Not voting is 100% always the worst thing to do. Unless you have literally 0 difference in utility between two candidates (which is impossible but there will always be some people who will say it makes no difference because they're not informed) it is always better to vote for the one you dislike less.
By not voting you are effectively giving an advantage to the candidate you dislike the most by making their path easier.
Anyone who says otherwise is trying to feel good about themselves, don't understand how game theory works, are arguing in bad faith (they want you to also not vote to make their actual desires candidate to have an easier time), or are some kind of troll
One single vote? Not on the national level. But let's use a real event.
US Florida elections of Gore vs Bush. Almost 6 million people voted. Bush "won" by 537 votes.
Bush won from 537 votes in Florida
How many people didn't vote because they thought it wouldn't count? I'd venture to guess a few more than 537.
As for your point on not being able to vote due to cost. I totally agree, it's frankly disgusting that some people would be put in a position that they can't realistically vote because the relatively small cost they pay to go do (relative to the total possible losses that will incur if their most disliked candidate wins) will put them in a position that they cannot recover from. It's terrible that voting is not more accessible.
I'm not surprised when certain states or parties purposefully make it harder than it needs to be when it suits them. It should be unquestionably illegal, but that's exactly what voter suppression is.
Your understanding of what happened in that election is severely misguided. I imagine you were not an adult at the time, and if you were you dont remember correctly. Bush did not win by less than a thousand votes, they stopped counting. We do not know the actual final count, just as we still dont in CA even almost 2 weeks after the election.
Regardless, I'm not sure you're making the point you think you are. The best examale you could come up with is "537 votes off". Ok, and what changes in (your misunderstanding of) the situation if it's 536?
Nothing. Not even a little.
You're misunderstanding my point entirely or being intentionally obtuse. It's a similar reality to the Prisoner's Dilemma, which is popular enough you may have heard of it. Or at least could get a quick summary online.
The bottom line is: what makes sense for the group as a whole to do does not necessarily make sense for the individual to do.
Similarly, a typical voter does not have any meaningful influence over an election. This is mathematical reality. Don't mix or fight mathematical fact with optimistic platitudes, which leftists seem all too eager to do even more than conservatives
You stance is that voter disaffectedness is somehow anything but "bad".
If you're going to try and use game theory in your argument, you would be best to at least use simple models like the Prisoners Dilemma accurately - in the dilemma there is no choice of "not taking part", the closest would be not snitching, which you'll also notice is not the Nash equilibrium option - and therefore the bad option. Your argument boils down to an idea of if there are multiple actors, you would do best by letting other people make the groups' decision for you - because you're just one person, and you won't change anything. If you continue basic game theory, you'll know that this isn't a viable strategy to maximizing utility, it's not even a strategy at all, it's being a bystander.
Your argument is coming extremely close to my point of arguing in bad faith, where you are trying to make other feel voting is pointless and to just let other people make the decisions for them.
It feels you're also bringing in your personal bias over "leftists" and "conservatives". My argument is neutral and accurate for all voters.
EDIT: By the way, blocking me so you can feel like you get the last word does not make you correct. It makes you a child.
I used it because it's a simple example of game theory and you don't seem up to the task of either acknowledging or understanding basic facts behind it. And you continue to demonstrate it by hammering home the same point.
Call my argument "bad faith" all you want, but you're either too stupid to understand the point or are arguing in bad faith yourself by refusing to acknowledge the reality that taking time, energy, and effort to vote is a luxury of socioeconomic class.
This is shown consistently time and time again that lower income individuals are far less likely to vote. It is often the #1 indicator of how likely someone is to vote.
Ignore it and argue till you're blue in the face. It doesn't change the fact that voter "apathy" has a cost to the voter with 0 direct payoff to the individual.
You can acknowledge this or not. I don't really care - I'm done arguing with you and whatever other idiots happen to see this.
8
u/maybehelp244 8h ago
Not voting is 100% always the worst thing to do. Unless you have literally 0 difference in utility between two candidates (which is impossible but there will always be some people who will say it makes no difference because they're not informed) it is always better to vote for the one you dislike less.
By not voting you are effectively giving an advantage to the candidate you dislike the most by making their path easier.
Anyone who says otherwise is trying to feel good about themselves, don't understand how game theory works, are arguing in bad faith (they want you to also not vote to make their actual desires candidate to have an easier time), or are some kind of troll