VOTE Election day 11/04/2014

[RDU Irish]

I heard earlier that this is the lowest percentage of voter turnout ever. Anyone else heard the same? I've been at work all day and just trying to catch up on things.

Record turnout in North Carolina for a mid term election. Hotly contested Senate race with $100M spent may be a factor versus other locations where there isn't anything close.

 

[irishff1014]

Generally, you can. The only time voter's paradox does not apply is when you can reasonably believe that your vote will impact the result. Since there has never ever been a Federal election in the US that has been decided by a singular vote, it tends to be applied globally.

There have been two very close shaves... New Hampshire senate race in 1974 was 2 votes, and the Indiana 8th was a 4 vote race in 1984. Besides that you have to go back well before the civil war to find even a state election that was a single digits race.

In other countries (mainly Canada where voting populations in some places are much smaller than the US, but also some other places around the world) there have actually been some ties.

These examples don't defeat the voter's paradox though, because you can reasonably expect in a population of less than 10,000 that there's a legitimate chance that the race could be decided by a vote. So there IS logical incentive to believe that your vote may impact the result, and that your act of voting may have an ultimate impact on your life, etc.



No, they didn't.



This is the part that makes it a paradox. Your vote doesn't matter, but if everyone who believes what you do and would vote for a certain candidate also accepted that their individual vote doesn't matter, then this large swath of people all becoming apathetic and not voting COULD make a difference.

Social science is a fickle beast... favorite classes I took at ND were on this kind of subject matter. Strategy in Society and American Congress. Awesome professor, better subject matter.

IMO this is a piss poor outlook. And 2nd of all in the smaller races like county exec, and county council every ones vote does matter.

 

[IrishLax]

IMO this is a piss poor outlook. And 2nd of all in the smaller races like county exec, and county council every ones vote does matter.

It's not a "piss poor outlook"... it's commonly accepted political science principles. I'm literally just stating fact. There is no part of my comments that are even opinion.

And as is clearly articulated in what I said...... yes, for smaller elections with a limited populous the voter's paradox does not apply.

EDIT: And to make it very clear, there are tons of justifications for voting. Civic duty, the fact that you enjoy it, etc. etc. No one would ever suggest you "shouldn't" vote.

All the voter's paradox does is illustrate the paradox faced by a singular individual voter choosing whether or not to vote. If you know that there is not a reasonable chance that your vote will make an impact, and there is a significant investment (i.e. time/energy/etc.) to cast a vote (which there is... lines are about a half an hour where I live and work gets in the way for most Americans), then there isn't a logical case to be made for voting for its purpose (i.e. to determine who is elected, or if a law passes/fails). The paradox is that if everyone applied this logic, then by proxy the value of votes and probability of impact would naturally increase (i.e. if everyone chose not to vote except for 1 guy he'd have an incredible amount of influence), and also that if an apathetic approach is applied on a macro versus micro scale that it DOES have a large impact.

So a logical voter -- who is not deriving their decision to vote from something intrinsic to the process that they feel gives them utility -- simultaneously must know that their vote won't matter in a large election, while also knowing that if a large group of people with similar beliefs followed the same logic it COULD have an impact, but even then the 1 singular vote is still probably immaterial, but... and so on and so forth. Hence, the paradox.

 

[Junkhead]

/sorry

 

[irishog77]

Why? Voter's paradox is a very real thing. Your individual choice to vote or not vote is irrelevant to election results.

I worked from 7 AM to 2 AM yesterday. No way I was wasting my time to wait in a 30 minute line.

Ok that's your choice. I work 12 hour shifts and still made it so that i could vote. I guess its all about your beliefs.

Lax was raging on Clash of Clans!

 

[IRISHDODGER]

If you think Obama is in the "middle" then you are correct. No need for us to debate as we disagree at complete ends of that spectrum. He is anything but in the middle. As far as working together, I have posted several examples of bipartisan support that can be passed quickly. We will see if Obama really wants to work together - even with members of his own party - and sign the bipartisan bills in to law.

The biggest obstacle to Congress working with the President will be the President. If he chooses to still push his ideology then he will have some tough sledding. Right now I have zero faith in his ability to compromise. I hope he proves me wrong for the sake of our country.

I'm with you on this. Obama appears to be a "true believer" so I don't expect him to compromise one iota. But he has the bully pulpit and will simply say the other side refuses to send up their ideas for debate/vote & that will be the way it is portrayed to the masses. Evil, white, Christian conservatives blocking any advancements that Obama & his party put forth for the betterment of America.

