Ethicists - Voting Your Heart is Immoral

[PickelledEggs]

So you actually think your vote will change the outcome.  Fascinating.

Which means that you think my 3rd party vote isn't a waste, because you think our votes actually matter.

You are severely misunderstanding.

Voting for a third party candidate is a waste because they will not win.  Voting for Hillary or Trump will because they are the front runners and both have an almost equal chance at winning.
Specifically, a vote for the democratic or republican nominee matters, all other presidential votes are an absolute waste.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

[Baruch]

I cannot win, because I am not part of the Elite.  Therefore I shouldn't vote, shouldn't live, right?  But I would rather be right and lose, than be wrong and win ... any day of the week.  Wanting to be a winner ... is the mother of all corruption ... it has only selfish ambition, and no conscience.

[Jason Harvestdancer]

You are severely misunderstanding.

Voting for a third party candidate is a waste because they will not win.  Voting for Hillary or Trump will because they are the front runners and both have an almost equal chance at winning.
Specifically, a vote for the democratic or republican nominee matters, all other presidential votes are an absolute waste.

Voting for Hillary or Trump won't change the outcome, voting for 3rd Party won't change the outcome.

Your argument is that my vote is vital, unless I vote 3rd party at which point it is wasted.

You are contradicting yourself.  Either my vote counts or it doesn't.  If it counts, it counts even if I vote 3rd party.  If it doesn't count, then it doesn't count even if I vote major party.

[Jason Harvestdancer]

So my vote is vital, which is why if I vote 3rd party it doesn't count, at which point it is not vital, which is why I have to throw it away on a major party vote, because my not vital vote is vital if voting major party but my vital vote is not vital if I vote 3rd party.

[PickelledEggs]

I'm really not sure how you're having trouble understanding what I'm saying.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

[Nonsensei]

Voting for Hillary or Trump won't change the outcome, voting for 3rd Party won't change the outcome.

Your argument is that my vote is vital, unless I vote 3rd party at which point it is wasted.

You are contradicting yourself.  Either my vote counts or it doesn't.  If it counts, it counts even if I vote 3rd party.  If it doesn't count, then it doesn't count even if I vote major party.

You need to understand there's a difference between a vote counting and a vote mattering.

I cast my vote today. It counted. But it didn't matter. I live in connecticut.

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I'm really not sure how you're having trouble understanding what I'm saying.

I understand it.  A vote only counts if voted for a major party candidate, because then it will change the outcome.  But if a vote for a 3rd party candidate won't count, because it won't change the outcome.  That means your vote only counts if you vote the right way or the wrong way.

Which means you think either I personally individually will either change the entire outcome of the election or I won't depending on how I vote.

The reason you think I don't understand you is because you are contradicting yourself and I'm stating your self-contradiction plainly.

If my vote is that important, then it is that important even if I vote 3rd party.  If my vote doesn't count, then it doesn't count even if I vote major party.  You can't say it is conditionally important.  You contradict yourself when you do.

All you get for voting major party is a 50% chance that you will be voting in the same way as the winning team.  It puts you in the same situation as a sports fan watching TV yelling "we won we won".  "We"?  The fan sitting there didn't do anything.  He just watched the game.

[PickelledEggs]

I'm not the one contradicting myself.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

[Jason Harvestdancer]

You're the one saying my vote counts except for when it doesn't, and that it doesn't count except for when it does.

[PickelledEggs]

You're the one saying my vote counts except for when it doesn't, and that it doesn't count except for when it does.

No. I'm saying if you vote 3rd party, it doesn't count. The reason for this is that 3rd party candidates have zero chance at winning the election. It's a waste of time. It's not the equivalent to me of voting for the opposite of who I'm voting for; it's the equivalent of staying home.

A vote for the two main nominees is different for the reason that they are both the major party nominees and both have a very good chance at winning.

On that note, if you're  going to be so thick-headed to put words in my mouth and misunderstand what I'm saying, I'm gonna hop out of this. I can't think of many more ways to say the same thing in a more simplified way for you to understand it, without it being completely condescending. On top of that, the election day is over. Everyone that selected their picks for president is pretty much set, even the people ignorant enough to think that voting 3rd party will do anything.

Later.

[Jason Harvestdancer]

A vote for a 3rd party only means one thing - you don't have the 50% chance to say "we won" while you didn't do anything to help your team win.

If it is so important for you to take credit for something you didn't actually participate in, go ahead and watch sports.  The more the better.  You can tell yourself that by watching you helped them win.

That's all your major party vote will do - give you a 50% chance of fooling yourself into thinking you made a difference.

[Shiranu]

I didn't realise votes had nothing to do with the voting process or voting someone into office. You learn something new everyday.

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Try an experiment.  Vote 3rd party and see if that swings your state's outcome.  If it does, then you can believe that your vote is more than just a spectator sport, like watching football on tv.

Or, more like, watching pro-wrestling on tv.

[Hydra009]

Try an experiment.  Vote 3rd party and see if that swings your state's outcome.

Isn't that exactly the point that everyone's been arguing with you about?  When you're hopelessly outvoted, you're not going to change the outcome.  But when you throw your weight on either of the leading options, that could change the outcome.

[Shiranu]

Try an experiment.  Vote 3rd party and see if that swings your state's outcome.  If it does, then you can believe that your vote is more than just a spectator sport, like watching football on tv.

Or, more like, watching pro-wrestling on tv.

If 1000 some people had done that very experiment in Florida, we would be remembering the presidency not of Bush but of Gore.

Tell me, how many extra people would have to vote libertarian to say the same? How many times have so few people needed made the difference on the win or loss of a libertarian?

Your analogy is, frankly, moronic. The only accurate way it can be construed is towards your position, my dear fan; no matter how loudly you cheer, your team will still have a 100% chance of losing. Sucks being a Clippers fan, doesn't it?

I know this is probably a hard concept for libertarians, but the world does consist of more than just, "Me, myself and I.". It's a very romantic ideology, but it doesn't hold much weight in the modern world.