Exactly, one of the approved candidates wins no matter what, so there is no reason to vote and legitimize an illegitimate process.

Meanwhile as voter turnout bottoms out, genuine statesmen may realize they have a chance to take power by doing something differently. Either that, or it goes so low that people stop taking government seriously, and removing its power by ceasing to obey it.

@Thucy - no. You're assuming a repeated game. Players who play again and again (voting) would become disinterested, disgruntled, and rebel. But this is not a repeated game. Every year new voters who are optimistic enter the pool, so we stagnate forever at where we are.

Whatever. Don't vote. My vote matters more then.

Except that the young are more disinterested and apathetic than anyone. Watch as voter turnouts bottom out. All along people have known that their vote was worthless, but there are more and more of us. How low can voter turnout go before people start to openly question whether the "elected" government was really elected? 30%? 10%? 5%?

Jeff, your vote wouldn't matter one way or the other. If you don't have money, you do not influence politics

Boycott the elections of the illegitimate government.

As a young caring voter, I will not vote for either a Clinton or a Bush.

Sure, boycott elections of an illegitimate government.

Mine's pretty legit. I'll vote. It matters.

Russell Brand's position is moronic. This year there are more Millennials alive than Baby Boomers. That's electoral power. Use it. Don't throw it away.

And other Millennials, don't listen to Thucy. His proposition is preposterous.

Thucy - you're wrong.

Voting turnout in the US has remained essentially unchanged for a century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_the_United_States_presidential_elections

If you want to look at drastic drops in voting rates, look to Canada, France, Germany, UK, etc.

Thucy, do you even think before you post or is it just gas?

You are the underpants gnome of politics

First Step: Don't Vote
Second Step:
Third Step: Fix systemic problems

And I'd like to hear how the government isn't legitimate. You didn't choose it?

Like I said, gas. You are a caricature of yourself

Please, if your political opinions are anything like Thucy's, model your opinions on voting closely after his, as well.

God, I'm so happy to have a proportional representation system in NL. I get to bote for the candidate I like, that candidate *actually gets in*, and then they get to represet me in my disengaged plutocracy.

In political science, there are two basic laws. Once you get those down, you realise that disillusionment is an unchangeable aspect of any system:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_oligarchy

Being a New Zealander I cannot participate in your 'murica electoral process. But I would like to throw in my symbolic 'non-vote' alongside brother Thucys. I am certain it will have about the same effect. I am not a pathetic child with an absurd level of conceit and naivety, and nor is my pal Thucydides! Go hard and stay strong bro, we'll show them! We'll show them ALL!!!!!

I just came.

Voting is really extremely simple game theory.

Let's say that your vote has probability P (very small) of detemining the winner of an election. If D dollars is the minimum amount of money you would pay to ensure the victory of your candidate, V is minimum wage at which you would be willing to work, T is the amount of time it takes you to vote, and R is the happiness you get from displaying your patriotism by voting, then you will vote if you estimate that (P*D + R)/T > V.

Your argument is that P is very small. But D, T, V, and R are very different for different people. So quit telling them that they are irrational, they simply have different utility functions and that is fine.

See also: http://lesswrong.com/lw/fao/voting_is_like_donating_thousands_of_dollars_to/

Is this thread for real? I mean, I sometimes pretend to agree with the things I link just for fun, but at some point I always display my true views. Is this for real? You seriously thing that NOT voting can change anything? : D

Thanks for helping John Key win a third term, fiedler. You really showed him.

And @☺
You present in a way too simplistic way, especially the thing with probability. While yes, the question of whether to go or not is determined via a utility function if it were purely for the probability of having the decisive vote almost no-one would go voting. I hate when people say "I'm not going to vote, because my vote doesn't change anything. It's only one vote against 10 millions other votes, so what's the point". Well, voting is a type of exercising the social contract. It's like saying, why should I accept those rectangular pieces of paper with number on them my employer is trying to give me? It's worth virtually nothing, I cannot eat it and I even if I wanted to burn it I wouldn't get much heat from a bill. Surely not enough to compensate me my hard work. It's all an illusion, and while one is political, other is economical, at this point if we were to abandon either we end up with anarchy.

He's an oligarchy of one. Bless him.

Woah, keeping track of what you're writing while on phone is HAAARD

@ yassem: see also, R.

As in, the R-project? : D

As in the R term in my equation.

Oooohhh, the R in the equation. Still, the P is not important at all. That's my point

Or at least according to the notion of social choice theorem I've been taught.

Russell Brand... He was that great statesman and leader of the people who deeply upset Andrew Sachs when he phoned him and left lots of messages about having sex with his granddaughter as a joke, wasn't he? "It was consensual and she wasn't menstrual" was one of his oh so witty lines, I seem to recall.

Yup, when quality people like that advise you not to vote, how can you possibly say no?

Not voting solves nothing - all parties with a serious shot at winning rely on 'getting their vote out', and you can see the policies designed to appeal to their core demographic.

If a section of society decide en masse not to vote, their concerns will not be addressed.

Get out and vote - vote for the least bad option, the option most likely to beat something you dislike, or a joke candidate. But when there are enough voters who don't vote to swing pretty much every seat to ANY party (there aren't many 30%+ majorities out there), don't sit and say it's not important. It is.

Much as I can find RB entertaining, he is fundamentally wrong - democracy may be rubbish, but every other system is worse

I wonder what would happen if the ballots had a 'fuck the government'-option, with no consequences attached to it except that that the people who think 'fuck them' are properly represented in the voting results.

It would seperate them from people who are too lazy.

They're called spoilt ballots, Steephie. Everyone already has the ability to right "sod the lot of them" on their ballot paper. Some simply draw a cartoon penis. I think one woman wrote a quite detailed description of why one of the candidates was a cheating bastard, but that had a more personal motivation.

Regardless, the number of people who do this are relatively small. The vast majority of people who don't vote are either lazy or have no great preference between the most popular candidates. Thankfully Thucy represents a tiny minority.

@Stephanie, I think it's a great idea, that way the morons who disenfranchise themselves could honestly tell their more politically responsible friends they actually DID vote in the last elections, as to not risk being ostracized.
I mean, if Mr. Brand things voting is such a terrible thing I'd advise visiting all those utopia's where there is either no voting or the voting absolutely doesn't matter. Not to mention, and I just LOOOOOVE this, "socialist egalitarian system based on massive redistribution of wealth (...)". I honestly think that at one point in history people already tried that. I don't think it went all that well though...

@Octavious: Presumably the number of people who stick it to the man on their ballot aren't officially published, though, right? They'll just be considered non-voters or empty ballots I presume, making it a rather useless form of protest compared to an official option to show your dissent..

The outcome of the vote would better represent the people's opinions.