Why I like my own facebook posts, don't click links about Kim Kardashian and vote 3rd party
What is a facebook like? A button you click to indicate your approval of a link, some words or a picture? Yes, it is that. A symbol we give to others and they give to us often taken to indicate social status? That too. How about a signal of membership in social spheres aligned around interests? Yes.
Whatever a "like"means to you individually and us collectively, one meaning we often disregard is that an action is an intention towards the predicted consequences of that action. This interpretation will be taken by those who think of their actions instrumentally, who act pursuant to their goals and values.
A facebook like isn't just a symbol with shared meaning. It has real life consequence. I don't know the specifics of how facebook's algorithms decide how posts get placed on people's newsfeeds, but it's obvious that one of the positive variables is how many likes it has. A post that has 3 likes will get more weight in that algorithm than one with 2. and one with 20 will get even more.
When viewed as a predicted consequence oriented action, a facebook like is my intention that whatever I like be seen by more people. When you click on a link with a click bait title, your view is counted and someone makes money from ads. The news company now has an even greater incentive to write click bait titles! When you click a link about Kim Kardashian you are voting for more articles to be written about her. When you read about the Westboro Baptists Churches rampant bigotry you are encouraging it. When you don't like the link that promotes kindness, bi-partisanship and understanding you're voting for it not to be seen. With every like, upvote, comment and click we are voting on the content of our public consciousness. Feel a little more weighty responsibility for your clicking?
It may seem obvious how this would apply to voting, but it's actually not. "Yes, I know EB, Votes are counted and whoever gets the most wins the election". Were that it were it so simple. Is that really what you predict the consequence of your vote to be? Have you put much thought into predicting it's consequences?
What is the meaning of a vote? Is it my way of saying this is the person I want to be president?
Without even getting into the problems associated with the ridiculously antiquated electoral college, If you're even halfway sane you probably don't particularly agree with either major party. You think that the partisan bickering our two-party system of red vs blue, us vs the enemy mentality, has devolved into is a bigger problem then either party individually or put together. Is there something that can be done to combat that problem?
Imagine you enter a room with two scales. You have one coin. Most people just toss their coin onto one main scale, but that doesn't mean you have to. The big one has tens of millions of coins on each side of the scale. If you use your coin there it's relative weight is fairly small compared to how many other coins there are. But there are some other scales in the room. One scale only needs 600,000 votes(5% of predicted voter turn out) to tip in it's favor. Your single coin has more weight as a percent of total weight on the scale than anywhere else. And even if the scale doesn't get to the 5% and tip, the more coins on it, the more it will impact the debate. It's hands down the most powerful use of your coin available to you.
If you live in a swing state, predict where your vote could sway the states delegates one way or the other, and think one of the two major parties candidates are the best man/woman for the job then by all means vote for them. In those circumstances, that would be a much more effective use of your vote than what I'm suggesting. Must of us, however, aren't in that position. In my years as a voter, I've voted in Washington State, Utah, and may vote in Tennessee in the upcoming. Washington was undoubtedly going to go democrat in 2004(Kerry), Utah was going to go Republican in 2008 (Mccain) and 2012(Romney) and I'm just going to call it now, Tennessee will go republican in 2016(as it has for the last 4 elections). If nothing drastic changes between now and election day I can with near 100 percent certainty predict that my vote will have a 0.000% chance of effecting which candidate my states delegates go to.
Now we come to the part of the post where I suggest a better use for your vote. Did you know that if a third party gets 5% of the popular vote(not even effected by the electoral college) then they retro-actively qualify for federally assisted campaign financing for that election AND qualify for the next election?
Now to, preempt some criticisms.
The common criticisms of voting third party go like this.
1. Third party candidates steal votes from one side of the major parties, dividing it's base and causing it to lose. AKA the spoiler theory. While not usually an issue, and it doesn't look to be one in the upcoming debate, there could be some legitimacy to this criticism in select cases. In 2000, there was an unprecedentedly close vote in Florida, When all the hanging chads were counted George Bush defeated Al Gore by 537 votes while third party candidate Ralph Nader, who was viewed as a left of center candidate, received 97,421 votes. Exit polls reported that 25% of Nader voters second option would have been Bush, 38% would have voted for Gore and the rest wouldn't have voted at all. Did Nader tip the scale in favor of Bush leading to a loss for liberals? It's a topic of much debate, but regardless, something THAT close is unlikely to happen again anytime soon. If it does appear that it could be that close again, then the voter should decide how much they dislike the opposing candidate and vote accordingly.
If you live in a swing state, the two main party candidates are neck and neck, and you prefer one over the other, then the best use of your vote will be to vote for that candidate. But that is rarely the case, is it the case for you?
