Forums

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
"Since the 1950s, economists and political scientists have known that it is actually rational for voters to be ignorant, because the chance that any one voter will have a significant impact on the outcome of an election is infinitesmally small. There is little incentive to spend time and effort acquiring knowledge about politics that won't make any difference to political outcomes anyway."

It is rational to not bother because whoever's in office makes little difference.

I don't want Hillary elected, but her election really won't effect me all that much, so it's not really a huge deal.

Save a business interest which could do work for the fed govt (if I can get the right lobbying outfit to grease the chute), it's rational for me to throw a dart at a board of candidates to select how I vote. Hillary won't do all that much damage and would be in gridlock anyway. And Iraq is like what, 3% of our budget? Bush is a terrible fool and an embarrassment, but I mean, really, would your life or mine have all that much different under him vs. Gore? I hate to see people die for no reason, but I'm far beyond thinking the forces that make those moves are somehow steerable by the populus. We're an empire. It's what we do. It sucks, but hey... what can I do? If they have a draft when my kid's of age, he'll be spending many years abroad. Selah...

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.