Re^7: blaming perl for not using a build policy (not voting != voting)

For (fictional?) simplicity, take a general election where the upper echelon gives you two corporate sanctioned products to pick from. An elephant or a donkey.

Case 1: donkey
donkey: 1
elephant: 0

Case 2: elephant
donkey: 0
elephant: 1

Case 3: no vote (or a write-in)
donkey: 0
elephant: 0
(mystery animal: 0/1)
[download]

3 distinct outcomes. If not voting didn't do anything, you'd have two. Also, if you vote for some goon to tell everyone what to do just because said goon is the best option, what this person does becomes your fault. Not voting, especially in a majority, hints at discontent, and hopefully entropy- our next great opportunity.

Comment on Re^7: blaming perl for not using a build policy (not voting != voting) Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^8: blaming perl for not using a build policy (not voting != voting) by kyle (Abbot) on Sep 02, 2008 at 02:59 UTC
In a more realistic fictional election, in which others vote also, there are three outcomes possible whether you vote or not (elephant, donkey, or tie). I don't think I can be held responsible for the actions of a goon, even if I voted for the goon. I don't normally go in for a diffusion of responsibility, but it seems appropriate here, and I also see a big difference between what the goon does and what I do. In any case, once we've stipulated that the goon is the best option, voting for the goon is obviously preferable over allowing someone even worse. Not voting may hint at one message or another, but you don't have any more control over the message than you did in the election you didn't vote in. Personally, I take not voting as apathy rather than discontent. Either interpretation could be wrong if the real problem is that voting is too difficult. If what you want to do is communicate, there are far better ways of doing that than voting or not—and they still allow you to influence an election besides. I remain unconvinced that "not voting is a way of voting", but thanks for explaining your view.	[reply]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^8: blaming perl for not using a build policy (not voting != voting)
by kyle (Abbot) on Sep 02, 2008 at 02:59 UTC

In a more realistic fictional election, in which others vote also, there are three outcomes possible whether you vote or not (elephant, donkey, or tie).

I don't think I can be held responsible for the actions of a goon, even if I voted for the goon. I don't normally go in for a diffusion of responsibility, but it seems appropriate here, and I also see a big difference between what the goon does and what I do. In any case, once we've stipulated that the goon is the best option, voting for the goon is obviously preferable over allowing someone even worse.

Not voting may hint at one message or another, but you don't have any more control over the message than you did in the election you didn't vote in. Personally, I take not voting as apathy rather than discontent. Either interpretation could be wrong if the real problem is that voting is too difficult. If what you want to do is communicate, there are far better ways of doing that than voting or not—and they still allow you to influence an election besides.

I remain unconvinced that "not voting is a way of voting", but thanks for explaining your view.

[reply]