Subject: Re: Voting
Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 11:48:25 US/Eastern


It strikes me that the political scientists are talking about
voting in a fairly odd way anyway. If the *goal* of every
voter was to *determine* the outcome of an election, well...
That's not really the way the whole thing works, is it? No
election in a one-person-one-vote system was ever won or lost
except through single votes. And while voting is not obligatory
in the US, it is still considered a reponsibility of citizenship.
We can choose not to care, or address that responsibility by
abstaining. The electoral votes end up being cast for all
citizens anyway. 

The "might as well stay home" argument seems somewhat divorced
from what actually happens during an election - even if we're
not on Pemba Island.

-shawn

carp wrote:
> On Fri, 21 May 2004, roger wrote:
> 
> > i would just make one pragmatic point:  if you are voting because you
> > care about the outcome (and who doesn't?), then unless the election is
> > decided by one vote, you might as well stay home.  political
> > scientists have noted this for decades.  since NO election (even
> > florida in 2000) at the national level is EVER decided by one vote,
> > then your vote really doesn't affect the outcome. 
> 
> This is simply not true. On 18 January 1961, in Zanzibar (now part of 
> Tanzania), the Afro-Shirazi Party won the general elections by a single 
> seat, after the seat of Chake-Chake on Pemba Island was won by a single 
> vote. 
> 
> There.  Had Chake-Chake not been elected, the world might indeed be an 
> entirely different place.
> 
> 
> carp
> 
> 


---------------------------------------------
This message was sent using Endymion MailMan.
http://www.endymion.com/products/mailman/