Seriously, my fellow lefties...

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Not bitch and moan that we had too.

Even if she ends up with my vote, Hillary is not somehow entitled to my enthusiasm and neither are you. Jesus Christ.

[JerryArkansas]

Not bitch and moan that we had too.

Even if she ends up with my vote, Hillary is not somehow entitled to my enthusiasm and neither are you. Jesus Christ.

Where in that did I say that I want your enthusiasm.  All I said is not to bitch about it.  Please try and read what was posted.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I'm a bit distasted with the way some are trying to shame posters such as Nathan or Averroes for the fact they're uncomfortable about voting for Hillary. Hey, I'm pretty sure many of our ardent Hillary fan would've find it uncomfortable to vote for Sanders had he won the nod.

But we would have done it anyways.  Not bitch and moan that we had too.

Maybe you, but you don't expect every ardent Hillary supporter wouldn't voice their dissapointment, to bigger to smaller extend.

I'm a bit distasted with the way some are trying to shame posters such as Nathan or Averroes for the fact they're uncomfortable about voting for Hillary. Hey, I'm pretty sure many of our ardent Hillary fan would've find it uncomfortable to vote for Sanders had he won the nod.

Um, no? Why would someone who found Sanders too far left vote for the Green Party instead?

Try not to associate everything with the Green Party for just one moment.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Not bitch and moan that we had too.

Even if she ends up with my vote, Hillary is not somehow entitled to my enthusiasm and neither are you. Jesus Christ.

Where in that did I say that I want your enthusiasm.  All I said is not to bitch about it.  Please try and read what was posted.

I read it. I don't understand how my 'bitching about it'--i.e. expressing that I'm unenthusiastic about this candidacy rather than shutting up and saying three Hail Cecile Richardses or whatever it is you think I should do instead--concerns you in any way.

[JerryArkansas]

Not bitch and moan that we had too.

Even if she ends up with my vote, Hillary is not somehow entitled to my enthusiasm and neither are you. Jesus Christ.

Where in that did I say that I want your enthusiasm.  All I said is not to bitch about it.  Please try and read what was posted.

I read it. I don't understand how my 'bitching about it'--i.e. expressing that I'm unenthusiastic about this candidacy rather than shutting up and saying three Hail Cecile Richardses or whatever it is you think I should do instead--concerns you in any way.

It doesn't, but you wanted to insert yourself into the conversation, which you were not apart of.  Don't insert yourself if you don't want others to talk about your motivations.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Not bitch and moan that we had too.

Even if she ends up with my vote, Hillary is not somehow entitled to my enthusiasm and neither are you. Jesus Christ.

Where in that did I say that I want your enthusiasm.  All I said is not to bitch about it.  Please try and read what was posted.

I read it. I don't understand how my 'bitching about it'--i.e. expressing that I'm unenthusiastic about this candidacy rather than shutting up and saying three Hail Cecile Richardses or whatever it is you think I should do instead--concerns you in any way.

It doesn't, but you wanted to insert yourself into the conversation, which you were not apart of.  Don't insert yourself if you don't want others to talk about your motivations.

Uh, I posted in this thread way before you did, buster. If anybody needs to butt out of this conversation here, it's you.

Saying that somebody is 'bitching and moaning' is not 'talking about their motivations'. It's just being miffed that we're not saying our requisite Pater NSAters. The neoliberal future is already so bright you've gotta wear shades; why the hell do you need us to make it brighter? You're lucky that your candidate's opponent is so horrendous that we're even considering her.

[JerryArkansas]

Not bitch and moan that we had too.

Even if she ends up with my vote, Hillary is not somehow entitled to my enthusiasm and neither are you. Jesus Christ.

Where in that did I say that I want your enthusiasm.  All I said is not to bitch about it.  Please try and read what was posted.

I read it. I don't understand how my 'bitching about it'--i.e. expressing that I'm unenthusiastic about this candidacy rather than shutting up and saying three Hail Cecile Richardses or whatever it is you think I should do instead--concerns you in any way.

It doesn't, but you wanted to insert yourself into the conversation, which you were not apart of.  Don't insert yourself if you don't want others to talk about your motivations.

Uh, I posted in this thread way before you did, buster. If anybody needs to butt out of this conversation here, it's you.

