@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:What a decider has to do, though, is to decide.
I have decided that the loss of this election in the vain hope of a loss prompting seismic change is unrealistic and unacceptable...and that we should go with the best chance of a win for the non-Republican side.
I would agree with that personally but understand others who do not, who see the two sides as more similar than you do but hate the system even more.
I'm not one of those people but I understand them.
And the choice is also just not that stark. If I vote in CA or TX for an independent it will not make any difference except to make a symbolic vote to express my opinion. It may even be more rational than picking the one of the two parties that aligns most with my political position.
Quote:I also have decided that Hillary Clinton represents a much better chance of a win (baggage and all) than a Bernie Sanders' candidacy.
Hillary is going to be the next president, yes. But I think Bernie can beat most of the Republican candidates this year, they have a weak field of candidates.
Quote:And I have decided that the incremental move toward the change I want is much, much more palatable to the masses than the "revolution" step you mentioned.
I do too. I see the revolutionary change as being nearly impossible (and especially through voting, there would have to be an actual revolution with people on the streets ready to physically overthrow the government to significantly change the broken American political system).
We aren't in disagreement here personally, I just think that those who don't feel this way have a useful role to play in society.
Quote:(As I have said time and time again, complete revolution of the kind seen in late 18th century France or early 20th century Russia may be necessary...but only as a last resort.)
Yeah, that is what it will take and honestly things just aren't bad enough for that to happen, a complete economic meltdown is what it would take to do it.
Quote:What have you decided?
Oh I'm not gonna vote, never have and probably never will. I exert greater influence on the system by arguing on the internet than I ever will voting in TX or CA and it costs me more effort to vote given that I do not live in America.
If you really want to talk irrational, voting is irrational, see the
Paradox of Voting.
Quote:The paradox of voting, also called Downs paradox, is that for a rational, self-interested voter, the costs of voting will normally exceed the expected benefits. Because the chance of exercising the pivotal vote (i.e., in an otherwise tied election) is minuscule compared to any realistic estimate of the private individual benefits of the different possible outcomes, the expected benefits of voting are less than the costs. The fact that people do vote is a problem for public choice theory, first observed by Anthony Downs.[1]
And even when the elections are close, those are cases where the entire affair is most likely to be taken out of the voters hands in the first place (see the Bush/Gore debacle).
Another article here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/06/magazine/why-vote.html
Caveat: I am aware of good counterarguments to this position of voting being economically irrational and I'm also aware that the more people who subscribe to this belief the less true it will be (if everyone stopped voting then me voting would be hugely rational).
I don't say this to criticize voting etc but to defend myself from the blowhards who give me a hard time for not doing so and act like it's an obligation. It's a privilege, and it is one that has utterly no value because the system is such that it will not make a difference.