My opinion on 99% of the pols in Washington DC (Reps & Dems)? Eff em & feed em fish heads.

 

[phgreek]

IMO, the Dems deserved to take the hit they took last night. They abandoned the president and his policies and treated him like a pariah. In doing so, they did not talk about the many months of job growth, the expansion of the economy, and health insurance being available to millions of uninsured Americans. They fell into the same old bad habit of letting the GOP set the agenda of issues, so in the days leading up to the election I heard politicians talking about how ISIS and ebola was Obama's fault, instead of having Democrat candidates pointing out how wrong the GOP was when they tried to reverse Obamacare 50 times. Their shameless disloyalty to the president and the priciples of the party almost ensured the losses they suffered last night. And now, the man that they treated as a leaper is the only thing that will prevent all of the progress that has been made from being systematically dismantled. I hope he has his veto pen ready as the GOP tries to roll back banking regulation, force the Keystone pipeline from threatening the environment, reversing the gains in insured citizens, and the gutting of the social safety net.

So lets ignore for a moment the veracity of your claims about there being stuff to be proud of...as all such claims apply a standard of "working" or "good" not universally experienced by all...and lets focus on the political strategy.

You seem to be alluding to the fact that all the political strategists and polsters don't have a clue...or that their view of things was simply ignored??? Put it this way, if the little propeller heads in the dark room thought that having folks tout the "accomplishments" you seem to think are brag worthy...don't you think that would have happened? Had the little propeller heads thought association with the President was a good thing, don't you think they'd have advised their folks to drag him in...

Is it possible more people currently DON'T like the results of the policies, now they can see results, and now the man is toxic?

 

[GoldenDomer]

lol

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/Q8KhfREyQgU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[ND NYC]

If you think Obama is in the "middle" then you are correct. No need for us to debate as we disagree at complete ends of that spectrum. He is anything but in the middle. As far as working together, I have posted several examples of bipartisan support that can be passed quickly. We will see if Obama really wants to work together - even with members of his own party - and sign the bipartisan bills in to law.

The biggest obstacle to Congress working with the President will be the President. If he chooses to still push his ideology then he will have some tough sledding. Right now I have zero faith in his ability to compromise. I hope he proves me wrong for the sake of our country.

do you think the congressional Republicans were elected last night to work with Obama...or to block Obama?

 

[SoDakDomer]

do you think the congressional Republicans were elected last night to work with Obama...or to block Obama?

 

[Booslum31]

do you think the congressional Republicans were elected last night to work with Obama...or to block Obama?

I think both...if that makes sense. But mainly to work "with"

 

[SoDakDomer]

Can the republican's even work together? I would assume yes, but will Tea Party Republicans be able to compromise enough to put anything on the president's desk that he would actually approve?

 

[woolybug25]

Can the republican's even work together? I would assume yes, but will Tea Party Republicans be able to compromise enough to put anything on the president's desk that he would actually approve?

I have no faith that anything, for either side of the party lines, will get done in the next two years.

 

[RDU Irish]

They already have a stack of bills a mile high on Harry Reid's desk to work with. They will have such a volume of material flying to Obama's desk almost as fast as he can veto them.

 

[RDU Irish]

It just furthers the blame game, Obama will say he is protecting the country and doesn't really care b/c he is not up for reelection. Republicans will say they have solved all the world's problems but Obama won't work with them. In 2016, folks will have to decide if they want to give Rs a chance or keep a D in place to prolong gridlock.

Freaking juvenile behavior if you ask me but how do you get someone to work with your that doesn't want to? Might not be a bad thing to have "nothing get done" since that inherently prevents an increase in the size and scope of government.

 

[Cackalacky]

Depends on state and district.

I am a Republican in PA's District 2. I voted yesterday, but went in realizing it was essentially meaningless.

Same here. My Vote means jack ish. Still voted. Half the seats up for vote here were uncontested Republicans. How does Mark Sanford, a family values core republican go uncontested after cheating on his wife and enduring corruption charges? Lmao.

 

[RDU Irish]

Same here. My Vote means jack ish. Still voted. Half the seats up for vote here were uncontested Republicans. How does Mark Sanford, a family values core republican go uncontested after cheating on his wife and enduring corruption charges? Lmao.

That is pretty ridiculous. I wish there were Libertarian candidates on more ballots, I would have gladly supported them even though they get less than 10% of the vote. Glad I voted for Tillis, but if he had been favored I would have probably repped the L candidate though.