Saying that somebody is 'bitching and moaning' is not 'talking about their motivations'. It's just being miffed that we're not saying our requisite Pater NSAters. The neoliberal future is already so bright you've gotta wear shades; why the hell do you need us to make it brighter? You're lucky that your candidate's opponent is so horrendous that we're even considering her.

Dude, the post you wanted to give your opponent on did not include you.  Had nothing to due with you.  Yet you decided to respond to it.  How is that not putting yourself into a conversation.  Get off your damn high horse.  It gets so tiring to read this from you.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Enjoying acting like a dildo, Jerry?

[JerryArkansas]

Enjoying acting like a dildo, Jerry?

So me asking someone why they are getting into a conversation with me which didn't involve them, and then them getting mad because I don't think and don't believe what they are doing is good for the country is being a dick.  When I never explicitly call them out at that point, and put whatever argument we have had in the past, something I thought they had done as well.  That is being a dick?

[JerryArkansas]

Let me add on a final point  Yes I find voting third party, even if just flirting when you have a man who will allow the murders of millions, thorough outright extermination or through wars started over petty squabbles shameful.  That is how I feel.  If this isn't the way others feel, ok.  But I will and have shamed many in my personal life will continue to do so.  A mad man is running amok right now.  I want to make sure he doesn't screw up and destroy everything.   Sorry if you don't like it, but I will keep doing it.

[Torie]

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.

Exactly. We have it "right" now.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Let me add on a final point  Yes I find voting third party, even if just flirting when you have a man who will allow the murders of millions, thorough outright extermination or through wars started over petty squabbles shameful.  That is how I feel.  If this isn't the way others feel, ok.  But I will and have shamed many in my personal life will continue to do so.  A mad man is running amok right now.  I want to make sure he doesn't screw up and destroy everything.   Sorry if you don't like it, but I will keep doing it.

Since you feel such a need to compensate online, enjoy yourself

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Xahar is, as always, right. I don't really understand why people treat voting as some extension of their personality where it's important that they can feel nice or whatever? It's so adolescent.

As someone who in several elections had to make a choice between two options neither I was too happy about I can understand. Still, there's nothing wrong with feeling discomfort. That's why I would vote for Hillary is I were U.S. voters, and that's why I prefer her to win, as a world resident.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Not bitch and moan that we had too.

Even if she ends up with my vote, Hillary is not somehow entitled to my enthusiasm and neither are you. Jesus Christ.

Where in that did I say that I want your enthusiasm.  All I said is not to bitch about it.  Please try and read what was posted.

I read it. I don't understand how my 'bitching about it'--i.e. expressing that I'm unenthusiastic about this candidacy rather than shutting up and saying three Hail Cecile Richardses or whatever it is you think I should do instead--concerns you in any way.

It doesn't, but you wanted to insert yourself into the conversation, which you were not apart of.  Don't insert yourself if you don't want others to talk about your motivations.

Uh, I posted in this thread way before you did, buster. If anybody needs to butt out of this conversation here, it's you.

Saying that somebody is 'bitching and moaning' is not 'talking about their motivations'. It's just being miffed that we're not saying our requisite Pater NSAters. The neoliberal future is already so bright you've gotta wear shades; why the hell do you need us to make it brighter? You're lucky that your candidate's opponent is so horrendous that we're even considering her.

Dude, the post you wanted to give your opponent on did not include you.  Had nothing to due with you.  Yet you decided to respond to it.  How is that not putting yourself into a conversation.  Get off your damn high horse.  It gets so tiring to read this from you.

I have literally no clue what you're talking about. Kalwejt's post, to which you responded, mentioned me, and Averroes, by name as people he thought you and your cobelligerents should stop being such pontificating jackasses to. You responded, saying, in effect, that you saw no reason to stop being a pontificating jackass because we were 'bitching and moaning' by not being sufficiently enthusiastic about your candidate. I responded, because I was one of the subjects of the discussion. Am I missing something here, or are you just talking out of your ass?

[JerryArkansas]

Let me add on a final point  Yes I find voting third party, even if just flirting when you have a man who will allow the murders of millions, thorough outright extermination or through wars started over petty squabbles shameful.  That is how I feel.  If this isn't the way others feel, ok.  But I will and have shamed many in my personal life will continue to do so.  A mad man is running amok right now.  I want to make sure he doesn't screw up and destroy everything.   Sorry if you don't like it, but I will keep doing it.

