2020 presidential election straw poll

[Jeff Lebowski]

huh? a vote either changes the outcome or it doesn't. if the only utility someone derives from voting is to aid the election of their preferred candidate, it is irrational for them to incur the cost of doing so. there are other reasons to vote (warm fuzzies, signaling, stickers, etc.). this isn't controversial and is well settled.

All votes by definition impact the outcome. It is a small impact, but a very important one in the collective sense. These debates are always driven by an absurd, overly narrow definition. Its a straw man.

[tooblue]

huh? a vote either changes the outcome or it doesn't. if the only utility someone derives from voting is to aid the election of their preferred candidate, it is irrational for them to incur the cost of doing so. there are other reasons to vote (warm fuzzies, signaling, stickers, etc.). this isn't controversial and is well settled.

What exactly is settled? That the choice to vote permits an individual to exercise their political agency while the choice not to vote permits the individual to surrender their political agency.

There are consequences for both choices.

[All-American]

All votes by definition impact the outcome. It is a small impact, but a very important one in the collective sense. These debates are always driven by an absurd, overly narrow definition. Its a straw man.

The definition being "who wins"?

[tooblue]

The definition being "who wins"?

The person who votes wins. The person who does not vote loses, precisely because that person has surrendered their political agency.

[UVACoug]

All votes by definition impact the outcome. It is a small impact, but a very important one in the collective sense. These debates are always driven by an absurd, overly narrow definition. Its a straw man.

I'm on AA's side, but I think the better way to look at it is as a cost-benefit assessment. Yes, everyone's vote has some tiny impact on the outcome. But, the value of your contribution to the collective decision in any election is miniscule, and far outweighed by the cost associated with casting a vote. So, it is irrational to vote in order to gain any value from having the miniscule impact on the outcome that you actually have. That means, there must be some other explanation for why people vote, such as a sense of duty or belonging or fear of being ridiculed for not voting. Or, people are not very good at estimating the value of their contribution to the outcome (which is probably the real answer ... people generally think their votes matter more than they do).

[Harry Tic]

I was digging around earlier trying to find the paper I read on this point. It was years ago. I don't remember if it was while I was at Chicago or still at BYU. I don't think it was the one you are referring to, but that sounds like an interesting read as well.

The only rebuttal I ever see to this point is the one you all raised here: what happens if everybody, or a big number of people, didn't vote? But you don't have any impact on what everybody/a big number of people do. You only control your vote. So if the reason you vote is to determine an outcome, you are wasting your time.

I think people actually intuitively get this, notwithstanding the visceral reaction when confronted with it. I doubt anybody here is under the illusion that when they fill out their ballots they are casting the vote that will ultimately determine whether Trump or Biden will be president. My point is that we don't vote to determine the outcome-- we vote to be part of the team.

I have to agree with AA here. This is one of the reasons why the First Presidency always sends out that letter discouraging us from voting.

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/first-presidency-letter-united-states-election-2020

[tooblue]

I have to agree with AA here. This is one of the reasons why the First Presidency always sends out that letter discouraging us from voting.

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist...-election-2020

oops ... plus there is that whole vote in the war in heaven thingy, but now we are getting into religion so

[Jeff Lebowski]

I'm on AA's side, but I think the better way to look at it is as a cost-benefit assessment. Yes, everyone's vote has some tiny impact on the outcome. But, the value of your contribution to the collective decision in any election is miniscule, and far outweighed by the cost associated with casting a vote. So, it is irrational to vote in order to gain any value from having the miniscule impact on the outcome that you actually have. That means, there must be some other explanation for why people vote, such as a sense of duty or belonging or fear of being ridiculed for not voting. Or, people are not very good at estimating the value of their contribution to the outcome (which is probably the real answer ... people generally think their votes matter more than they do).

False dichotomy. All of those things can be true at the same time. Of course there are multiple benefits and motivations to vote. But collective efforts matter. This is probably the most consequential collective effort we can be a part of. There is nothing irrational about participating in an election unless you are such a nerd that have to do an inner "what's in it for me?" overly narrow, mathematical cost/benefit analysis of every move you make.

[old_gregg]

All votes by definition impact the outcome. It is a small impact, but a very important one in the collective sense. These debates are always driven by an absurd, overly narrow definition. Its a straw man.

the only vote that matters is the one that breaks a tie between two outcomes. it doesn't matter if it's six votes on each side or a billion that creates the tie to be broken.

[old_gregg]

What exactly is settled? That the choice to vote permits an individual to exercise their political agency while the choice not to vote permits the individual to surrender their political agency.

There are consequences for both choices.

the paradox of the economic rationality of voting, you fucking wanker

[Flystripper]

False dichotomy. All of those things can be true at the same time. Of course there are multiple benefits and motivations to vote. But collective efforts matter. This is probably the most consequential collective effort we can be a part of. There is nothing irrational about participating in an election unless you are such a nerd that have to do an inner "what's in it for me?" overly narrow, mathematical cost/benefit analysis of every move you make.

Even if you are a super nerd robot that sets up a T-account to balance the cost and benefit for every single decision, voting can have a net positive to the individual. I think that some people here are not seeing the same magnitude of benefit in providing a minor assistance in the outcome. For some the outcome of a ballot initiative, school board member, or the POTUS has incredibly high stakes. To some, one outcome is incredibly favored over another. For these people, the potential benefit of voting (even adjusted for probability of success) provides enough benefit to outweigh the costs.

Basically what I am saying is that if you don't vote, you don't view the probability adjusted result as meaningful. I disagree with that notion, but I view this election as having a massive importance on the future and direction of our country.

[old_gregg]

False dichotomy. All of those things can be true at the same time. Of course there are multiple benefits and motivations to vote. But collective efforts matter. This is probably the most consequential collective effort we can be a part of. There is nothing irrational about participating in an election

the virtue of a collective action does not explain the economic rationality of an individual's participation or non-participation in it. nobody is making a normative point--it is of course ideal from a collective perspective for as many people as possible vote.

unless you are such a nerd that have to do an inner "what's in it for me?" overly narrow, mathematical cost/benefit analysis of every move you make

right, so self interest: the drive that underpins the study of economics.

[old_gregg]

Even if you are a super nerd robot that sets up a T-account to balance the cost and benefit for every single decision, voting can have a net positive to the individual. I think that some people here are not seeing the same magnitude of benefit in providing a minor assistance in the outcome. For some the outcome of a ballot initiative, school board member, or the POTUS has incredibly high stakes. To some, one outcome is incredibly favored over another. For these people, the potential benefit of voting (even adjusted for probability of success) provides enough benefit to outweigh the costs.

Basically what I am saying is that if you don't vote, you don't view the probability adjusted result as meaningful. I disagree with that notion, but I view this election as having a massive importance on the future and direction of our country.

there is no "minor assistance in the outcome," except for the one vote that is the determinant of the outcome.

[Flystripper]

there is no "minor assistance in the outcome," except for the one vote that is the determinant of the outcome.

ok. Adding power to the collective is the assistance. We recognize that self interest and the interest of the collective can align align and without providing individual power to the collective, the collective ceases to have the power you wish it to have. That utility is intangible but intangible assets have value.

[Commando]

Don’t pretend that holding a seat open is the same thing as court packing. It’s not.

What about holding open like 100 federal judgeships so that the next president can fill them? We can get cute about semantics all you want. Filibustering appointments to alter the judicial composition is not one bit better than outright adding to the number of sitting judges to a judicial body.