This is the third major US election in which I have abstained from voting. My extended family is quite perturbed by this but they have not been able to convince me to change my mind. I wanted to try putting my reasoning down here in order to benefit from the sharp criticism of other Stackers. Please let me know if you think I'm thinking about this wrongly.
I'm not voting because, in addition to expression my opinion, voting lends my credibility to the decisions made by those who are elected. Even if my candidate is not the one elected, I have agreed to abide by their decisions by virtue of my participation in the democratic process. This means if the majority vote for late-term abortion, I am accepting a society with late-term abortion and will not use violence or break laws to prevent other people's access to it.
This may be an acceptable trade off if you believe that the democratic system is fair (the tenuous hope of democracy is that we will all agree to treat each other this way, even when things don't go our way); however, the evidence I have seen is that no matter who is elected, office holders largely ignore what the population seems to want (or worse find it trivial to convince the population that it wants what the people in office want).
The current military action in Iran is an excellent example. I have yet to meet a person who thinks this is a good idea and who is happy that their tax dollars are being spent on this bombing campaign. Biden's Operation Chokepoint 2.0 campaign against banks that serve bitcoin (or other cryptocurrency) banks is also an example: I have yet to meet a person who is highly concerned about money laundering -- yet real businesses were shuttered. Another example is the way the Patriot Act continues to be renewed and even expanded. Where are the people who want further government surveillance or our financial lives?
Sure, this may not be the most thoroughly-considered stance, and I know that anecdotes do not make an argument, but I am convinced at this point that as long as the US government is not required to be fiscally responsible, voting is a farce. When politicians can steal money from us by printing money to buy US debt, they are no longer responsible to the people they serve. A fundamental part of the structure upon which democracy depends has been broken. Voting continues the charade that elected officials "serve" the voters, but the reality I see is a bureaucratic state that does whatever it wants. I'd rather not donate to them the small credibility I have in this world. They can have my vote when they earn it.
Adding to my last comment, I myself have been considering not even voting in any federal elections, I'm afraid that doing so would give it credibility. There is nothing the federal gov does that the states themselves cannot do, and maybe even do better. The federal government I do not even consider to be legitimate, the only thing it does is burden us with infringements and theft through taxes.
State and local elections I still vote in. If you choose to boycott all elections, I respect your decision.
Though we should work to make government less and less relevant in our lives through how we live, and in being more independent and more ungovernable.
Send them this and tell your family if they can't rebut it then don't judge.
C={1,2,…C}: Set of candidates
N={1,2,…,N}: Set of voters
U:N×C→R: voters’ utility functions over candidates
F:N×C×R→R: probability density function over U
V:C→R: my utility function over candidates
κ∈R: my cost of voting
Let:
Then, ∃N ∀c∈C:
i loved!!!
I just did a quick search using Google's AI, and this is fantastic—I hadn't heard of it before... I’m a fan now! Thanks for sharing your knowledge of mathematics!!
You should write something about this topic!!
Im curious what gemini had to say, and whether it tried to argue why you should still go out and vote
I’ve provided the English translation below.:
This text is a mathematical representation of the famous "voter's paradox" (originally attributed to economist Anthony Downs). In simple terms, it demonstrates that in elections with a large number of voters, the act of voting is irrational from the perspective of individual cost-benefit analysis; the probability that your vote will change the outcome is nearly zero, while the cost of voting is always greater than zero.
The text appears to be the result of a flawed machine translation from English (for instance, it translated the variable (N) as "norte"—the Spanish word for "north"—and the expected value operator as "mi"). Below, I break down what each part actually means:
• (\text{do} = {1, 2, \dots, C}): The set of all available candidates.
• (\text{norte} = {1, 2, \dots, N}): The set of all voters (the word "norte" is a mistranslation of the letter (N), which is commonly used to represent the total number of individuals).
• (U): The preferences or "utility" that each voter assigns to each candidate.
• (F): The probability distribution. It represents the uncertainty regarding how others will vote.
• (V): Your own utility function (how much value you place on each candidate winning).
