Once again we the people receive pressure to vote out of pure sentimentality. Really? If I don't vote, I don't count? Really?
Voting is an expression if you do or even if you don't. People vote for a number of reasons. One such motivation that comes to mind is that the act of voting itself gives satisfaction ("utility" in economic terms) to the voter; or, what is the same, his/her abstention brings him disutility. Depending on individual preferences, there are many ways in which voting can be rewarding.
• Some individuals like to gamble: they buy lottery tickets and vote.
• Some enjoy the feeling of participation in a crowd, as when they applaud their favorite team at the stadium, even if individual hand clapping does not raise the noise level more than one vote contributes to an electoral victory.
• Some people like to express their opinions, and elections provide a cheap way to do this.
Moreover, given the democratic mystique and state propaganda (as well as aforementioned sentimentality), you might suffer from disapprobation if he/she is known not to have performed his/her "civic duty."
The rationalization according to which one votes because democracy would crumble or other catastrophes would happen if nobody voted, just doesn't hold in my book. The abstention of one individual exerts no perceivable influence on the system, especially if one declines to vote without fanfare or if one falsely claims that he/she has voted. Of course, many non-voters may have an influence, but the individual decides only for himself, and his decision will have no significant impact on the number of non-voters.
Now, it is true that an individual with some influence in public debates can marshal more than one vote, but this has nothing to do with the decision of another to throw one vote that has only a tiny chance of achieving any result. If you can persuade many people to boycott tomatoes, you may end up influencing their prices; but you will have no noticeable influence if you secretly by one less tomato.
One way to see the inconsistency of it all is to reconsider the impact of the non-voter. Those who do not vote increase the influence of anyone who does.
In conclusion: non-voters render a service to voters.
You must be a frustrated politician. Never have I seen or heard such wordiness to just state a very simly fact: If you don't vote, you make those who do vote more influential. Wow, you must be proud of yourself.
I thought it was a pro-life contradiction. I really don't understand it. It seems as though it gives the individual the sole right to determine their right to life or death. However, the unborn and even very little children can’t speak for themselves, (earliest biological beginning) and suicide is wrong. I mention suicide because if the individual has the right all the way to natural death that it would mean assisted suicide would be morally accepted under the constitution.
Perhaps my interpretation of it is off base. Perhaps another person can explain it better
For a reminder to the property owners. Do not forget the commissioners are meeting next Tuesday night to decide if they will make the property owners fill the gap for other people not spending money.
Need to flood the meeting to express our contempt for the abuse the property owners are going to get.
Today you voted for your reps. hoping to keep spending under control. The largest tax increase in the history of our country will take affect 1/01/2011. If this walks hand in hand with a increase on property owners, there will be a lot of people that won't be able to keep up. It needs to be stopped in it's tracks. Come to the meeting and protest the increase.
Sorry if i said the wrong day. I thought Tuesday the 27th.
Walter please print what day for all (including me) what day the meeting is on so every one is on the same page.
Thanks
Marie dear, if all felt as you, then we would be giving up our greatest freedom. The right to vote in a free and fair election is a right that millions around the world today would give anything for.
Voting is an expression if you do or even if you don't. People vote for a number of reasons. One such motivation that comes to mind is that the act of voting itself gives satisfaction ("utility" in economic terms) to the voter; or, what is the same, his/her abstention brings him disutility. Depending on individual preferences, there are many ways in which voting can be rewarding.
• Some individuals like to gamble: they buy lottery tickets and vote.
• Some enjoy the feeling of participation in a crowd, as when they applaud their favorite team at the stadium, even if individual hand clapping does not raise the noise level more than one vote contributes to an electoral victory.
• Some people like to express their opinions, and elections provide a cheap way to do this.
Moreover, given the democratic mystique and state propaganda (as well as aforementioned sentimentality), you might suffer from disapprobation if he/she is known not to have performed his/her "civic duty."
The rationalization according to which one votes because democracy would crumble or other catastrophes would happen if nobody voted, just doesn't hold in my book. The abstention of one individual exerts no perceivable influence on the system, especially if one declines to vote without fanfare or if one falsely claims that he/she has voted. Of course, many non-voters may have an influence, but the individual decides only for himself, and his decision will have no significant impact on the number of non-voters.
Now, it is true that an individual with some influence in public debates can marshal more than one vote, but this has nothing to do with the decision of another to throw one vote that has only a tiny chance of achieving any result. If you can persuade many people to boycott tomatoes, you may end up influencing their prices; but you will have no noticeable influence if you secretly by one less tomato.
One way to see the inconsistency of it all is to reconsider the impact of the non-voter. Those who do not vote increase the influence of anyone who does.
In conclusion: non-voters render a service to voters.
Perhaps my interpretation of it is off base. Perhaps another person can explain it better
Need to flood the meeting to express our contempt for the abuse the property owners are going to get.
Today you voted for your reps. hoping to keep spending under control. The largest tax increase in the history of our country will take affect 1/01/2011. If this walks hand in hand with a increase on property owners, there will be a lot of people that won't be able to keep up. It needs to be stopped in it's tracks. Come to the meeting and protest the increase.
Walter please print what day for all (including me) what day the meeting is on so every one is on the same page.
Thanks