Seriously, my fellow lefties...

[Antonio the Sixth]

Truth.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I'd be convinced by this if my state and my CD weren't both Titanium D. I'll be voting on the Massachusetts ballot measures, but not for any elected office.

There is more to an election than who the winner is. The margin matters: if Hillary wins by 1 point, it will have very different implications for the future of US political discourse than if she wins by 10.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I'd be convinced by this if my state and my CD weren't both Titanium D. I'll be voting on the Massachusetts ballot measures, but not for any elected office.

There is more to an election than who the winner is. The margin matters: if Hillary wins by 1 point, it will have very different implications for the future of US political discourse than if she wins by 10.

I don't like Hillary enough to want to give her 'a mandate' but I do hate Trump enough to want to give him an anti-mandate, so I've already considered this and it was actually a very hard choice.

I'm actually semi-convinced by the idea that the best outcome would be a Hillary landslide but only modest Democratic downballot gains, as a repudiation of Trump specifically so the pro-Trump Republicans can't spin it to be about something else.

I really can't agree with this. Not only is continued Republican control of Congress and State governments too great an evil to make this trade-off worthwhile, but I even if it were, I don't think the connection between Drumpf and downballot candidates works this way at all. If Republicans suffer serious losses at all levels of government in a year when they have no particular reason to, most people will draw the conclusion that Drumpf is what dragged them down. This, in turn, will give them even more reasons to ensure that a candidate like him never emerges again.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I'd be convinced by this if my state and my CD weren't both Titanium D. I'll be voting on the Massachusetts ballot measures, but not for any elected office.

There is more to an election than who the winner is. The margin matters: if Hillary wins by 1 point, it will have very different implications for the future of US political discourse than if she wins by 10.

You men like how Obama's reasonably impressive margins in the PV gave him a mandate?  Congresscritters in safe gerrymandered districts aren't going to be influenced by the margin in the popular vote.

I'm not talking about the next 4 years.

[Antonio the Sixth]

You should be glad that the Republicans nominated that moron Trump. I just wish Democrats had nominated a decent person like SandersWebb or Chafee.

FTFY

Webb fanboyism is so weird.

[Antonio the Sixth]

You should be glad that the Republicans nominated that moron Trump. I just wish Democrats had nominated a decent person like SandersWebb or Chafee.

FTFY

Webb fanboyism is so weird.

I've seen weirder

I once dreamed that I was being dominated by Tulsi Gabbard.

Nah, even BRTD's fetishes are more comprehensible.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Did French leftists who voted for Chirac over Le Pen make any sacrifices?

One of my earliest political memories was hearing my mother discuss having to vote for Chirac. She definitely sounded like it was a sacrifice for her. Every single French leftist with whom I've talked about it since has expressed the same feeling.

[Antonio the Sixth]

For the record Averroes has stated on AAD that he is not voting for Stein due to her anti-vax pandering and even kookier running mate.

And Nathan think of how often jfern got thrashed here for an example of someone else.

Let's not put Nathan in the same sentence with jfern, OK?

Their position is the same.

No it's not.

[Antonio the Sixth]

OK, can we stop with this now? It's clear no one is being convinced and I don't think more holier-than-thou posturing and creative name-calling is going to change things. It's especially silly considering that, if you want to argue for voting on purely rational grounds, you will lose. Pretty much everybody who has studied the issue agrees that the only "rational" vote is not to vote at all. So we've got to accept that anyone's reasons for voting are fundamentally emotional. That doesn't mean there isn't a right choice to an election (and yes, in 2016, this choice is clearly Hillary), but it means it makes no sense to call people "selfish" or "special snowflakes" when they are just doing what they think is right.

[Antonio the Sixth]

OK, can we stop with this now? It's clear no one is being convinced and I don't think more holier-than-thou posturing and creative name-calling is going to change things. It's especially silly considering that, if you want to argue for voting on purely rational grounds, you will lose. Pretty much everybody who has studied the issue agrees that the only "rational" vote is not to vote at all. So we've got to accept that anyone's reasons for voting are fundamentally emotional. That doesn't mean there isn't a right choice to an election (and yes, in 2016, this choice is clearly Hillary), but it means it makes no sense to call people "selfish" or "special snowflakes" when they are just doing what they think is right.

