voting for a president or leave a like on youtube : how do we call this phenomenon ?

[raphaelh42]

hello,

i'm asking myself why someone would vote for a president that anyway will have thousands/million of votes (+1 is insignificant in this case IMO)

same about someone leaving a like on a youtube video that already have thousands.

is that part of what we call "union" ? or it's just a weakness that you practice to feel less small, more important ?

how do we call this phenomenon ?

[exchemist]

1 minute ago, raphaelh42 said:

hello,

i'm asking myself why someone would vote for a president that anyway will have thousands/million of votes (+1 is insignificant in this case IMO)

same about someone leaving a like on a youtube video that already have thousands.

is that part of what we call "union" ? or it's just a weakness that you practice to feel less small, more important ?

how do we call this phenomenon ?

Democracy?

[Sensei]

YouTube and other websites sort content by the number of likes. The most liked content is shown first, so youtubers ask their users to like the video and subscribe to the channel. There may be other rewards for the most liked content, such as higher ad rates.

[Endy0816]

1 hour ago, raphaelh42 said:

hello,

i'm asking myself why someone would vote for a president that anyway will have thousands/million of votes (+1 is insignificant in this case IMO)

same about someone leaving a like on a youtube video that already have thousands.

is that part of what we call "union" ? or it's just a weakness that you practice to feel less small, more important ?

how do we call this phenomenon ?

If you don't vote you can't complain afterward.

Sometimes single vote can make all the difference too.

 

 

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, exchemist said:

Democracy?

40 minutes ago, Endy0816 said:

If you don't vote you can't complain afterward.

Sometimes single vote can make all the difference too.

That's certainly how a democracy should work, unfortunately most are run by oligarchs and influencer's, youtube and friend's have stacked the deck; so in my country, the chances that my vote will make the/a difference, is roughly equivalent to me winning a lottery; and with those odds, what's the point of buying a ticket?

 

Edited September 18, 2022 by dimreepr

[geordief]

3 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

That's certainly how a democracy should work, unfortunately most are run by oligarchs and influencer's, youtube and friend's have stacked the deck; so in my country, the chances that my vote will make the/a difference, is roughly equivalent to me winning a lottery; and with those odds, what's the point of buying a ticket?

 

You are just one person among the millions of others.Why do you feel your vote should have a disproportionate  effect?

 

You can't even be sure your vote was well enough informed or well enough intentioned (as an aside)

Did the combatants in WW2 or Ukraine  just give up because they could not make the final difference personally?

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, geordief said:

You are just one person among the millions of others.Why do you feel your vote should have a disproportionate  effect?

It shouldn't, that's the point...

 

My chance of winning the lottery maybe equal to that of a king, but my chance of influencing him is roughly equivalent to my chance of shitting in his handbag...

9 minutes ago, geordief said:

You can't even be sure your vote was well enough informed or well enough intentioned (as an aside)

Sounds like a good excuse to discount it...

12 minutes ago, geordief said:

Did the combatants in WW2 or Ukraine  just give up because they could not make the final difference personally?

Did the combatants in WW2 or Ukraine, decide for themselves to fight a war?

[geordief]

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

It shouldn't, that's the point

Are you saying that because  the democratic process is flawed and others' views may  carry more weight and others  less that there is less responsibility  to  cast one's vote ?(or to by that degree  to abrogate one's credibility  in consequential political  discussions)

Politicians, by the nature of their job carry more influence on voting intentions.Should they be disbarred  from this function?(campaigning does actually  stop in last few hours in some countries at least)

[Peterkin]

10 hours ago, raphaelh42 said:

i'm asking myself why someone would vote for a president that anyway will have thousands/million of votes (+1 is insignificant in this case IMO)

That's true: no particular vote is significant on its own. But how did those millions come to be, if not one at a time? 

10 hours ago, raphaelh42 said:

same about someone leaving a like on a youtube video that already have thousands.

That too, but considerably less important in outcome.

10 hours ago, raphaelh42 said:

is that part of what we call "union" ?

No, that's what we call a democratic process.

10 hours ago, raphaelh42 said:

or it's just a weakness that you practice to feel less small, more important ?

That is definitely not the reason for voting. And if you're a visible minority, living in one of the red states, it's damn well not weakness! 

