PHILOSOPHY - Political: Why Vote? Reasons to Vote

In this Wireless Philosophy video, Geoff Sayre-McCord (UNC Chapel Hill) discusses why we should vote. Geoff reviews some of the traditional arguments against our reason to vote; for instance, why should we vote if it makes no difference to the outcome of the election? After reviewing these positions, he looks at some counterarguments before leaving it up to you to figure out why you should vote.

Subscribe!

More on Geoff Sayre-McCord:

----

Wi-Phi @ YouTube:

Wi-Phi @ Khan Academy:

Twitter:

Facebook:

Instagram:
@wiphiofficial

----

Help us caption & translate this video!

[Bel]

Here's what no one ever says, "You don't have to vote." It's not a moral, or legal obligation, it's not "disrespectful" to democracy or the military. We have our 1st amendment rights, and our free will to choose what we want to do. Especially if none of the candidates are to your liking, there's nothing wrong with abstaining.

[SanjuroSan]

These videos never address the corruption and distortion of the political system itself. Nor does it address the problems with "first past the post" voting. These people always want to leave you with a message of "vote, it matters!" but never ever actually does this bring about meaningful and lasting change. Simple things like "how did these two candidates becomes the ones we have to choose from" will expose how glaringly ignorant we all are too how the current political system works - those same people will tell you myth after myth but we all know never in a million years would we ever want these people representing us if they were in our house or living in our small communities, so where do they come from? There are more pressing questions that will yield far more insight into how we could change our lives for the better instead of being told to vote for criminals.

[whalingwithishmael]

All of these arguments assumes that you favor one of the two candidates and that you care about politics in general. Also voting without researching the candidates is conducive to a herd mentality which probably won't lead to beneficial results. One could argue that you don't just have to consider the time that it takes to vote, but that you also have to take the time to do enough research on the topics to make a well educated vote. The time spent to do this research could be considerably greater in value than your vote.

[worldview]

5:39, you say causal difference, but I haven't seen a difference in the prices when I go shopping only one directional movement, UP, UP, & UP, no matter if I vote or not.

[HarshitMishra]

In this video the impact of NOT VOTING by huge mass is explained well but can you explain on an individual level that why should I VOTE?

[kmdash]

Doesn't this mean your vote only counts if you voted for the winner? This seems like this goes against the intuition that you ought to vote for the person who shares your values, and not just the person who is likely to win. Voting isn't like gambling.

[SafetyMentalst]

People Vote don't snooze Or We All lose.
To know now that time has came
To know how much were the same
To know now life is not but a game
To know how that hate is a shame
To know now how to take the blame

[pucek]

Isn't this Goldman-Tuck argument assuming thIat your vote is in group with an excess of voters? If so there are 2 cases and one additional for losing:

1) The excess of winning votes is exactly one. In that case your vote does have an influence on the outcome of voting, but as was stated in the video, the chances are extremely low.

2) The excess of winning votes is larger than one. In that case, you could've not voted at all and it wouldn't change a thing

3) You're on losing side. Your vote did not matter anyway.

This idea seems to be just the confusing and wrong rephrasing of Downs argument. If anyone can challenge me on that, please fell free to do so.

[yayatoure]

Cool👍. I needed an answer and found my father‘s University

[adammwalch]

"today alike are great and small, the nameless and the known; my palace is the people's hall, the ballot box my throne..."

[worldview]

If things really changed for the better for a sustained period then we would all be motivated to vote. But people have only seen politicians get more money & power, while making promises for their own gain, while their countries problems just stagnate for ever

[cliffordhodge]

Leaving aside all the problems regarding a winner-take-all 2-party system, I wish to suggest there is no "effect" on other voters, because it is an anonymous act.  It might be better if it were public, although the tendency would be for celebrity votes to be more influential, which would be a bad thing.  Further, trying to sell the idea that one should vote to get a warm feeling is questionable, unless being "one of the gang" is held up as a very high level value. Also, the idea of sending a message - "I have received a mandate from the people" - with voting is very wrong-headed, since there is no demonstrated commensurability among the various acts of voting.  What I "intend" with my vote hardly need be the support of the candidate whose name I check on the ballot.  Ask philosophy grad students to come up with hypothetical intentions behind voting, and you will find the list to be too long to deal with.  Finally, I think many would argue that not voting sends a stronger, and much more beneficial message as a refusal to take part in a system where, as between two choices - voting for president or buying a lottery ticket - the weighted probability benefit/cost test, the basic method in decisions, probably dictates that I play the lottery instead, even if I could cast a deciding vote in favor of one of the two major party candidates.  I am not being facetious about any of this - these are problems which concern me greatly because I think that in his heart of hearts, the foregoing thoughts are in the minds of a very large percentage of voters who merely allow themselves to vote because of the peer pressure put upon them, a chilling thought.

*Clinton:* Crony, corrupt and criminal.

[handsomebear.]

I don't think you made a very strong point for why their argument "works". Being part of a landslide victory or loss still seems rather pointless. Unless you're convincing several people not to vote then the difference isn't felt anywhere but in yourself if you actually care, in which case you'd be voting anyway. Not sure who you're convincing with this video (:

[kamikazekoenful]

You sir have made an art out of making easy subjects hard to understand. This whole philosophy could have been explained in 30 seconds. Besides, I dont think anyone should try to believe what you are trying to say, as most of the other commenters also show. Very narrow-minded.

[JOCAmusic]

6:45 It's 501, 000 votes in the example, not 500, 001...Philosophy without mathematical logic is just ideology. No actual logic in this video. Abstain people!

[unvergebeneid]

Does the original economic argument factor in the expected difference in outcome between the candidates and the actual chance of your vote mattering, maybe because you live in a swing state for example? Because if it doesn't it's not a rigorous argument. If, just for example, one of the candidates would bring about the end of democracy and turn your country into an autocracy and you lived in Florida where the election did come down to a view votes in the past, then the likelihood of you personally swinging the election might still be 1:1, 000, 000 or so but the expected value might still be in favor of voting, given that the outcome of having the wrong candidate win is a lifetime of oppression for you and your children, compared to the minuscule gain of watching a bit more TV if you don't vote.

[thornspitfire]

I'm sorry but these theories seem to be focusing on the victory of a candidate and completely miss the reason of electing representatives, which would be bringing issues to legislature. Instead of such misguided focus, that only causes a strengthening of partisanship and the passive agressive coercion of voters to do their "duty", the focus should be on the issues that are being represented. A politician is just a public administrator that is supposed to represent the issues of the people to the best of their ability. Winning or losing is but a matter of time as long as the issue is valid, the need is real, and the representation is true.

In this sense it is the politician's duty to bring people to vote, by representing the correct issue the correct way, not the voter's responibility to vote regardless how their issues are being represented, or not being represented at all. This is why asking people to vote and choose between two bad candidates is evil. People not voting is one of the signals to politicians that they are not doing their job right. This is also why it is devious to say people who don't vote has no right to speak of public issues: first of all, the human right to speech can not be cast away, and second of all, if one's view is not being represented in the voting booth, it is a natural recourse to speak up against wrong representation. The final recourse is of course applying to represent the views and taking part in the race. Which is why it is essential for representatives to listen, because otherwise people will start stepping up to replace them.

[Moresmartest]

When you move into shitty area of KC and think they are rich…

[DarkStarInsomniac]

Those who point toward an outcome tend to ignore one of them: picking the losing side. If that happens, particularly if it happens often enough, then it's not unreasonable to believe your vote is always wasted because it frankly was. There was no reason for you to turn out, it didn't change anything, and you might as well have stayed home.