TournamentFishing
No bio...
User ID: 2652
Nate Silver once made a cute little calculation about the probability that your vote will matter in a presidential election.[1] Basically, take the probability you'll be the swing voter in your state times the probability your state's electoral college votes will be the swing which decides the presidency.
If you were in Colorado or Virginia for the 2012 election, there was a whopping 1-in-10 million chance that your vote would matter. It's not inconceivable that you might consider the difference between the candidates to be large enough for it to be rationally altruistic to spend your time voting. If voting gives you the equivalent of 10 dollars of disutility, then the better candidate need only provide the equivalent of 100 million dollars of relative value to the world. EG: Maybe you believe the better candidate would remove a 1% chance of war. More local elections have lower stakes, but also a higher chance your vote matters.
[1]: What is the Probability Your Vote Will Make a Difference (Gelman, Silver, Edmin, 2012)
PS: I'm not on the blue-pill side, here. I believe in rule utilitarianism, and "oppose suicide cults" is a very good heuristic, no matter how strongly people argue I'm evil for following it. The pro-social move in this scenario isn't to take the blue-pill; it's to contact all your friends and loved ones, make sure they aren't taking the blue pill, and if need be, shove an emetic down their throats. Similarly I vote because I think it's usually good to do so, and don't bother to calculate whether the expected value shakes out in each case before heading to the polls.
Well, that did happen a couple times... But even then, I dont't think Mexican immigrants as a rule are agitating for the return of Texas or anything. What an odd narrative he tells.
More options
Context Copy link