The irony there derives from?

But the quote you pulled isn't saying it doesn't matter who's in office, just that any one vote has a small impact on who that is. Unless I'm reading it wrong. I sort of think both are true (your theory and theirs) for the most part (exception to Sebby's theory = the last 6 years). Unless you were an elderly Florida voter who left your chad dangling in 2000.

The quote above has to to with the marginal value of a single voter's vote, not the difference in the candidates.

I think the clearest example is:

No. It's rational not to vote because your vote won't make a difference.

eta: Likewise, it's rational not to bother to read my post, since ncs already said it.

I view those distinctions as immaterial in the context of the discussion, since the outcome's the same. They're two close points - one might say "married" or symbiotically operative observations or perceptions - under the umbrella of voter frustration.

It's rational to not vote when you know that you won't get anything useful from either candidiate.

If you perceive a vote for X and Y is going to give you near identical results neither of which you desire, how is it rational to vote for either?

True, but should he choose to go, he'll have cheap and environmentally friendly biofuels to make the trip more affordable.

No, they really aren't. If your vote doesn't matter in the outcome of the election, there is no reason to pay attention to politics or vote.

If there is no distinction between the candidates, but you were the ultimate decider (i.e. your vote "counts"), the solution is to get new candidates, rather than of not voting. Or, alternatively, if you are the ulimate decider and there are any (even small) differences in the candidates, it is again rational to vote to be able to exploit those differences.

Again:

• Instead, voters are likely to fall prey to systematic errors in considering political information. As Bryan shows in detail, this helps explain why the majority of voters routinely fall prey to gross fallacies in their analysis of public policy

crap wrong button

Which means nothing in the context of a voter who does understand the differences and the fact that voting Dem or GOP won't make a difference to him.

To accept that point you have to accept that voters are as misinformed as the author suggests. It is next to impossible to determine how many voters "misunderstand" political information and to what extent they do. The assumptions built into such a study are challenging no doubt, and interesting, but hopelessly academic.

Which is why they're debated here. Frank Rich tried to make a similar case with his book about Kansas. Try to sneak his methodology through even the low standard of a Daubert hearing.

It's nice to think we're all victims of bullshit or confusing dissemination (I recognize your point involves perception as opposed to the quality of information provided, but for purposes of discussing politics, assuming the information offered is true or anything but opaque makes this debate senseless). This allows one group who think it knows better to feel pretty good. I don't quibble with the notion Americans don't know much about politics, but its wildly academic and not much else to suggest their vote makes a huge difference in their lives given the slates of nearly identical boaugh and paid for candidates we have on both sides.

Semantics... a distinction without a difference. If you get none of what you want, and a lot of what you don't, the packaging is immaterial.

If the differences are so de minimus and don't affect you, the use of gas and time expended to get to the polls is irrational.

It's nice to know among the myriad variations of narcissism from which I unquestionably suffer I am spared at least one.