it the very parties responsible for this state of futility."

im sorry, but that does not ask the reader to consider voting for third parties. that merely asks people to consider that while they may complain about the fact that minor parties have little impact in politics, they reward the major parties responsible for this by still voting for them.

the article is titled:
Stop Voting, Change the Country
Why Your Vote Will Never Matter

awakenarogue
09/06/07, 12:26 PM
Ugh, this always comes up. Please check out the Harvard study that essentially proves that this wasn't the case at all.

never seen this. got a link?

nfggc10
09/06/07, 01:05 PM
the way i see it, and have rationalized it, not voting means you also lose the right to bitch about the political clime. dont vote, dont complain.That is ridiculous and I never understand why people use that. There's no difference in voting for a candidate that loses and not voting for the candidate who loses. Bitching is a basic right, not a privilege gained through the voting process.

nfggc10
09/06/07, 01:07 PM
I registered to vote because my dad said I couldn't talk politics with him if I didn't. No vote no complain kind of thing.

I have heard of voting for stupid reasons though. My sister said she worked with a guy who said he was voting for Bush because he "Looked more like a President than Kerry!" and a lady my mom worked with said she was voting for Bush because, "He had nearly the same religous beliefs as me."

There's a question of not voting, but who are we letting vote that shouldn't? Crazy flippin' world. An uneducated vote hurts all the same.Indeed but then again, no one really knows what they're putting into office when they vote anyway.

sateendreem
09/06/07, 01:12 PM
Indeed but then again, no one really knows what they're putting into office when they vote anyway.

Very true. It's like meeting someone and marrying them the next day. Then suddenly when the facade is over and you get to know the real person it's psycho city baby. Such is life though.

lushintransit
09/06/07, 01:57 PM
He's sardonically illustrating an argument against the American bi-partisan system; he's not discouraging voting or trying to say votes will never matter at all.

awakenarogue
09/06/07, 02:05 PM
ha, it seemed ridiculous, but i guess i took it as being serious

Nowisnotthetime
09/06/07, 02:34 PM
never seen this. got a link?

http://wc.wustl.edu/workingpapers/Burden.pdf

Love As Arson
09/06/07, 02:35 PM
seems to me that this suggests not voting as a means to bring about change, i could've missed something, but i don't read this as meaning vote for third parties.

and as far as supporting this: i honestly don't see how this would support change for the good of the people. the people left voting would be those that are likely to follow major parties and not vote for minor candidates in the first place. if our vote is so minor that it has no impact on the political system, how is our not voting an impact either. i just don't see any noticeable impact from this.
The end of the article suggests that individuals should instead vote for third parties. The main thrust of the article is that our current electoral framework is fundamentally flawed, and that requires action to be taken in order to effect that change.
As for those that argue, "One who does not vote, cannot complain", that presupposes that voting is the only way in which one may be politically active.

s.t.e.v.e.n.
09/07/07, 09:23 AM
America is never going to be changed by electing a president. It has to change from the ground up. You want to end poverty. Lets go feed people. The president isn't going to do it, Republican or Democrat. Politicians have a vested interest in managing problems not solving them. I honestly see less of a point in voting every day.