The truth is, most of those who vote (one was or another) aren't doing it based on a rational analysis. It's hard to remember for us, political junkies.

Nobody who votes does so based on a rational analysis, at least not one that doesn't include reference to irreductible moral principles such as the categorical imperative. The purely rational choice is to stay home and do something else with your time.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I think I’m going to start shaming Massachusetts voters into donating more of their paychecks to the search for near Earth asteroids.  Sure, the chances that a given contribution will make any difference is minuscule, but we’re talking about the survival of the planet here.  Even a 0.000000000000000000000000001% chance that your contribution makes a difference is worthwhile when we’re talking about such high stakes.

^^^^^^

Any argument that anyone for voting in a certain way based on consequentialist logic is bound to fail.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I think I’m going to start shaming Massachusetts voters into donating more of their paychecks to the search for near Earth asteroids.  Sure, the chances that a given contribution will make any difference is minuscule, but we’re talking about the survival of the planet here.  Even a 0.000000000000000000000000001% chance that your contribution makes a difference is worthwhile when we’re talking about such high stakes.

^^^^^^

Any argument that anyone for voting in a certain way based on consequentialist logic is bound to fail.

But isn't tactical voting inherently consequentialist? If so, are you saying that any argument for tactical voting is bound to fail?

Not necessarily.

My rationale for sometimes (but not always!) voting tactically is not consequentialist at all. Instead, it's based on a variation on the categorical imperative: rather than asking myself what would happen if everybody voted the way I do (which of course precludes tactical voting), I ask myself what would happen if any group of any potential size (ranging from 2 voters to every voter) voted the way I do. If any of these hypotheticals produces an outcome that I consider morally unacceptable, then I conclude that me voting this way is morally unacceptable. The outcome does matter, but only in relation to a specific understanding of what my duty as a voter is.

For example, if I were Averroes, I'd note that if all the voters who shared my basic left-wing/environmentalist ideals in their broadest form (I'd say there are about 10-20% such voters in the US, of which half to two thirds plan to vote for Hillary) voted for Jill Stein like I'm planning to do, then Drumpf would almost certainly win the election. This, to me, implies that there is something fundamentally wrong with voting for Stein. Of course, there are different degrees of moral acceptability: if a candidate like Romney was the GOP nominee, I still would think that tactical voting is the correct choice, but I would be more willing to accept other motivations. If the GOP candidate was someone relatively harmless (like... idk... Jim Douglas, maybe?) then I might myself go for a third-party candidate.

I'm actually going to vote for someone other than Hollande in the first round in France next year, which means that I accept the responsibility of potentially fostering a Sarkozy/Le Pen runoff. The reasons I think it's not nearly as bad as the American context are a few, but they're just my reasons of course.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I think I’m going to start shaming Massachusetts voters into donating more of their paychecks to the search for near Earth asteroids.  Sure, the chances that a given contribution will make any difference is minuscule, but we’re talking about the survival of the planet here.  Even a 0.000000000000000000000000001% chance that your contribution makes a difference is worthwhile when we’re talking about such high stakes.

^^^^^^

Any argument that anyone for voting in a certain way based on consequentialist logic is bound to fail.

But isn't tactical voting inherently consequentialist? If so, are you saying that any argument for tactical voting is bound to fail?

Not necessarily.

My rationale for sometimes (but not always!) voting tactically is not consequentialist at all. Instead, it's based on a variation on the categorical imperative: rather than asking myself what would happen if everybody voted the way I do (which of course precludes tactical voting), I ask myself what would happen if any group of any potential size (ranging from 2 voters to every voter) voted the way I do. If any of these hypotheticals produces an outcome that I consider morally unacceptable, then I conclude that me voting this way is morally unacceptable. The outcome does matter, but only in relation to a specific understanding of what my duty as a voter is.