Since you feel such a need to compensate online, enjoy yourself

If that is what you think I'm doing, go ahead thinking that.

[JerryArkansas]

Not bitch and moan that we had too.

Even if she ends up with my vote, Hillary is not somehow entitled to my enthusiasm and neither are you. Jesus Christ.

Where in that did I say that I want your enthusiasm.  All I said is not to bitch about it.  Please try and read what was posted.

I read it. I don't understand how my 'bitching about it'--i.e. expressing that I'm unenthusiastic about this candidacy rather than shutting up and saying three Hail Cecile Richardses or whatever it is you think I should do instead--concerns you in any way.

It doesn't, but you wanted to insert yourself into the conversation, which you were not apart of.  Don't insert yourself if you don't want others to talk about your motivations.

Uh, I posted in this thread way before you did, buster. If anybody needs to butt out of this conversation here, it's you.

Saying that somebody is 'bitching and moaning' is not 'talking about their motivations'. It's just being miffed that we're not saying our requisite Pater NSAters. The neoliberal future is already so bright you've gotta wear shades; why the hell do you need us to make it brighter? You're lucky that your candidate's opponent is so horrendous that we're even considering her.

Dude, the post you wanted to give your opponent on did not include you.  Had nothing to due with you.  Yet you decided to respond to it.  How is that not putting yourself into a conversation.  Get off your damn high horse.  It gets so tiring to read this from you.

I have literally no clue what you're talking about. Kalwejt's post, to which you responded, mentioned me, and Averroes, by name as people he thought you and your cobelligerents should stop being such pontificating jackasses to. You responded, saying, in effect, that you saw no reason to stop being a pontificating jackass because we were 'bitching and moaning' by not being sufficiently enthusiastic about your candidate. I responded, because I was one of the subjects of the discussion. Am I missing something here, or are you just talking out of your ass?

I wasn't responding to that part, which is why I asked if you read that post or not.  So please keeping responding and not putting this behind you like you said you were.

I'm a bit distasted with the way some are trying to shame posters such as Nathan or Averroes for the fact they're uncomfortable about voting for Hillary. Hey, I'm pretty sure many of our ardent Hillary fan would've find it uncomfortable to vote for Sanders had he won the nod.

The part I was responding to since you can't tell what I was trying to say.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

There's an important difference between "I'm not happy about voting for X" and "f**k everything else, I just don't like X so much I don't care what's the alternative."

And the idea that at least a portion of enthusiastic Hillary supporters wouldn't voice their discomfort of voting for another Democrat is ludicrous.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Not bitch and moan that we had too.

Even if she ends up with my vote, Hillary is not somehow entitled to my enthusiasm and neither are you. Jesus Christ.

Where in that did I say that I want your enthusiasm.  All I said is not to bitch about it.  Please try and read what was posted.

I read it. I don't understand how my 'bitching about it'--i.e. expressing that I'm unenthusiastic about this candidacy rather than shutting up and saying three Hail Cecile Richardses or whatever it is you think I should do instead--concerns you in any way.

It doesn't, but you wanted to insert yourself into the conversation, which you were not apart of.  Don't insert yourself if you don't want others to talk about your motivations.

Uh, I posted in this thread way before you did, buster. If anybody needs to butt out of this conversation here, it's you.

Saying that somebody is 'bitching and moaning' is not 'talking about their motivations'. It's just being miffed that we're not saying our requisite Pater NSAters. The neoliberal future is already so bright you've gotta wear shades; why the hell do you need us to make it brighter? You're lucky that your candidate's opponent is so horrendous that we're even considering her.

Dude, the post you wanted to give your opponent on did not include you.  Had nothing to due with you.  Yet you decided to respond to it.  How is that not putting yourself into a conversation.  Get off your damn high horse.  It gets so tiring to read this from you.

I have literally no clue what you're talking about. Kalwejt's post, to which you responded, mentioned me, and Averroes, by name as people he thought you and your cobelligerents should stop being such pontificating jackasses to. You responded, saying, in effect, that you saw no reason to stop being a pontificating jackass because we were 'bitching and moaning' by not being sufficiently enthusiastic about your candidate. I responded, because I was one of the subjects of the discussion. Am I missing something here, or are you just talking out of your ass?

