Hacker News Reader

Comment by petercooper | Hacker News Reader

I'm glad there's actually a mass media outlet that would post something like this. They are focusing heavily on the numbers though, rather than the system - and it's the system that's the problem.

I don't vote because my single vote carries no weight, as the article demonstrates. However, if proportional representation were used, I would vote because my vote would count for something even if very little. With First Past The Post, my vote is more like buying a lottery ticket.. if I vote for the loser then it counts for zero - which is why we end up with two party systems.

View on HN

A vote for the loser does not count for nothing. It makes you an active political entity worth courting.

Do you know why social security is inviolate, and no one from either party will ever do anything to stop payments? Because old people vote. If you (and people like you) don't vote, you don't count, and no one will ever listen to you.

Voting increases the strength of your demographic, and then shifts the political allegiance of that demographic very slightly towards your views.

While you are 100% right, this is irrelevant to the argument. As a voter you only have 1 single vote. You are using the word "you" in the plural sense. voter != demographic, voter < demographic

The point is that your vote adds a (very small) incremental value; the sole value is not that it might decide the election.

What value does your single vote add?

In regards to this argument, a single vote has no value because the outcome of a single mandate election of this scale is never determined by 1 single vote. The outcome would remain the same with or without your vote. That is the point.

You bring up issues and demographics. Same rule applies. The attention given to your demographic is never affected by 1 single vote unless it is the single vote that causes the politician to focus attention or turn his/her back. This is obviously a gray area that can't be measured.

To me, the primary value of my individual vote is its role in keeping the democratic process running. If I wouldn't vote, I would contribute to undermining the system I support. Contrastingly, the less other people vote, the more important my own vote becomes; if I were a democracy's last voter, I would make all the difference. What's not to like?

You say it "can't be measured", but of course it can be. Say there are 10 million people in your demographic; then your vote makes your demographic 0.0001% bigger and shifts it correspondingly slightly towards your political position. That's not nothing, that's a small effect. In aggregate, it has a large effect, which corresponds exactly to the sum of the small effects.

And of course you have to be undecided. Because it does not pay to preach to the choir. (Expect to increase turnout.)

Which is why, of course, most parties spend most of their time preaching to the choir: turnout decides most elections.

Voting increases the strength of your demographic, and then shifts the political allegiance of that demographic very slightly towards your views.

Do you seriously believe that young people would, as a demographic group, generally vote together to disband social security?

I don't think there's an old person vs young person divide at all. There's plenty of divide between conservatives, liberals, communists, libertarians, etc, of all age groups.

The campaign managers definitely see the old demographic as worth courting. They even have a "lobby:" the AARP. No sane politician torques off the seniors. That's one of the reasons why it's so hard to take their driver's licenses away, even when they are feeble.

If the young people had something like this, the drinking age may still be 18 instead of 21.

Perhaps part of the issue here is that young people are only young (for your example, 18-20) for a little while, whereas old people are old for decades.

I just picked that as an example to illustrate the point; feel free to substitute "old people and young people" for any two groups of people, and "social security" for any other issue.

Although this is true for the presidential election.

When people go to the polls tommorow they will be voting for many offices besides president like senate, congress, and local elections where your vote does have equal weight. And those offices will probably affect you a lot more than President will.

And the notion of popular vote mandate is important. If someone wins a commanding popular vote margin, their ideas and proposals have a greater chance of getting put into place.

Those elections are single mandate as well.

Your vote only counts if the election is decided by 1 vote, which is never the case.

On an unrelated note, I'm so tired of Freakonomics.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com