Flawed Logic: "I don't like the candidates, so I won't vote"

[CT_Progressive]

The only way to get candidates you want, is to VOTE for them.
If there are no candidates that you want NOW, then you need to work hard in the FUTURE to get some.
But that has no bearing on what you need to do NOW. What you need to do NOW is vote for the BEST candidate.

At no time did Voting in America become "Candidates must be exactly what I want or I wont vote."
That is a meme.
And LOTS of people on this board have internalized that meme and accept it fully.

You need to get that meme out of your head, its false. Not voting will NOT change this country for the better, or send a message to the Democratic Party. All it would do is not register a vote for you, which is what Republicans would love.

You do NOT have to love the person you vote for.
You do NOT even have to like the person you vote for.
You can even HATE the person you vote for, if you want.

Just make sure that the person you vote for would be BETTER than the person you don't vote for.
Not voting is exactly the same thing as voting for the WORSE person.
That goes against your self interest, and is just dumb.

[no_hypocrisy]

1. With that kind of logic, you can feel smug and say you didn't elect

the standing dictator.

[CT_Progressive]

2. Or say "At least we elected the nicer dictator - WOW that other guy would have sucked harder!"

Not voting means voting FOR the worse dictator.

[MilesColtrane]

47. In the words of Homer Simpson (as he was being whipped by...

...a multi-tentacled, drooling alien), "Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos!"

[unpossibles]

3. thank you

I look at it this way: The Republicans want nothing more than to discourage people from voting. Ask the 50,000+ people in Florida in 2000 and the many more thousands of poor people all over the nation if you don't believe me. The fewer people who vote, the easier it is for them to win/cheat.

If nothing else, vote because it pisses off Republicans like Karl Rove. That alone is almost worthy enough cause, imo.

[noiretextatique]

4. almost everyone who has ever voted

has voted for the least objectionable candidate with the best chance of winning, at least on the liberal side of the equation.
that's basically all that voting in america has meant for me in over 30 years of voting. on a few occasions, i've had the opportunity to vote for someone who shares my values and political outlook, however, i've usually voted for the least objectionable candiate with the best chance of winning to stop some asshole from winning.

[HeraldSquare212]

5. Nope.

I vote in every election, but I understand why people don't and I think they have a point - if you have a moral issue with both candidates, you shouldn't feel compelled to support one of them.

[CT_Progressive]

6. You ARE supporting one of them by not voting! The WORSE one.

That is my point, and you just REPEATED the MEME.

Its FALSE.

Stop repeating it.

[Mythsaje]

8. So we're starting with the idea

that every politician is entitled to my vote as long as there's someone worse in the race? So if my choices were Stalin or Pol Pot, I'd have to choose ONE of them...the one I thought was the BEST communist/fascist dictator?

This is such crap.

[CT_Progressive]

10. If you do NOT vote, you ARE, in fact, voting FOR the WORSE one.

Again, stop repeating the "I can abstain from voting" meme.

Its false.

[Mythsaje]

13. No.

eom.

[CT_Progressive]

14. What is this, kindergarten?

"No."

Thats all? No rebuttal.

If you feel I'm wrong, tell me why.

Mathematically, I'm 100% correct.

[Mythsaje]

16. You can't force a person to vote against his/her conscience.

The math doesn't matter.

[CT_Progressive]

18. You ARE voting against your conscience by not voting - you are voting FOR the WORSE one!

Prove me wrong.

[Mythsaje]

21. And if you view them as equally bad?

What then?

[CT_Progressive]

22. Then you need to look a little closer, get to know more about each one.

Everyone is unique.

Use your life perspective and your experiences to make a decision.

[Mythsaje]

23. Two different people can be equally corrupt

or bad.

This isn't an answer.

[CT_Progressive]

25. No, at some level, they are different. You just aren't familiar enough to see it.

Vote for the person that is dumber (more likely to get caught/be inept or ineffective)
Vote for the person that has the better advisors.
etc.

[Mythsaje]

26. On a Presidential level

what if you live in a state where your individual vote won't make a difference one way or another?

[CT_Progressive]

32. Its foolish to think that way.

Over long periods of time (longer than our own lifetimes), states change. If you give up, you are simply handing the state to the (R)s. If you vote, encourage others to Vote Dem, volunteer in the Dem Party, fund raise, etc. you can turn your own town blue. Then your county. Then your state.

Why in the hell would you ever, ever, ever give anything to the (R)s for free?

[Mythsaje]

49. I live in a blue state.

It's not going to go red any time soon.

My individual vote is meaningless in that respect, since it's all about the Electoral College.

[Evoman]

34. That's dumb.

Your not voting for the worse one. When conservative people don't vote, they aren't VOTING for the dems.

Not voting is not voting. You won't change anything. And your not doing yourself any favours. And you probably should vote, even if you vote 3rd party or you hold your nose and vote for one of the two major parties. But not voting is NOT voting for the worse.

Don't exaggerate. The only way not voting is voting for the worse is if you assume that the dems own the progressive vote already, and they don't. Nobody owes the Dem party anything.