I wasn't responding to that part, which is why I asked if you read that post or not.  So please keeping responding and not putting this behind you like you said you were.

I'm a bit distasted with the way some are trying to shame posters such as Nathan or Averroes for the fact they're uncomfortable about voting for Hillary. Hey, I'm pretty sure many of our ardent Hillary fan would've find it uncomfortable to vote for Sanders had he won the nod.

The part I was responding to since you can't tell what I was trying to say.

No, sorry. You don't get to treat the two sentences of that post as if they're two entirely independent clauses, as if your response to the sentence you've bolded has absolutely nothing to do with your opinion of the people named in the one you haven't. Your response wasn't written that way. If you intended for it to be taken that way, you failed massively.

I would have put this behind me if you'd admitted that you were being a prick.

[JerryArkansas]

Not bitch and moan that we had too.

Even if she ends up with my vote, Hillary is not somehow entitled to my enthusiasm and neither are you. Jesus Christ.

Where in that did I say that I want your enthusiasm.  All I said is not to bitch about it.  Please try and read what was posted.

I read it. I don't understand how my 'bitching about it'--i.e. expressing that I'm unenthusiastic about this candidacy rather than shutting up and saying three Hail Cecile Richardses or whatever it is you think I should do instead--concerns you in any way.

It doesn't, but you wanted to insert yourself into the conversation, which you were not apart of.  Don't insert yourself if you don't want others to talk about your motivations.

Uh, I posted in this thread way before you did, buster. If anybody needs to butt out of this conversation here, it's you.

Saying that somebody is 'bitching and moaning' is not 'talking about their motivations'. It's just being miffed that we're not saying our requisite Pater NSAters. The neoliberal future is already so bright you've gotta wear shades; why the hell do you need us to make it brighter? You're lucky that your candidate's opponent is so horrendous that we're even considering her.

Dude, the post you wanted to give your opponent on did not include you.  Had nothing to due with you.  Yet you decided to respond to it.  How is that not putting yourself into a conversation.  Get off your damn high horse.  It gets so tiring to read this from you.

I have literally no clue what you're talking about. Kalwejt's post, to which you responded, mentioned me, and Averroes, by name as people he thought you and your cobelligerents should stop being such pontificating jackasses to. You responded, saying, in effect, that you saw no reason to stop being a pontificating jackass because we were 'bitching and moaning' by not being sufficiently enthusiastic about your candidate. I responded, because I was one of the subjects of the discussion. Am I missing something here, or are you just talking out of your ass?

I wasn't responding to that part, which is why I asked if you read that post or not.  So please keeping responding and not putting this behind you like you said you were.

I'm a bit distasted with the way some are trying to shame posters such as Nathan or Averroes for the fact they're uncomfortable about voting for Hillary. Hey, I'm pretty sure many of our ardent Hillary fan would've find it uncomfortable to vote for Sanders had he won the nod.

The part I was responding to since you can't tell what I was trying to say.

No, sorry. You don't get to treat the two sentences of that post as if they're two entirely independent clauses, as if your response to the sentence you've bolded has absolutely nothing to do with your opinion of the people named in the one you haven't. Your response wasn't written that way. If you intended for it to be taken that way, you failed massively.

I would have put this behind me if you'd admitted that you were being a prick.

Yeah I can separate the two, if you or others can't not my problem.  So again, lets move on, because I'm tired of trying to make you see what I'm trying to get at.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Not bitch and moan that we had too.

Even if she ends up with my vote, Hillary is not somehow entitled to my enthusiasm and neither are you. Jesus Christ.

Where in that did I say that I want your enthusiasm.  All I said is not to bitch about it.  Please try and read what was posted.

I read it. I don't understand how my 'bitching about it'--i.e. expressing that I'm unenthusiastic about this candidacy rather than shutting up and saying three Hail Cecile Richardses or whatever it is you think I should do instead--concerns you in any way.

It doesn't, but you wanted to insert yourself into the conversation, which you were not apart of.  Don't insert yourself if you don't want others to talk about your motivations.

Uh, I posted in this thread way before you did, buster. If anybody needs to butt out of this conversation here, it's you.

