tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post1684570987292831307..comments2023-10-29T10:32:36.914-04:00Comments on Philosophy, et cetera: Universalizing Tactical VotingRichard Y Chappellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-46253356586858562002017-04-23T15:32:47.558-04:002017-04-23T15:32:47.558-04:00Yeah, maybe it's better, though I'm not su...Yeah, maybe it's better, though I'm not sure what counts as a "local representative" in many places and with respect to most elections (e.g., over here). But leaving that and other issues aside, even if one writes that letter, mail, etc., there is still the issue of what to do when a general election comes. <br /><br />I tend to agree about not voting if voting is not compulsory. If it is, there's a question of whether a blank vote or a vote for a third candidate is better. Angra Mainyuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16342860692268708455noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-42484436479288987352017-04-23T14:22:52.581-04:002017-04-23T14:22:52.581-04:00Perhaps not; it would depend on the details. Most...Perhaps not; it would depend on the details. Most likely it would not be worth voting at all in such a scenario. (A better way to send a message is to write to one's local representative, after all...)Richard Y Chappellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-90469635990303349342017-04-23T13:20:50.547-04:002017-04-23T13:20:50.547-04:00I agree it won't matter much, but the very, ve...I agree it won't matter much, but the very, very tiny, positive impact of sending a message with one's vote for a good candidate (or against bad candidates) seems very likely to happen, whereas the huge impact of changing the outcome is almost certain not to happen in many elections. <br /><br />Here's another case: the two leading candidates (i.e., the only ones with realistic chances) are bad, but it's very difficult to assess which one is worse. For example, depending on a number of other factors (such as the support they'll get in the legislature, how many judges they'll get to appoint, etc.), the relative impact of each can change drastically, so it can go either way. In those cases, I'm not sure how your procedure would work. Do you think it's still better to vote for one of them (the one that might look very slightly better, if there is one at all) than voting for a good candidate? Angra Mainyuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16342860692268708455noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-76837244317104392512017-04-23T03:46:49.823-04:002017-04-23T03:46:49.823-04:00Hi Angra, sure, I guess it could (in some circumst...Hi Angra, sure, I guess it could (in some circumstances) be most tactical to vote for A even when A is the assured loser. It's an interesting question how much "sending a message" with one's vote matters -- I'd assume that the answer is generally "not much", so it's going to be much more difficult to vindicate the expected value of voting on individualistic grounds without the chance of the massive impact of actually swinging the election result.Richard Y Chappellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-28427582913345630642017-04-22T21:30:32.701-04:002017-04-22T21:30:32.701-04:00Hi Richard,
How about the following issue?
Let&#...Hi Richard, <br /><br />How about the following issue?<br />Let's say A is good, C is a big evil, and B is a lesser evil. <br />After looking at the polls, the group following your procedure realize that it's almost certain that by voting for B, they will <i>not</i> be able to prevent C from winning. However, by voting by B, they send a message to other people - namely, that they support B -, which is worse than a message that they support A. Of course, there is also the issue of whether someone will read "we can almost defeat C", if they get close, etc., but that has to be weighed against the issue I just mentioned, also considering that the combined votes for A and B also may well also send a message that an alliance (which would be even less evil) might get close. So, there are multiple issues. <br /><br />In general, it seems to me that in order to assess the instrumental value of a vote, the voter needs to factor in not only the likelihood that a candidate will win and how good or bad that winning is, but also the positive or negative result of sending a message (i.e., in terms of how the votes will be interpreted by others) of support for one or another candidate (in addition to factors such as personal cost), and implicitly perhaps, (some, many of) their policies. <br />Granted, voters can spread the word that they're voting tactically and that they don't really support B, but that can be costly, especially if they need to reach lots of people who generally don't get involved enough to take a look at that sort of detail, but look at the final tally.<br /><br />Another issue when it comes to spreading the word is the cost of making one's vote for any of the leading candidates (or maybe any candidate) public. <br />For example, in a highly polarized election, that may well have high personal costs for a person, in terms of retaliation (social isolation from several people including family members, insults, difficulties in one's job or loss of opportunities, etc.). Lying and saying (for instance) one didn't vote or cast a blank vote might make such retaliation much less probable, but then, that would keep the tactical voter from spreading the word that they voted tactically (increasing the negative value of their support for a bad candidate), and additionally, it may well have a significant psychological cost anyway: lying to people one is close to on issues one knows they care deeply about and would outrage them if one told them the truth, knowing that one is risking being despised by several people at work if someone finds out, etc., also may be quite distressing (depending on the person's psychology, of course). Angra Mainyuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16342860692268708455noreply@blogger.com