• (\kappa ) (kappa): The cost of voting for you (time spent, travel, effort, etc.).
• (\text{mi}{F}): The Expected Value operator or mathematical expectation ((\mathbb{E}{F})). It represents the weighted average of possible outcomes based on the probability distribution (F) (this is another mistranslation, likely stemming from the English term "mean" or a confusion involving the word "mi"). 2. The first formula: Vote counting
(x(c)=\sum _{n\in N}\mathbf{1}\left[c=\arg \max _{i\in C}U(n,i)\right])
This equation simply defines (x(c)), which is the total number of votes that candidate (c) receives.
• Determine which candidate makes each voter (n) happiest ((\arg\max)).
• If that preferred candidate is (c), add (1) to the tally.
• In short: it represents the election outcome if everyone votes for their favorite candidate.
(\text{Then, } \exists N \forall c \in C:)
"Then, there exists a population size (N) large enough such that, for any candidate (c) you decide to vote for..."
(E_F\left[V\left(\arg \max _{i}x(i)\right)\right] > E_F\left[V\left(\arg \max _{i}(x(i)+\mathbf{1}[c=i])\right)\right] - \kappa)
This inequality compares your two options: staying home versus going to vote.
• Left side (Staying home): The expected value of your utility based on the election winner—(\arg\max x(i))—without your participation.
• Right side (Going to vote): The expected value of your utility if you decide to add one vote ((+1)) to your chosen candidate (c), minus the cost (\kappa) incurred by going to vote.
What does the inequality ((>)) mean?
Symbolically, it states that the left side is greater than the right side. In other words, your expected satisfaction is higher if you stay home than if you go to vote.
As the number of voters ((N)) increases, the probability that your single vote breaks a tie or changes the winner—what is known as a "pivotal vote"—drops drastically, approaching zero. Since your vote will not change the outcome, the marginal benefit of voting is zero, yet the cost ((\kappa)) remains. Therefore, from a mathematical standpoint, the "rational" choice is to abstain.
If you are studying this for a class, would you like us to delve deeper into how the probability of being the decisive (pivotal) voter is calculated, or perhaps explore theoretical critiques of this model (such as the concept of "civic duty")?
aaah yes. OF COURSE.
Because algebra is so much clearer than words. WE KNOW, SIMPLESTAX -.-
math is a great defense mechanism against people who try to tell you what to do
I am very smart
Federal elections I can understand as not wanting to give credibility to.
As for state level stuff, I used to hate my state government, that was when I lived in a blue state. Now that I live in a red state I am proud of my state I live in, and I actually support my government here in this state. I voted to keep the communists leftists out.
In my state the people I vote for into government are for life and liberty.
Hear here. The day we have the option to refuse and say no to the candidates on offer is the day I'll begin voting.
Give me a no confidence vote I can select alongside my normal voting routine. Where if >50% of other voters also select no confidence we get a new pool of candidates. Until then we're force-fed options that do not have our best interest in mind.
I recall one state including a “none of the above” option on their ballots
Nice. Would like to see more of that. Until we're given an option to say no I would argue we have no choice or freedom at all.
There’s immense freedom to be found in non-compliance
Me either. Fight the power.
is not a fight, is a game. you will lose if you continue fighting. playing by the rules will make your life much easier.
They don't print money to buy US debt!!
Will fucking revive MONEY CLASS OF THE DAY over this.
Also, thanks for write-up. Will comment on the substantive position in a longer, separate response
maybe not yet, but i figure it's coming soon
YES, this is super underrated. You're opting out from the process and actually that should give you more kudos and ability to speak clearly on things. Otherwise, you're explicitly beholden to whoever schmuck you lend your confidence; and implicitly incentivized to rationalize whatever they do once in office.
I've thought through these things a few times.
Once, last year in the Trump-y election (#755303) (https://www.lewrockwell.com/2024/10/no_author/who-will-i-vote-for-in-2024/)
Another in this old TDE article (https://thedailyeconomy.org/article/the-only-way-to-win-is-not-to-play/)
A third here, for Mises (https://mises.org/mises-wire/if-you-vote-you-have-no-right-complain) where I flipped the "If you don't vote, you don't have any right to complain" mantra
A fourth, reading this beautiful short book a few years back... Freiman really worked through all the philosophical and practical reasons why it makes no sense to even try to get involved. Personally or morally. LOVED IT!
