Effectiveness of Voting






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 fundamental beliefs -- what you feel about the issues -- are formed before you ever start to think about them and are probably difficult to change.  To some extent, however, your politics can be flexible around your core beliefs; and sometimes the same values can support diametrically opposed political views.  You are certainly influenced heavily by the beliefs of people around you, especially your friends.  I think that most people's politics are fundamentally based on their environment, but they also have to be at least consistent with their understanding.  In other words, you will tend to follow the beliefs and political views of people around you, but not if your reason tells you that the political views are inconsistent with your beliefs.  Some people will change their politics in accordance with what reason tells them; most, I suspect, will change their logic to justify their politics enough to let them continue with the same outlook.

But people do change their views.  Even very fundamental political ideas can change, and most people haven't thought enough about politics to have ideas that they feel particularly closely associated with.  A well-reasoned argument, along with tact and emotional appeals, can convince someone to change his mind.  And really, that is how the political landscape changes.  (Apart from external changes such as shifting demographics and economics, of course.)  Views that were commonly held two generations ago seem quaint by today's standards, and much of that change has come through people being convinced by arguments.  So I would say that "arguing" with people on the internet, taken in the broadest sense and in the long view, is dramatically more effective than voting.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Science and Philosophy, Part I: Hume and Popper

I've been listening to a lecture series on philosophy recently, and, even though I haven't gotten past the Greeks yet, it has reminded me of a number of issues that trouble me about science. I want to take the opportunity to express my concerns here. Along the way, I will probably oversimplify philosophy a great deal -- not on purpose, but rather because I have only a simplistic understanding of it. I welcome responses to clear up my misconceptions. One of my issues with science is the famous idea of Karl Popper that it can never establish positive claims, only falsify wrong ones. The history of this goes back to David Hume, the 18th century Scottish sceptic. He shook up the philosophical world by claiming that science could never prove anything through induction -- that is, drawing conclusions about physical laws based on observations. The classic illustration is the sun's rising. Even though the sun has risen every day for our whole lives, and for countless human l...
Read more

Country Music

I noticed a long time ago that there isn't much difference between the sound of country music and rock music nowadays. If I'm surfing my radio and I come to a station playing jazz, classical, or rap, I recognize it right away; but if I come to a country or rock station, I often can't tell which it is until the song is half over. Country songs often have screaming guitars that would fit equally well in a hard rock song, and only a minority have a recognizably country instrument such as a fiddle or a banjo. All the same, no one could listen to a country music station for more than a few minutes without realizing that it is definitely not a rock station. What are the differences? There are some stylistic differences. Country songs are more likely to have a boogey beat or certain western-sounding bass lines. They also tend to be more formulaic: if you can't predict how a country song ends, you probably don't listen to much country music. But those things aren...
Read more

My privileged life

I have just read the article Straight White Male: The Lowest Difficulty Level , and the comments, and the follow-up and its comments.  The author claims that straight white males (SWM, for short) don't like being told they are "privileged," so he is going to try to explain their advantages in terms they understand.  He then very condescendingly compares their lives to playing a game on the easiest difficulty level, whereas people in other categories have it harder, and black lesbians are playing on the hardest level of all. I understand that this is a metaphor, or an analogy.  I understand that it is not supposed to be a perfect model of reality.  There are, however, several reasons why I think it is a very poor and misleading metaphor. First of all, using the gaming-difficulty metaphor implies that SWMs have an easy life.  No one plays at the easiest level unless he is a total noob, and only college students with lots of time on their hands play at the hard...
Read more