For example, if I were Averroes, I'd note that if all the voters who shared my basic left-wing/environmentalist ideals in their broadest form (I'd say there are about 10-20% such voters in the US, of which half to two thirds plan to vote for Hillary) voted for Jill Stein like I'm planning to do, then Drumpf would almost certainly win the election. This, to me, implies that there is something fundamentally wrong with voting for Stein. Of course, there are different degrees of moral acceptability: if a candidate like Romney was the GOP nominee, I still would think that tactical voting is the correct choice, but I would be more willing to accept other motivations. If the GOP candidate was someone relatively harmless (like... idk... Jim Douglas, maybe?) then I might myself go for a third-party candidate.

I'm actually going to vote for someone other than Hollande in the first round in France next year, which means that I accept the responsibility of potentially fostering a Sarkozy/Le Pen runoff. The reasons I think it's not nearly as bad as the American context are a few, but they're just my reasons of course.

I completely understand your reasoning, I just think that the categorical isn't applicable. There is an assumption that everyone could adopt the same thinking and all vote the same way. For me, since that hypothetical is impossible to achieve it is irrelevant. (nb. As a quantum physicist I accept that there are states that can be described but cannot be realized, and those unrealizable states must be excluded from the consideration of choices.)

I see my vote as having marginal utility in the economics sense. I should apply it where the marginal utility is greatest. If there are only the two major party candidates on the ballot, then my choice should always be the one that I most prefer. If there are more than two then there is the possibility that my vote would have more utility going to a candidate other than my first choice. So, if I personally agree with a third party in a swing state, but I see a real difference in the two major candidates I may find more utility voting for the major party candidate I prefer. Alternatively, if I support a major party in a non-swing state but want to see more ballot access for third parties, I may find more utility voting for a third party to boost that party's profile in future elections.

How do you define your "utility" here? If you mean material utility, ie the utility of having your preferred candidate win, then your expected utility from voting will always be almost 0, since the probability that your vote decides who wins is insignificant (there ought to be a combinatorics formula to calculate the likelihood that an election where 100M people vote is determined by a margin of 1, but I don't remember it... point is, it's very low).

If you're talking about the emotional utility that you gain from the act of voting in and of itself, independent of the outcome, then yes, your rationale is valid. Personally, I think that voting exclusively based on one's emotions is morally irresponsible, but it's certainly not "irrational" (at least no more irrational than any other vote).

[Antonio the Sixth]

The utility here is how I'd like to see my government run now and in the future.

But that's the problem right here: your vote almost certainly won't affect your utility in this regard, because the probability that your vote determines the winner of the election is quasi-null (even in a local election with only a few thousand total votes, it's still infinitesimal). Did you read the rest of my post in which I explained that?

Also, if I'm doing a poor job explaining it, here's the relevant wiki article, since obviously I'm not the one who came up with all this stuff: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_voting

[Antonio the Sixth]

The utility here is how I'd like to see my government run now and in the future.

But that's the problem right here: your vote almost certainly won't affect your utility in this regard, because the probability that your vote determines the winner of the election is quasi-null (even in a local election with only a few thousand total votes, it's still infinitesimal). Did you read the rest of my post in which I explained that?

Also, if I'm doing a poor job explaining it, here's the relevant wiki article, since obviously I'm not the one who came up with all this stuff: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_voting

I'm familiar with the paradox, which is why I couched my preference as a marginal utility. I perceive a difference in utility between an action which would have an impact 0.001% of the time and one which would have an impact 0.0001% of the time. That percentage increase in the outcome is an increase in my utility and affects the actual margin where one vote might matter. My vote doesn't have to be the precise tipping point vote for this utility of likelihood to matter to me. I also appreciate that the difference between infinitessimal probabilities may have no effect on other people's utility, even though they do for me.

The utility of likelihood is not the only factor to consider of course. It has to be convoluted with my utility in seeing different candidates actually win if I were to determine the utility of of any particular vote. Most of the time the direct utility of having a particular winner dominates as a factor. My point is only that for me I have faced elections where I have thought about these likelihoods before voting.

I understand your argument regarding how you choose to vote. What I don't understand is what your marginal utility of voting compared to not voting is. Surely, voting takes you some time, you might have to drive and it might screw up your schedule. Those are minor inconveniences, sure, but since the expected utility of the voting outcome is so low, they should still matter.