Saying that somebody is 'bitching and moaning' is not 'talking about their motivations'. It's just being miffed that we're not saying our requisite Pater NSAters. The neoliberal future is already so bright you've gotta wear shades; why the hell do you need us to make it brighter? You're lucky that your candidate's opponent is so horrendous that we're even considering her.

Dude, the post you wanted to give your opponent on did not include you.  Had nothing to due with you.  Yet you decided to respond to it.  How is that not putting yourself into a conversation.  Get off your damn high horse.  It gets so tiring to read this from you.

I have literally no clue what you're talking about. Kalwejt's post, to which you responded, mentioned me, and Averroes, by name as people he thought you and your cobelligerents should stop being such pontificating jackasses to. You responded, saying, in effect, that you saw no reason to stop being a pontificating jackass because we were 'bitching and moaning' by not being sufficiently enthusiastic about your candidate. I responded, because I was one of the subjects of the discussion. Am I missing something here, or are you just talking out of your ass?

I wasn't responding to that part, which is why I asked if you read that post or not.  So please keeping responding and not putting this behind you like you said you were.

I'm a bit distasted with the way some are trying to shame posters such as Nathan or Averroes for the fact they're uncomfortable about voting for Hillary. Hey, I'm pretty sure many of our ardent Hillary fan would've find it uncomfortable to vote for Sanders had he won the nod.

The part I was responding to since you can't tell what I was trying to say.

No, sorry. You don't get to treat the two sentences of that post as if they're two entirely independent clauses, as if your response to the sentence you've bolded has absolutely nothing to do with your opinion of the people named in the one you haven't. Your response wasn't written that way. If you intended for it to be taken that way, you failed massively.

I would have put this behind me if you'd admitted that you were being a prick.

Yeah I can separate the two, if you or others can't not my problem.  So again, lets move on, because I'm tired of trying to make you see what I'm trying to get at.

I think I see what you claim you were trying to get at, I just have, shall we say, lingering doubts about it. It's certainly not the plain meaning of what you said. Yes, let's move on.

[DS0816]

Just some thoughts.

I've never been thrilled about Hillary's candidacy. Not in 2008 and not now. I'm far from the sore losers crowd, still bitching about her being an evil corporate shill etc. I just have doubts about her being the right person for the job, which I've been trying to explain in various threads. Unfortunately, during the course of this campaign she's been mostly deepening my doubts than the opposite. I strongly supporter Sanders during the primary and I think he'd make much better nominee. I'd also be much more comfortable with such people like Biden or Warren, had they ran.

But that doesn't matter. We live in a real world where we must make more or less pragmatic choices. I may be lukewarm about Hillary, but I'll take her not only over Trump, but any other Republican candidate. The reason is simple: whatever her (and pretty much any other nominee) flaws are, she's still the progressive candidate in this race and she would have to govern in the way accommodating a Democratic base. And every Republican President (no matter how "muh moderate") would have to govern in the way to accommodate the GOP rank-and-file. That's a reality.

That's why I'm tired with those arguing it would be better to let the Republicans win this one and get "better candidate" next time, or those who would waste their vote for Stein or Johnson, effectively helping to elect Trump. Even if Libertarians and Greens filled actually competent candidates, it still would hold. Consequences of such approachment could be really dire not just for the United States, but the entire world.

As a Polish voters I'm pretty much accustomed to have to make pragmatic choices in the voting booth. I'm afraid many Americans are not.

Sorry for rambling, just wanted to make my positions clear.

I disagree.

(Respect.)

I will be voting for Jill Stein.

[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.

[muon2]

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.

[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.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I'm a bit distasted with the way some are trying to shame posters such as Nathan or Averroes for the fact they're uncomfortable about voting for Hillary. Hey, I'm pretty sure many of our ardent Hillary fan would've find it uncomfortable to vote for Sanders had he won the nod.

Um, no? Why would someone who found Sanders too far left vote for the Green Party instead?

Try not to associate everything with the Green Party for just one moment.

So...Hillary supporters would be considering to vote for Trump then? Obviously not, so Johnson? Not sure what you mean. Also virtually no Hillary supporters had any issues supporting Obama in 2008 (those dumbass "PUMAs" were irrelevant.)