[CT_Progressive]

35. Ya they do. See post 29.

[Evoman]

38. I'm sorry, but people more eloquent than I have tried to show you your fallacy.

Post 29 is a good example. I get what your trying to say, but hyperbole is not helping you in this case.

[CT_Progressive]

41. Its not hyperbole.

We all know from 2000 and 2004, a swing of a mere 2-3% of the votes can decide an election.

If a mere 2-3% can be convinced to stay home, a state can go red, and give an electoral collage win to the (R)s.

This is not theory.
This is not hypothetical.
This is real.

If enough people simply don't vote, rather than hold their nose and vote (D), we actually LOSE next year.
I can't be more clear.

[Tech 9]

29. To illustrate the farcical nature of this claim

If not voting is a vote for the Republican candidate..couldn't Republicans have their vote counted by NOT voting? Whatever point you really have here, it is undermined by how hard you are pushing a too-simple metaphor (not voting is the same as voting for the other guy).

You have also overlooked the fact that those who hate a particular candidate are probably going to turn out to vote against them. That means that those who don't vote are pretty apathetic towards all of the candidates, and may not see one as blatantly WORSE than the others. Which undoes your whole argument..

[CT_Progressive]

31. No it doesn't, not at all.

No matter how miniscule the difference, if you vote for the candidate that is closest to your ideology, then you have not voted for the one that is farthest from your ideology.

This is black and white.

Its pure math.

If You vote:
Bad Guy: 100 votes
Really Bad Guy: 100 votes

If You dont vote:
Bad Guy: 99 votes
Really Bad Guy: 100 votes


Now add a 2nd person into it and we get:
Voting:
Bad Guy: 101 votes
Really Bad Guy: 100 votes

Not voting:
Bad Guy: 99 votes
Really Bad Guy: 100 votes


What part of that is even debatable?

[Tech 9]

61. What kind of defeatism do you deal in?

The most constructive thing we can do is talk about 'Bad' vs 'Really Bad'??

You might consider a different hobby

[rjones2818]

7. If the choice is between bad and worse...

not voting is a perfectly legitimate act.

[CT_Progressive]

11. And casts a vote for "worse".

Which is dumb and against your own self interests.

[rjones2818]

27. Not voting is not giving a vote to worse.

As a hypothetical, you have Stalin and Mao running for President. Who do you vote for?

[CT_Progressive]

33. I vote for the one closer to my own ideology.

[againes654]

9. You misunderstand "our" position

but you won't logically listen to my reasons so I wont' even bother

[CT_Progressive]

12. I won't? Really?

Why don't you, you know, try?

Tell me why you think that "not voting" is NOT casting a vote for the WORSE candidate.

I'm all ears (eyes).

[porphyrian]

15. What if you're in Florida and your vote won't count anyway? - n/t

[CT_Progressive]

17. rotflmao !

:rofl:

[porphyrian]

24. You laugh, but I'm serious. - n/t

[Odin2005]

19. The Ideological purists would like to cut off their noses to spite their faces.

For the foreseeable future were are stuck with a winner-take-all election system, and such systems result in 2 dominant parties. I don't like that, I'd rather have proportional representation and runoff elections, but we don't have those now. Untill we have PR and runoffs insisting that candidates be perfect and pure is a recipe for disaster.

[CT_Progressive]

20. Well said! -nt

[Evoman]

36. That is all true.

But I suppose it would be smart to have a plan to change how the system works while you hold your nose, right? What would you propose that people do to change how the system works? Especially if one knows that always supporting one of the parties encourages the status quo?

I'm not saying people should waste a vote. All I am asking is...how do you change the system, if your always voting for people who depend on the system and don't want it to change?

[CT_Progressive]

37. Raise politicians up from the towns and states, good people.

Get them involved.
Then, get them to run.

[Evoman]

40. But that's not going to work, is it?

Your an interesting mixture of the ideal and the pragmatic, I'll give you that. But winning seems to be largely guided by money and influence. The people with the most influence and money are the ones beholden to the corporations. How do you change that? How can you change that?

[CT_Progressive]

42. Things change over time by people with ideas.

Look at some of the "good" Dems in congress - Russ Feingold, for example.

Get enough "Russ Feingolds" in there in the decades to come, and we pass campaign finance reforms and turn em publicly funded.

Once we get that through, its all uphill from there.

[ecstatic]

28. What about: "The machines are not secure, so I won't vote"

I hear that A LOT and the only response I can give is that it's our duty to at least try.

[CT_Progressive]

30. Again, this is a meme of the Republicans - they want you to not vote

If you dont vote, they win.

[ecstatic]

54. so the machines are secure?

:shrug:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=585149441424121...

Clinton Eugene Curtis, A former programmer for NASA and Exxon has finally come forward to testify before the US Judiciary that he was enlisted by Republicans to create a program which could guarantee Bush's presidential election victory.

[CT_Progressive]

55. Yes, the machines are secure.

Except for the ones that aren't.

A few hacked machines != all machines everywhere under control of evil GOP conspiracy.

Remember, we won in 2006 DESPITE the hacked machines, because they used a 2-3% vote swap hack, but our margin of victory was more than they expected, and thus our decision to VOTE EN MASSE overcame the hack.