[Antonio the Sixth]

The utility here is how I'd like to see my government run now and in the future.

But that's the problem right here: your vote almost certainly won't affect your utility in this regard, because the probability that your vote determines the winner of the election is quasi-null (even in a local election with only a few thousand total votes, it's still infinitesimal). Did you read the rest of my post in which I explained that?

Also, if I'm doing a poor job explaining it, here's the relevant wiki article, since obviously I'm not the one who came up with all this stuff: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_voting

I'm familiar with the paradox, which is why I couched my preference as a marginal utility. I perceive a difference in utility between an action which would have an impact 0.001% of the time and one which would have an impact 0.0001% of the time. That percentage increase in the outcome is an increase in my utility and affects the actual margin where one vote might matter. My vote doesn't have to be the precise tipping point vote for this utility of likelihood to matter to me. I also appreciate that the difference between infinitessimal probabilities may have no effect on other people's utility, even though they do for me.

The utility of likelihood is not the only factor to consider of course. It has to be convoluted with my utility in seeing different candidates actually win if I were to determine the utility of of any particular vote. Most of the time the direct utility of having a particular winner dominates as a factor. My point is only that for me I have faced elections where I have thought about these likelihoods before voting.

I understand your argument regarding how you choose to vote. What I don't understand is what your marginal utility of voting compared to not voting is. Surely, voting takes you some time, you might have to drive and it might screw up your schedule. Those are minor inconveniences, sure, but since the expected utility of the voting outcome is so low, they should still matter.

Good question. It made me think about it for a bit.

After thinking about my motives, I would conclude that the ability to impact the race is a small factor for deciding to vote. It does help that most ballots have a number of contested races, so that the probability of my vote having an impact is greater by the ability to influence many races at once. Nonetheless that's probably not where the utility arises.

When I first voted, I know I got the highest utility from the satisfaction of seeing how the process worked - essentially satisfying my curiosity. That same goal was important when I relocated to grad school and then after grad school. It is still a non-trivial factor when new election technologies came to my polling place. In one election I chose to drive some distance to vote early just to use the technology that was different than in my polling place. I'm a scientist and seeing the process first hand has real value to me.

However I think for most elections I find utility in the knowledge that I'm participating in this public process that exceeds the costs associated with voting. Voting history is public, so it's not just a matter of personal pride, but one of shared pride with others in the community. That would fall into the category of an emotional utility. Also, I have learned that local officials know who the voters are, and are more likely to turn to voters than non-voters for advice and help in the community. That stems in large part from the officials' knowledge that voters have that shared community pride. That's a utility beyond the merely emotional. Of course if one wants to then run for office, having a history of voting turns out to have utility above and beyond that shared community pride.

That makes sense.

Since the very last points that you bring up aren't really relevant to the vast majority people, would you then agree that the reasons why people vote are fundamentally emotional in nature?

This, in turn, preempts any attempt to lecture people about how they ought to vote based on strict consequentialist logic.

[Antonio the Sixth]

That makes sense.

Since the very last points that you bring up aren't really relevant to the vast majority people, would you then agree that the reasons why people vote are fundamentally emotional in nature?

This, in turn, preempts any attempt to lecture people about how they ought to vote based on strict consequentialist logic.

I think what I learned from my introspection is that whether or not someone votes for most people is based on an emotional utility such as community pride. However, I think I may have convinced myself that the act of voting is different for most than the act of casting a specific vote once one has determined that one would vote. That seems consistent with polling where after an election many more people claim to have voted than actually did, but they are sure about whom they voted for even though some didn't actually vote. That separation between voting and for whom to vote for makes me think that consequentialist logic might have little effect generating turnout, but it could influence support for candidates among those who did vote.

I'm really not sure how such a process would work. So, voters are first moved by emotional motivations to go vote, but once they reach the polling place, they switch back to assessing the probabilistic consequences of their vote? I mean, some might. I guess that, if you have no emotional stake in any of the candidate, then it makes sense to use consequentialism as a guide. However, I think most people do have a very strong emotional stake in their vote - which could be positive ("I feel good after having voted for this candidate") or negative ("I would hate myself if I voted for that candidate"). Then, if a voter's consequentialist reasoning and their emotional commitment clashes ("I know I should vote for Hillary to make sure Drumpf is defeated, but I really can't stand her, and I really like Johnson/Stein/whoever"), then the emotional component should once again prevail, since the probability of one's vote actually being decisive is so low.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Honestly if you want to be enthusiastic about voting for Hillary, just watch some H. A. Goodman videos.