I would think Sanford would be ripe for a Libertarian or Independent to come calling. Same thing in Kansas, that "Independent" was a Dem and everyone knew it. He also hid in the weeds hoping he could ride the hate to victory.

 

[Wild Bill]

do you think the congressional Republicans were elected last night to work with Obama...or to block Obama?

Work with him if he moves to the middle and block him if he's not willing to compromise. They'll lose their asses in the next election if they do anything else.

My guess is that he doesn't budge, congress blows him off, nothing gets done and they'll battle it out in the media as to who is at fault - the drunk with power president or the obstructionists in congress. I'll be here paying taxes in the meantime.

 

[bobbyok1]

Actually, it doesn't, because it's exceedingly improbable that in a population of this size that an election would ever be decided by a singular vote.

This is not the logic with which all people go to vote. It's not about my or your single vote, it's about about joining a 1000, 10,000, 1,000,000 or however many other voters and teaming together to support a political party or candidate. It's a team mindset and it's about fulfilling your role as part of a larger group. It's really not much different than team sports. Just because a one guy would never beat a team of 80 or 100 guys by himself does not mean he could not find meaning and purpose in being one of 80 or 100 guys to beat another 80 or 100 guys on the football field.

You're suggesting that just because a election is unlikely to be decided by one vote (or a singular number of votes) then it's pointless to vote. In my view, you are thinking much too individualistic about the whole process. It's not about you or me alone, its about being part of something bigger. If everyone took your attitude then no one would ever vote unless the election would come down to a singular number of votes which can never be predicted.

 

[RDU Irish]

Imagery of VETOing every proposal makes it easy to point the obstructionist arrow at the guy with the final say in matters. I mean, if you can't find one proposal out of 1000 to sign into law, maybe you are the problem.

 

[woolybug25]

This is not the logic with which all people go to vote. It's not about my or your single vote, it's about about joining a 1000, 10,000, 1,000,000 or however many other voters and teaming together to support a political party or candidate. It's a team mindset and it's about fulfilling your role as part of a larger group. It's really not much different than team sports. Just because a one guy would never beat a team of 80 of 100 guys by himself does not mean he could not find meaning and purpose in being one or 80 or 100 guys to beat another 80 or 100 guys on the football field.

You're suggesting that just because a election is unlikely to be decided by one vote (or a singular number of votes) then it's pointless to vote. In my view you are think much too individualistic about the whole process. It's not about you or me alone, its about being part of something bigger. If everyone took your attitude then no one would ever vote unless they election would come down to a singular number of votes which can never be predicted.

I'm not sure how many times LAX can say it before blowing his lid, so I will say it for him this time. LAX isn't the one suggesting it, Voter's Paradox is a real model which has been used and studied to understand inefficiencies which exist in voting and democracies. LAX isn't stating an opinion, he's simply pointing out a concept well known within political science theory.

You guys should get off his back, because he is only pointing out what every political science teacher will teach you in PS101.

 

[ickythump1225]

At this day and age it is crazy to me at the amount of people that don't/wont vote.

Voting is essentially a masturbatory exercise which hinges on the fantasy that you're somehow making a difference by voting for Twiddle-dee instead of Twiddle-dumb or vice versa. The difference between Team Red and Team Blue by and large is non-existent. All you need to do is look at the past two Administrations to see that. George W. Bush campaigned on a "humble foreign policy" and instead oversaw the greatest expansion of government power and war making in the history of the Republic. Medicare part D and "No Child Left Behind" were expensive boondoggles. Barack Obama campaigned on civil liberties and ending the wars. Instead we're still mired in endless war and he has upheld time and again police state powers like the "PATRIOT" Act. Obamacare is going to be expensive and ineffective. Obama got the inspiration for Obamacare from Mitt Romney, you know the guy who we were promised would really "change things" if he was elected.

What is crazy to me is that in this day and age so many people still buy into the Red vs. Blue game like it really matters. To quote the legendary golfer Happy Gilmore, "Green jacket, gold jacket, who gives a damn?"

 

[bobbyok1]

I'm not sure how many times LAX can say it before blowing his lid, so I will say it for him this time. LAX isn't the one suggesting it, Voter's Paradox is a real model which has been used and studied to understand inefficiencies which exist in voting and democracies. LAX isn't stating an opinion, he's simply pointing out a concept well known within political science theory.

You guys should get off his back, because he is only pointing out what every political science teacher will teach you in PS101.

My bad . . . you're proposing the "Voter's Paradox" model as support for your argument of why it's meaningless to vote.

Why? Voter's paradox is a very real thing. Your individual choice to vote or not vote is irrelevant to election results.