This is why you MUST vote. If you don't, their hacks will work.

[WilmywoodNCparalegal]

39. As a foreigner, I do not understand the concept

of not voting at all. If you don't like the D or R candidate, vote for Mickey Mouse or whomever, but do vote. Far too many people have died to give you that right. No wonder the US has such low voter turnout.

[alcibiades_mystery]

43. That's not logic; you disagree with the content of the argument

I hate when people confuse logic (which is a formal arrangement) for the content of an argument. An argument can be logically valid and still be unpersuasive. It has nothing to do with logic.

[CT_Progressive]

44. X+0 < X+1. Thats math, and math and logic are very similar.

Somehow, people are convinced that X+0 and X+1 are the same.

i.e. "My vote doesn't matter, and I hate them both, so I won't vote".

That's flawed logic. Or, flawed math, if you want to be picky.

[alcibiades_mystery]

51. Wrong

It has nothing to do with logic.

You just disagree with the position.

[CT_Progressive]

53. Repeating your error won't make it true.

I've clearly stated this is a logic (math) flaw. I've even proven it.
If you don't want to accept it, don't. No one is holding a gun to your head and making you press 'reply'.

[alcibiades_mystery]

56. Your laughable "proof" is a symptom

There is no logical error at all. It's perfectly valid not to vote for anyone if you don't like the candidates. You disagree with the position. That's fine. Don't dress it up as logic.

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[alcibiades_mystery]

58. Oh please

Whether I consider interest "representation" (an utterly dubious category to begin with) as relative or absolute is the crux of the matter, and it is not a question of logic, but a question of values. If we made it absolute, we could produce an equally valid syllogism "proving" precisely the opposite. Indeed, we don't even have to make it absolute. We could simply posit a scale of intensity that would cause it to tip into "non-representation" at a particular point. By your supposed "logic," I would be forced to vote for Stalin because Hitler is slightly less palatable. You assume no point where the quantitative distance from my interests tips into a qualitative difference. That's certainly your "right" for the purposes of the demonstration, but the premise is hardly unassailable, and opposite or modified premises are possible (and even preferable!). Now don't come back and say that we're not being asked to choose between Hitler and Stalin, because that would be a matter of content, not logic. Your model should work formally, yes? Your comical little game theoretical demonstration exercise from sophomore year fails like any other sophomoric demonstration: it assumes the result and builds contingent premises after the fact.

[CT_Progressive]

59. Stalin would be a better choice than Hitler.

And if you DIDN'T VOTE for Stalin, that would move the vote total 1 closer for Hitler to win.

Thanks for proving my point.

Anything else you'd like to add?

[Tech 9]

62. Once again

you are assuming that people who don't vote are nevertheless predisposed to vote a particular way. If a non-voter is just as likely to favor one candidate over another, your house of cards falls down.

It is patently obvious what is going on here. You see that many Democrats are demoralized and disenchanted with their own candidates and you are trying to rally the team. Thats laudable I guess but there might be a better way -- demonstrate why the candidates are worth supporting in the first place.

Do that and you won't need to keep making posts using your contrived grade school logic.

[CT_Progressive]

64. You are wrong.

Everyone is pre-disposed to vote for a particular candidate - the one that best represents their views.

If you care to dispute that, I'm all ears. But we are all pre-disposed to vote for someone to represent US, specifically US, our views, our opinions. There is always one candidate that is closer to our own views than another. THAT is the candidate you are pre-disposed to vote for.

Therefore, when you withold that pre-disposed vote, you negatively impact that candidates vote total, which is mathematically equivalent to increasing the opponents total by 1.

[TahitiNut]

45. After you burn your strawman, do you feel lonely or just make another one?

:eyes:

[CT_Progressive]

50. Ad Hominem seems all you're capable of, reading your post history.

So, I'll just ignore you.

[TahitiNut]

52. That's a serious case of projection you have there, sweetie.

:shrug:

[Name removed]

46. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MilesColtrane]

48. There's no difference between Al Gore and George W. Bush.

Ralph Nader told us so.

Sad to see so many buying into that.

As much as I would loathe pulling the lever for Hillary, I would.

P.T. Barnum would be proud.

[Swamp Rat]

60. Ga-Ga for Gore

:D

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

63. I fully intend to vote for the BEST candidate...even if I have to write him/her in.

But, I have the quaint notion that my vote is mine to do with as I please.

[TahitiNut]

65. Ditto

It's. So. Radical. :rofl:

[scarletwoman]

66. Hear, hear! I will most certainly vote for a Democrat, even if I have to write it in.

I also have the same quaint notion.

sw

[rucky]

67. And you've shown the best arguement against the 2-party system.

And explained the current crop of Dems in Congress:

There is absolutely no incentive for a candidate to be anything but slightly less worse than their opponent. The more competition, the more choice, and the better they'd all have to become. So go Dobson! Let's get that party started! WTF, Nader - do your Nader thing! OK, rich guy, you're on the ballot, too. LaRouche, greetings from jail or wherever the hell you are.