[NOTE:Puzzles which could actually be posted are never discussed here. In this case, I don't think that this is a paradox which would ever actually be posted]

It's one thing that I've never quite understood, but I think it's kind of like a Sorites paradox (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_the_heap).

Basically, I think your premise is correct. If I cast my vote in an election, there is _no way_ that my vote is going to have any effect. Any effect what-so-ever. And this is even if I'm voting in a "purple" state like Ohio, instead of where I was, in Connecticut, where it really didn't matter.

So, if it's absolutely impossible for my vote to have an effect, why vote at all? The world will be no different the next day.

Of course, the counter argument is always "well, if _everyone_ thought the same as you, noone would vote and we'd have no democracy". It's like your mother telling you "if _everyone_ threw their candy wrapper out the window we wouldn't be able to get down the street for all the candy wrappers".


But I think that there are two answers.
1.
The paradox of the heap is that, if I have a heap of sand and I remove a grain, there is apparently no way that removing that one grain of sand could change the pile from a heap to a non-heap. i.e., there isn't a border of a precise number of grains of sand, n, for which n is a heap and n-1 isn't a heap.
The logical conclusion of that premise is that, no matter how many grains you remove, you're always going to have a heap, which is, of course, paradoxical.

The rebuttal is that there piles of sands aren't precisely divided between heaps and non-heaps. Rather, a pile of sand could be given a measure of "heap-ness" between 0.0 and 1.0, and removing a single grain reduces the value of that pile's "heap-ness", albiet by a very small amount.

I think that this is analogous to the voting dilemma. It isn't a case where there is a sharp dividing line between "my vote will affect the outcome" and "my vote will not affect the outcome". Rather, I'd say, your vote exists between the two extremes. In this case, if affecting the outcome counts as "1.0" and my vote counts as "0.1", one might be simultaeously correct to say that "my vote doesn't affect the outcome" and "my vote has contributed to the outcome."

2.
In one of Hofstadter's collections of articles, he spends a long time discussing rational actions. The main focus is on paradoxes such as the prisoner's dilemma: you get better rewards if you act selfishly, but if everyone does it then everyone loses.

His basic conclusion is
1. If two people are rational, they will always do the same thing in the same situation.
2. If they're both rational, they both know that the other will do the same thing as they're going to do
3. So, if they're both rational, they'll pick whatever course of action would generate the most rewards, on the assumption that everyone is going to do the exact same thing.

So basically, in the case of the prisoner's dilemma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma), the only rational action is to co-operate, because you know that, since everyone's rational, if YOU co-operate, everyone else will too (simultaneously), and the results will be better than everyone defecting.

So this is obviously applicable to the voting problem. From a selfish point of view, you are faced with a choice: spend a couple of hours waiting in line to cast a vote which will have no effect at all, or spend your time doing better things. Put like that, the choice is obvious. However, bringing in Hofstadter's point, if you are rational you would be forced to do the thing which you want everyone to do. You'd prefer that everyone votes instead of staying home. Therefore, you are rationally required to vote.

...

Anyway, those are just my, well, I guess a little more than 2 cents. I've wondered about this as well. In any event, you could just vote because you don't want to face the scorn of your relatives when you to tell them that you didn't vote...

Maybe the concept of one vote has greater importance when voting is compulsory and electorates are finely balanced in their representations. Eg, if one alliance is balanced against another by say, 3 to 5%, a voting swing can be carried by mere handfuls of votes; a not so uncommon phenomenon in Australia.

I disagree that one vote will even influence the outcome. You say that a politician's platform may be affected by the margin of victory. I agree with you, but only if that margin is changed by, say, a tenth of a percentage point. While I doubt the democratic party would make much of a change if Dean received 18.3% compared to 18.4%, I guess it's conceivable that they would.

However, your one vote isn't going to influence that tenth of a percentage point. 122 million people voted in the 2004 elections. Your vote, therefore, would have changed the outcome by about 0.0000008%. That's a ridiculously small number, and not one that would ever be picked up on even by the most stringent statisticians.

I think, therefore, that the initial premise that nothing at all would be different the day after the elections if you yourself didn't vote, _including_ tallies of what percentage of people voted for whom, is correct.

I think that the paradox is a valid one, albiet one which has been discussed before in other terms. I think that it's simultaneously correct to say that your vote wouldn't affect the outcome, yet you must still vote if you want the outcome to be affected. It's therefore similar to the prisoner's dilemma, as I mentioned above: while we all know that you're supposed to cooperate, you're actually better off in _every possible situation_ if you defect. While that's true, it's _still_ better to cooperate.

Oh yeah, that's why. Because of the electoral college.

hm...maybe I don't belong in this discussion. Hypotheticals are interesting to toss around, but when it comes down to it, everything you do effects everyone around you ("It's A Wonderful Life"!). You vote because it is your right and duty as an American citizen to do so. If you don't vote, you don't have a whole lot to say about the outcome of an election except that you (and a lot of other people like you - and I use "you" as a general term, grip) decided it didn't matter. But it did. Because you decided not to vote, there was one less vote. Also, you have a circle of influence in your life - everyone does. In your circle of influence, you have probably convinced someone else that one vote didn't matter, and that person (or persons) didn't vote. Etc... Deciding not to vote because you think it doesn't matter is also a selfish way of looking at things. Perhaps it doesn't matter to YOU, but it may matter to your neighbor. We Americans tend to be a little egocentric, I think.

vote!!!! even if your vote was only worth 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%
it is still a number and has value
in a way your vote counts and you could get called for jury dutie on a conflict very questionable and would have 2 ppl in the election against you on the jury could help decide the outcome of the verdict swayin voters to one of te candidates and hence affect the election all thanks to jury dutie....(yay)

lol i cant vote yet