I worked from 7 AM to 2 AM yesterday. No way I was wasting my time to wait in a 30 minute line.

 

[ab2cmiller]

Great Perspective from Cal Thomas.
Cal Thomas

Now for some perspective on Tuesday’s election.

“Put not your trust in Prince and Kings, or in mortal flesh that cannot save.” That was King David and it remains a sound piece of advice when it comes to political leadership.

Yes, God is the author of all authority. He puts up and brings down for his glory. But no political leader can bring salvation to a nation and certainly not to individuals. God does that himself through his Son and by the Holy Spirit.

Republicans will be limited in their power when they take over the senate. The President still has a veto, but it takes two-thirds of the Senate and House to override, which is why it rarely happens.

A friend sent me an email saying the election was an answer to millions of prayers. I beg to differ. A revival would be the answer to millions of prayers. While I’m happy about the election outcome, I’m happier still knowing God controls all things, including our future as a country and as individuals. Pray for revival. It is a prayer more likely to be heard.

I’m Cal Thomas in Washington.

 

[ACamp1900]

Agree with everything except the whole "Dirty liberal hippies aren't dumb" part....

 

[T Town Tommy]

do you think the congressional Republicans were elected last night to work with Obama...or to block Obama?

Depends. Plenty of items that can be passed through bipartisan methods. As much as we all like to believe there is gridlock, both major parties do have some bipartisan agreements on important issues. As far as the fundamental disagreements, that's always harder no matter who is in the majority. I will say this. I think it is very important that the Republican leadership show that they can get some things done. And that's gonna take some compromise on their part as well. To me, the key issue will be whether the President accepts what bipartisan measures come out from both houses. If he makes it difficult, all parties involved lose in the end.

 

[bobbyok1]

As it stands now, Republicans cracking beers for beating out the dirty hippie libtards is just asinine and reinforces what the republican party wants to you think. Dirty liberal hippies aren't dumb, they just have differing viewpoints that are valid and when thought about logically can help create meaningful legislation. Republicans aren't dumb or racist (generally) either, some of our smartest most successful people are Republicans and have great views IMO.

Hear, hear! While I do not subscribe to the idea that the main tool politicians use is pitting one group of Americans against another, I do agree it is fairly widely used by most of them to gain votes. We as the people need to refuse to participate in such divisions of the people, because we are one nation. "News" channels like Fox, MSNBC, and the like must be turned off or the channel changed. We need to rally and voice for a third party as has been done in the past with limited impact. There is such a thing, as you have expressed, as differing views. And because that is the case, we will likely always need differing parties. But what we don't need is to demonize the other party (whatever party that would be), but rather respectfully disagree with them as fellow Americans.

 

[Irish YJ]

Depends. Plenty of items that can be passed through bipartisan methods. As much as we all like to believe there is gridlock, both major parties do have some bipartisan agreements on important issues. As far as the fundamental disagreements, that's always harder no matter who is in the majority. I will say this. I think it is very important that the Republican leadership show that they can get some things done. And that's gonna take some compromise on their part as well. To me, the key issue will be whether the President accepts what bipartisan measures come out from both houses. If he makes it difficult, all parties involved lose in the end.

Yep, if the GOP is willing to make things happen, and the Prez blocks, things will go well for the GOP in 2 years. If the GOP keeps their head up their @$$es, the tide will turn again. Hopefully both sides can find common ground on some of the issues. I do hope however some of the things created in the last 6 years can be un-done. If that takes some fighting, so be it.

 

[IrishLax]

I'm not sure how many times LAX can say it before blowing his lid, so I will say it for him this time. LAX isn't the one suggesting it, Voter's Paradox is a real model which has been used and studied to understand inefficiencies which exist in voting and democracies. LAX isn't stating an opinion, he's simply pointing out a concept well known within political science theory.

You guys should get off his back, because he is only pointing out what every political science teacher will teach you in PS101.

 

[IrishLax]

My bad . . . you're proposing the "Voter's Paradox" model as support for your argument of why it's meaningless to vote.

Except I'm not. Which I've made crystal clear.

I just pointed out that there is an extremely basic and accepted Political Science principal that shows people with the "I can't believe you didn't vote" mantra are either uninformed or illogical. You pick. This is NOT opinion. It is also NOT opinion that your one singular vote treated as an independent choice for one individual HAS NEVER EVER MATTERED in United States federal elections.

And then I stated I, personally, made the choice to not vote because I personally was not willing/able to sacrifice the time. Which is my prerogative and nothing more.