Your first reaction will be "What the f[inks] is this sh!t?"
And then "OMG is this f[inks]ing moron actually serious about what he's saying?"

And then you'll be willing to walk over broken glass to vote for Hillary just out of spite. I'm dead serious. It reminds me of how if jfern still posted here I'd want to take a picture of my ballot after voting for Hillary (which I looked up, is legal in Minnesota) and PM it to him because he did far more to improve my opinion of her than IceSpear or any of her ardent fans did.

Most people don't let spite dictate their actions that much, you know?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Honestly if you want to be enthusiastic about voting for Hillary, just watch some H. A. Goodman videos.

Your first reaction will be "What the f[inks] is this sh!t?"
And then "OMG is this f[inks]ing moron actually serious about what he's saying?"

And then you'll be willing to walk over broken glass to vote for Hillary just out of spite. I'm dead serious. It reminds me of how if jfern still posted here I'd want to take a picture of my ballot after voting for Hillary (which I looked up, is legal in Minnesota) and PM it to him because he did far more to improve my opinion of her than IceSpear or any of her ardent fans did.

Most people don't let spite dictate their actions that much, you know?

So the very stupid and/or hateful and bigoted things Trump supporters often say don't make you all the more proud to oppose him?

Not really more proud, no, although they do convince me of the absolute necessity of doing so.

[Antonio the Sixth]

That makes sense.

Since the very last points that you bring up aren't really relevant to the vast majority people, would you then agree that the reasons why people vote are fundamentally emotional in nature?

This, in turn, preempts any attempt to lecture people about how they ought to vote based on strict consequentialist logic.

I think what I learned from my introspection is that whether or not someone votes for most people is based on an emotional utility such as community pride. However, I think I may have convinced myself that the act of voting is different for most than the act of casting a specific vote once one has determined that one would vote. That seems consistent with polling where after an election many more people claim to have voted than actually did, but they are sure about whom they voted for even though some didn't actually vote. That separation between voting and for whom to vote for makes me think that consequentialist logic might have little effect generating turnout, but it could influence support for candidates among those who did vote.

I'm really not sure how such a process would work. So, voters are first moved by emotional motivations to go vote, but once they reach the polling place, they switch back to assessing the probabilistic consequences of their vote? I mean, some might. I guess that, if you have no emotional stake in any of the candidate, then it makes sense to use consequentialism as a guide. However, I think most people do have a very strong emotional stake in their vote - which could be positive ("I feel good after having voted for this candidate") or negative ("I would hate myself if I voted for that candidate"). Then, if a voter's consequentialist reasoning and their emotional commitment clashes ("I know I should vote for Hillary to make sure Drumpf is defeated, but I really can't stand her, and I really like Johnson/Stein/whoever"), then the emotional component should once again prevail, since the probability of one's vote actually being decisive is so low.

That's where the argument that Hillary's going to win the state anyway and has a 15% lead in the polls. Johnson/Stein are on the bubble to qualify for easier ballot access, so why not help insure more choices for next time. The emotional concern about the actual winner is addressed and the relative utility of the vote can come into play. I'm not saying that it will always work, but it has sometimes.

On the larger question of decoupling, I think that the fact that voting typically involves many separate races comes into play. If there was only one race on the ballot then the act of voting is more coupled to the specific choice. I've seen that reaction to special elections with only one question.

I'm not saying that these logics are invalid, far from it. All I'm saying is that they cannot work based purely on utilitarian, consequentialist calculations. There has to be some emotional weight put behind then: not just emotional stakes in who the winner is, but emotional stakes in how I, personally, vote. I think that's the key distinction here. You can integrate probabilistic calculation in your voting decision in any way you want, but they will never be sufficient to motivate you, either to vote at all, or to choose a candidate over another. There has to be something else.