Infected Mushroom wrote:The Huskar Social Union wrote:I live in a sinn fein stronghold that they wont lose anytime soon (In a westminster level or an assembly level) and despite that i would still never give away my vote for money.
Why not?
Symbolic attachment to the voting power and it’s connotations of Liberty (irrespective of cost-benefit analysis)?
I appreciate that you've taken on board the idea of voting being the exercise of power. I find that the most flexible and useful way to relate the voting right to other rights. Particularly free speech: the speech quality of a single vote is minute. Assuming only two viable options per office, it's one bit per office (literally the smallest amount of information possible), or two bits if voting for neither is considered. Considered as power though: the power exercised by speech varies from zero to (theoretically) unlimited, as it depends on the content, the status of the speaker, the size of the audience, time into the future ... in fact a bewildering array of factors such that it is impossible for a speaker to know how much power they are exercising. Yet it is by power that we can relate and compare speech to the vote. In specific examples, we can say "x speech has roughly the power of y vote".
If we tried to compare them by information content? Uh-uh. We will keep coming up with absurd results like "farting or not farting has about the same information content as a single vote"
Before I went into rant-mode, I was trying to say that voting-as-power is a useful model, particularly for reckoning one right against another (oh, and btw, I take as a precept that voting is a right, although that is not in your constitution; it should be). But always remember that you are using a model. To think that voting is ONLY the exercise of power, will lead into error like "felons SHOULD be disenfranchised, since they are generally disempowered and taking the vote off them is appropriate part of punishment". What I find wrong with that, is that to me, voting is also a social duty. Not that it should necessarily be required by law, not that strong a duty, but one strong enough that a citizen should feel proud to do it. Denying that to a felon is perverse: we imprisoned them for lack of social duty, and took away their power to harm others so they can have a long hard think about why ... then what sense does it make to quench signs of social duty in the felon? Is "that's nice, but we still don't trust you to exercise power" enough reason? I say no.
I could go on and on (obviously) but my fingers are tired and I'm probably boring you. I just want to caution you further on the useful approximation "voting is the exercise of power". Don't draw strong conclusions from it until you have tested their compatibility with different interpretations of the vote (speech, duty, any others you like), and never assume that "everyone has an equal right to vote" means "everyone's vote has the same power". Arguably every voter in a district, voting from the same ballot entry for that district, has the same amount of power. But the power of their vote at the bottom of the ballot (local offices with little power themselves, but which the voter has more power to elect, there being fewer other voters) is much greater than their power to elect a President. Finally voters have disparate power in electing the President, depending on which state they are voting in. The more marginal the state, the greater their power to tip that state all-in for one candidate. But also, the smaller their state's population, the fewer other voters they have to share power with, thus the greater their voting power.
I try not to rant, particularly when it's late. But I do it anyway. Particularly when it's late. Pardon the rudeness but I will log off without waiting for a reply ... as always, if you don't like it don't read it. But I'd be happy to hear anyone's thoughts. Reading suggestions even.
