A Curious Little Blog

A friend posted this image on Facebook yesterday.  On the surface, it seems obvious:  voting actually does something; arguing is just exchanging words.  Upon further consideration, though, I think this t-shirt has it exactly backwards. I believe that voting is important.  Realistically, though, the odds that your vote is going to change the outcome of an election is pretty close to zero.  Obviously, if enough people follow that logic, it could change the outcome; but we're just talking about the marginal value of your single vote. On the other hand, arguing has the chance to convince other people.  Granted, "arguing" implies contentious discussion, which rarely changes any minds.  But "arguing" can also mean presenting a case and reasoning through it, and certainly some people do become convinced by such arguments. The way that people come to their political beliefs is very interesting and, I believe, worthy of more study than it has received.  Your

I've always been a little ambivalent about the push to convince Americans to vote in every election.  In principle, I agree that having more people vote is good; on the other hand, it seems kind of overbearing, in the way that the anti-smoking campaign seemed well-intentioned but became overbearing.  I will not wear the "I voted" stickers, for instance, because it seems infantile.  Then again, maybe it's just because I'm so contrary. In either case, I thought it would be a good idea to consider the other side of getting more people to vote.  Thinking of it in economic terms, we can consider the marginal voters -- the ones who don't vote now but will be the next ones to be convinced to do so.  It seems logical that people who are motivated to vote are also the ones who are motivated to research the issues, and that people who haven't thought much about the issues will be the ones who care the least and are least likely to vote.  Therefore, by convincing m