My husband and I hold a similar view regarding the hypothetical scenario in which elections might take place in Venezuela in the short to medium term.
There is now a prevailing belief that presidential elections will take place, and that the only two candidates will be Delcy Rodríguez and María Corina Machado.
Red socialism vs. blue socialism. The same politicians as 25 years ago.
Obviously, my wish is for Venezuela not to remain under this dictatorship and to begin to evolve and grow once again, but...
Thanks for sharing this and congrats on your choice. It's refreshing to read someone who actually stops to think about the implications of voting, instead of doing it out of inertia or family pressure.
The part where you say voting lends them your credibility is key, the day we stop validating their theater, we'll have taken a giant step. I'm in the same position. We are talking here #1607792 about why voting legitimizes the system
I just saw that you posted this! I'll join the discussion.
As a citizen, you have obligations, voting in one of them, and you could go through some inconvenience for not fulfilling your social contract. If you state allow it, you just simply need to make a declaration to decline this "privilege". Yes, privilege not right. Because citizens have privileges, not rights.
https://www.eac.gov/voters/voter-registration-cancellations
I can't bring myself not to vote, so I do it every year. I write in candidates. This year I voted for players on the 1982 New York Islanders. Bryan Trottier got at least one vote for Governor.
I don’t think it follows that voting implies accepting the legitimacy of the democratic process.
The concept of defensive voting applies here.
The main objection to me is that there’s a zero probability of casting the deciding vote, and even if you did, there’s a small probability of the person who wins being functionally different in the direction you want.
When the Democrats flip the seats it turns towards the people’s judgment about the activities of every day life ‘& what’s been affecting them reasons why the votes went in favor of them with fuel prices ‘ & cost of living expenditure in situ!
Largely agree with your reasoning although absolutely tragic US politics has become so corrupt and owned by Zionist war criminals and rentseeking corporate parasites who own BOTH major parties that this situation exists.
What is required is enough US citizens to demand an end to the huge dependence of politicians on corporate donors.
Or a revolution.
Maybe both!
Interesting and hopeful note- AIPAC are becoming toxic and many candidates are now challenging and beating their puppets!
Yes democracy is messy and inefficient but what is the alternative?
Try not to give up on it- work to keep it honest!
would you rather be ruled by zionists, islamists, or maoists?
I am grateful I live in New Zealand where we have MMP democracy which enables a house of representatives from a more broad range of parties.
This means it is harder for wealthy lobbyists to own the entire democracy.
My preference is for government is a mixed model with a combination of socialism and capitalism- it is the model which has proven most successful in the industrial era.
Our election finalises this Saturday and it looks likely to be a socialist green coalition which suits me fine.
We previously has a system similar to yours where only two parties held the vast majority of seats but we fought and succeeded in removing it and getting MMP.
There are no Zionist, Maoist or Islamist parties in New Zealand so they are not options.
In contrast to the US where Zionists have controlled both parties up until now at least.
When given a fair choice the people will chose wisely- your US system is not doing that, and that is tragic.
I suppose I would vote in some circumstances
#1607948 also this Banger post from Scoresby fits the bill, love to see it 💕
The opposite. 1) It's a republic not a democracy 2) Not voting is still participation, it's endorsement of the greater evil.
A barbarian horde invades your village and intends to kill you. You either fight or stand down, the options are binary. Fighting is not abiding to the invasion, standing down is.
You do that by not fighting the horde.
The worst enemy of a good plan is a perfect plan.
I'm less happy about London being able to manipulate global energy markets by calling up their proxies near some chokepoints.
If a few billion in ordinance and ships (that was already spent regardless of the current operation) saves 100s of billions over time, that's a good plan. Doing nothing is endorsement of wasting 100s of billions.
Republic.
How did that begin? How did that end?
Petulant is the word you're looking for.