10 hours ago, raphaelh42 said:

how do we call this phenomenon

I don't call "this" a phenomenon. I call it a form of government.

[iNow]

Even the largest of buckets will eventually overflow if we keep adding drops to it one by one. 

[dimreepr]

20 hours ago, geordief said:

Are you saying that because  the democratic process is flawed and others' views may  carry more weight and others  less that there is less responsibility  to  cast one's vote ?(or to by that degree  to abrogate one's credibility  in consequential political  discussions)

Any democratic process that isn't proportional representation is flawed, and even then it's not perfect; but that question depends on context, for instance:

A government that runs a comfortable society is going to get less people interested in voting, than a dance competition; the less comfortable it gets, the more ridiculous a dance competition becomes...

 

  

[geordief]

15 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Any democratic process that isn't proportional representation is flawed, and even then it's not perfect; but that question depends on context, for instance:

A government that runs a comfortable society is going to get less people interested in voting, than a dance competition; the less comfortable it gets, the more ridiculous a dance competition  (it ?) becomes...

 

  

 Your dance of choice seems to be some interpretation  of the  Sidestep.I will leave it there and talk to my hand..(think you omitted the "it" :it makes a bit more sense with it)

Edited September 19, 2022 by geordief

[dimreepr]

7 minutes ago, geordief said:

 Your dance of choice seems to be some interpretation  of the  Sidestep.I will leave it there and talk to my hand..(think you omitted the "it" :it makes a bit more sense with it)

You're free to give me a neg, if I make you/it uncomfortable...

Edited September 19, 2022 by dimreepr

[swansont]

On 9/18/2022 at 6:05 AM, raphaelh42 said:

i'm asking myself why someone would vote for a president that anyway will have thousands/million of votes (+1 is insignificant in this case IMO)

Your opinion isn't what is important here; this is a discussion of facts. Looking at the issue as "one vote doesn't matter" is flawed, because it's not just one person, it's all the people who might think that way. And elections can be lost if that attitude becomes pervasive. Elections have come down to narrow margins, and even single votes - there was one in my neck of the woods recently that ended up tied, and was decided by a coin flip. One more vote would have mattered a great deal.

"One vote doesn't matter" is propaganda from people who don't want you to vote.

 

[exchemist]

On 9/18/2022 at 1:11 PM, dimreepr said:

It shouldn't, that's the point...

 

My chance of winning the lottery maybe equal to that of a king, but my chance of influencing him is roughly equivalent to my chance of shitting in his handbag...

Sounds like a good excuse to discount it...

Did the combatants in WW2 or Ukraine, decide for themselves to fight a war?

They elected the people who made such decisions.

That is how modern democracy works. We can't make the decisions of government: we have not the skill, knowledge or time to do it. So we choose, periodically, who to entrust these decisions to,  on our behalf, and then we periodically review their performance and decide whether to renew their mandate or give it to someone else. (This is pretty basic stuff, surely?) 

[iNow]

54 minutes ago, swansont said:

"One vote doesn't matter" is propaganda from people who don't want you to vote.

This bears repeating, so I've repeated it here.

If your vote didn't matter, the powers that be wouldn't be trying so extremely hard to take it from you, to make it harder for you to vote, to marginalize your voice and redraw districts so your voice counts less.

If your vote didn't matter, there wouldn't have been so many hundreds or thousands (or hundreds of thousands / millions) of people who came before us fighting so hard or dying so often just to trying to obtain it. 

The right to vote is fundamental. It is the foundation in which ALL laws and ALL governance is rooted.

[raphaelh42]

4 hours ago, swansont said:

Your opinion isn't what is important here

I agree I'm sorry I think it was stupid to provoke

______________________________________________________________

I made some internet researches and I can't find any name/studies about this phenomenon.

To (try to) be clear about what I mean by phenomenon, I mean adding 1 to a huge number knowing you will affect the result just by 1

Of course giving birth don't apply to what I just said, I mean for things like voting, youtube likes...

_________________________________

Do you think this "phenomenon" "should" have a name/studies ?

Edited September 19, 2022 by raphaelh42

[swansont]

23 minutes ago, raphaelh42 said:

I agree I'm sorry I think it was stupid to provoke

______________________________________________________________

I made some internet researches and I can't find any name/studies about this phenomenon.

