Joshua Claybourn's Vote
Is Up For Grabs,
But What Is it Worth?
Joshua Claybourn announced today that his vote is up for grabs in the upcoming presidential election. Claybourn voted for Bush in 2000. I gather that he lives in Indiana. ABC reported these results in Indiana for that election:
Here's what the results would have looked like if he'd voted for Gore:
PRESIDENT
CANDIDATE VOTE TOTAL PERCENT BUSH (REP) 1242372 57% WIN GORE (DEM) 899836 41% BUCHANAN (IND) 17374 1% BROWNE (LIB) 16780 1%
% of precincts reporting: 100
If he'd voted for Buchanan:
PRESIDENT
CANDIDATE VOTE TOTAL PERCENT BUSH (REP) 1242371 57% WIN GORE (DEM) 899837 41% BUCHANAN (IND) 17374 1% BROWNE (LIB) 16780 1%
% of precincts reporting: 100
If he'd voted for Browne:
PRESIDENT
CANDIDATE VOTE TOTAL PERCENT BUSH (REP) 1242371 57% WIN GORE (DEM) 899836 41% BUCHANAN (IND) 17375 1% BROWNE (LIB) 16780 1%
% of precincts reporting: 100
If he had not voted at all the results would have been:
PRESIDENT
CANDIDATE VOTE TOTAL PERCENT BUSH (REP) 1242371 57% WIN GORE (DEM) 899836 41% BUCHANAN (IND) 17374 1% BROWNE (LIB) 16781 1%
% of precincts reporting: 100
Can anyone explain how any of these different results would have made any difference to anyone?
PRESIDENT
CANDIDATE VOTE TOTAL PERCENT BUSH (REP) 1242371 57% WIN GORE (DEM) 899836 41% BUCHANAN (IND) 17374 1% BROWNE (LIB) 16780 1%
% of precincts reporting: 100
The expected return on any effort Claybourn puts into voting in presidential elections is negligible.
Update: Claybourn responds with a few questions and I answer them here. (And now below.)
Claybourn's Vote, Part II
In an update Joshua Claybourn responds to my earlier post:
John Kennedy (no, not that one) has an analysis of what my vote can do - not a lot. This leads to the next logical step of asking why vote at all? What happens if we all take that view? The "voting isn't worth your time" argument has always seemed bankrupt, and Kennedy does nothing to change that. Besides, I don't think I'm alone and a collective attitude like mine will indeed go a long way (see Bush Sr. in '92 and Florida in '00). I can spread my feelings too - what good are these blogs if I don't alter a few people's thinking every now and then?
I'll answer point by point:
1. What happens if we all take that view?
We don't take views collectively. The view that other voters will take does not depend on your vote.
2. The "voting isn't worth your time" argument has always seemed bankrupt, and Kennedy does nothing to change that.
The argument is quite sound. It's the electoral process that's bankrupt.
3. Besides, I don't think I'm alone and a collective attitude like mine will indeed go a long way (see Bush Sr. in '92 and Florida in '00).
Collective attitude does not depend on your vote. Other voters won't even know how you vote. At most some will know how you say you'll vote. And even that is independent of your vote itself which will be cast in secret, if at all.
4. I can spread my feelings too - what good are these blogs if I don't alter a few people's thinking every now and then?
You may indeed spread your feelings and ideas via your blog. I was talking about your vote. Your vote will have negligible effect in spreading your ideas and feelings, as the alternatives shown above clearly demonstrate.
And now we're back to your original question: Why vote at all?
You tell me. It will have a negligible effect on the return for your effort.
