Meet your new thread, same as the old thread.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Adder
He also seems to dismiss the amusing irony of quote pointing out how people pay attention to politics only to confirm their pre-conceived biases.

The irony there derives from?

[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.

[Adder]

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.

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

[Adder]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
The irony there derives from?

I think the clearest example is:

"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.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

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.

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.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
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.

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.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
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.

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?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
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?

• Freud coined the phrase "narcissism of small differences" in a paper titled "The Taboo of Virginity" that he published in 1917.
  
  The psychoanalyst contended that human beings express their most virulent hatred toward those who are just slightly different from themselves. This is because slight differences pose a greater psychological threat to ones core sense of self (ergo: narcissism) than those who are extremely different from ourselves.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Gattigap
The LAT has a good piece about the downsides of corn-based ethanol. My favorite part:

• President Bush has set a target of replacing 15% of domestic gasoline use with biofuels (ethanol and biodiesel) over the next 10 years, which would require almost a fivefold increase in mandatory biofuel use, to about 35 billion gallons. With current technology, almost all of this biofuel would have to come from corn because there is no feasible alternative. However, achieving the 15% goal would require the entire current U.S. corn crop, which represents a whopping 40% of the world's corn supply. This would do more than create mere market distortions; the irresistible pressure to divert corn from food to fuel would create unprecedented turmoil.

Sure, it'll cause havoc with our economy, but let's look at the bright side -- at least Coltrane won't have to travel all the way to a bodega to buy some Mexican Coca-Cola.

Gattigap

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

[Adder]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
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.

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.

[Adder]

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

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

[Adder]

crap wrong button

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Adder
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

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.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Adder
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.

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.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

• Freud coined the phrase "narcissism of small differences" in a paper titled "The Taboo of Virginity" that he published in 1917.
  
  The psychoanalyst contended that human beings express their most virulent hatred toward those who are just slightly different from themselves. This is because slight differences pose a greater psychological threat to ones core sense of self (ergo: narcissism) than those who are extremely different from ourselves.

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