To (try to) be clear about what I mean by phenomenon, I mean adding 1 to a huge number

(knowing you will affect the result just by 1)

In the US it's not necessarily a huge number owing to the way elections are broken down. Only presidential and senate races have millions of people involved (in most states) for federal races (and elections for governor and some other statewide offices), and because of the electoral college, senate and presidential have the same voting population. Congressional and local elections have far fewer numbers.

The sentiment involved is called civic duty and even then a decent chunk of people in the US can't be bothered; participation is generally higher in other countries. It may be tied in with historical abuses; people seem more interested in voting if the rulers have behaved badly in recent memory. Having the power of self-determination taken away from you (or never having it before) is pretty strong motivation.

Given recent events in the US it will be interesting to see how much of a participation spike we see in this year's elections, seeing as loss of rights is very much an issue. Losing elections, especially by large margins, can be a motivating factor for politicians.

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, raphaelh42 said:

To (try to) be clear about what I mean by phenomenon, I mean adding 1 to a huge number knowing you will affect the result just by 1

This assumes you're the only person involved. It assumes you never talk to anyone else. It assumes nobody else is going to add their votes. 

Worst of all, it assumes that huge numbers are NOT made up of lots of 1s added together.

1 hour ago, raphaelh42 said:

Do you think this "phenomenon" "should" have a name/studies ?

Absolutely NOT. As swansont noted above, there are those who know how much your vote can upset their plans, and they want you to believe your vote is worthless. If you want to give it a name, call it "a lie", or "misinformation", or "manipulating the uneducated".

[TheVat]

A compelling argument for voting (from a four year old article in the Washington Post):

 

New data makes it clear: Nonvoters handed Trump the presidency

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/08/09/new-data-makes-it-clear-nonvoters-handed-trump-the-presidency/

And another reason, often repeated to me growing up by family and friends:

If you didn't vote, you don't get to complain.

[MigL]

On 9/18/2022 at 8:00 AM, dimreepr said:

the chances that my vote will make the/a difference, is roughly equivalent to me winning a lottery; and with those odds, what's the point of buying a ticket?

Bad attitude, Dim.
Especially given the fact that you continuously complain about governments, but are not willing to do your duty to keep them honest.

( and made even worse by retreating to your mom's basement to burn weed all day; just kidding 😄 😄 . You know I love you )

 

Edited September 20, 2022 by MigL

[Peterkin]

4 hours ago, TheVat said:

If you didn't vote, you don't get to complain.

I get to whine my head off. I always vote. Even when it's raining. My vote counts for nothing, and I know this from the outset, because I live in an overwhelmingly conservative constituency where the incumbent sits in the same seat for six terms and then designates his heir, and he warms the same seat for the foreseeable future.

I still go and vote... for the same reason Will Hunting chose the brass knuckles.

[MigL]

I live in a riding which is Liberal federally, and Socialist ( NDP ) provincially.
I always vote.
And my vote does count.
( even if sometimes for a losing party )

[dimreepr]

21 hours ago, exchemist said:

They elected the people who made such decisions.

That is how modern democracy works. We can't make the decisions of government: we have not the skill, knowledge or time to do it. So we choose, periodically, who to entrust these decisions to,  on our behalf, and then we periodically review their performance and decide whether to renew their mandate or give it to someone else. (This is pretty basic stuff, surely?) 

A saying of my father was, "whoever I vote for, the government always win", which is of course true but in my societies version of pseudo-democracy it's because the balance of the government is becoming skewed, due to my vote being further diluted, by the latest winner with a minority percentage of the voting public. 

It's not a reason to stop voting, fighting or pointing it out; but it is a reason why I doubt my vote counts for much, especially since I'm poor (as a church mouse)...

10 hours ago, MigL said:

Bad attitude, Dim.

When did I say I don't vote?

[exchemist]

37 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

A saying of my father was, "whoever I vote for, the government always win", which is of course true but in my societies version of pseudo-democracy it's because the balance of the government is becoming skewed, due to my vote being further diluted, by the latest winner with a minority percentage of the voting public. 

It's not a reason to stop voting, fighting or pointing it out; but it is a reason why I doubt my vote counts for much, especially since I'm poor (as a church mouse)...

 

OK, sure, all democracies are imperfect and some are worse than others.  But that's not the point I was addressing, which was your apparent objection to government going to war, or taking other decisions, without a referendum to consult the people.