2. It's throwing your vote away. That candidate doesn't have a chance of winning so you're wasting your vote. I think I've already rebutted this pretty soundly but I will note that the more people believe this, the more entrenched the two-party system is. Third parties are only un-viable because we believe that everyone else believes that they are. The only way to end that belief is to break ranks.
To bring things full circle, I've highlighted that a vote is a consequence oriented action, but it's also a symbolic one.
The republicans aren't what's wrong with the country. The democrats aren't what's wrong with the country. They both are and the system that supports them.
I voted for Gary Johnson in 2012 and I may be voting for Jill Stein in 2016, Not because I want either to become president(safe to say they won't), but because, as I've argued, it was the most utilitarian use of my vote towards improving our country. I also did it because of it's symbolic power.
Without further ado, I give you, 6 reasons to vote third party(doesn't even matter which).
1. Because a third party vote is a vote against the two-party system. And the two-party system is a worse disease(and a more treatable one) than either party within it.
2. A third party vote is a vote to expand the overton window and broaden the national discourse
3. To really get rid of the two-party system we'd need voting reform(get rid of first past the post). By voting third party you'll be encouraging that debate.
4. I get to vote against mudslinging attack ads, public interest subverting super-pacs, fear mongering rhetoric and that just has personal moral significance.
5. Unless you live in a swing state, it's the only way your vote will matter anyways.
6. I get to say I didn't vote for the clowns everyone else keeps putting into office, which is it's own reward.
What do I predict the actual outcome of my vote will be? Negligible. Small, unlikely to tip any scales at all, but It has a better chance here than anywhere else, so that's where it goes.So join me by casting the most powerful vote available to you in 2016 by voting third-party and encouraging reform that might actually matter.
Whatever a "like"means to you individually and us collectively, one meaning we often disregard is that an action is an intention towards the predicted consequences of that action. This interpretation will be taken by those who think of their actions instrumentally, who act pursuant to their goals and values.
A facebook like isn't just a symbol with shared meaning. It has real life consequence. I don't know the specifics of how facebook's algorithms decide how posts get placed on people's newsfeeds, but it's obvious that one of the positive variables is how many likes it has. A post that has 3 likes will get more weight in that algorithm than one with 2. and one with 20 will get even more.
When viewed as a predicted consequence oriented action, a facebook like is my intention that whatever I like be seen by more people. When you click on a link with a click bait title, your view is counted and someone makes money from ads. The news company now has an even greater incentive to write click bait titles! When you click a link about Kim Kardashian you are voting for more articles to be written about her. When you read about the Westboro Baptists Churches rampant bigotry you are encouraging it. When you don't like the link that promotes kindness, bi-partisanship and understanding you're voting for it not to be seen. With every like, upvote, comment and click we are voting on the content of our public consciousness. Feel a little more weighty responsibility for your clicking?
It may seem obvious how this would apply to voting, but it's actually not. "Yes, I know EB, Votes are counted and whoever gets the most wins the election". Were that it were it so simple. Is that really what you predict the consequence of your vote to be? Have you put much thought into predicting it's consequences?
What is the meaning of a vote? Is it my way of saying this is the person I want to be president?
Without even getting into the problems associated with the ridiculously antiquated electoral college, If you're even halfway sane you probably don't particularly agree with either major party. You think that the partisan bickering our two-party system of red vs blue, us vs the enemy mentality, has devolved into is a bigger problem then either party individually or put together. Is there something that can be done to combat that problem?
Imagine you enter a room with two scales. You have one coin. Most people just toss their coin onto one main scale, but that doesn't mean you have to. The big one has tens of millions of coins on each side of the scale. If you use your coin there it's relative weight is fairly small compared to how many other coins there are. But there are some other scales in the room. One scale only needs 600,000 votes(5% of predicted voter turn out) to tip in it's favor. Your single coin has more weight as a percent of total weight on the scale than anywhere else. And even if the scale doesn't get to the 5% and tip, the more coins on it, the more it will impact the debate. It's hands down the most powerful use of your coin available to you.
If you live in a swing state, predict where your vote could sway the states delegates one way or the other, and think one of the two major parties candidates are the best man/woman for the job then by all means vote for them. In those circumstances, that would be a much more effective use of your vote than what I'm suggesting. Must of us, however, aren't in that position. In my years as a voter, I've voted in Washington State, Utah, and may vote in Tennessee in the upcoming. Washington was undoubtedly going to go democrat in 2004(Kerry), Utah was going to go Republican in 2008 (Mccain) and 2012(Romney) and I'm just going to call it now, Tennessee will go republican in 2016(as it has for the last 4 elections). If nothing drastic changes between now and election day I can with near 100 percent certainty predict that my vote will have a 0.000% chance of effecting which candidate my states delegates go to.
Now we come to the part of the post where I suggest a better use for your vote. Did you know that if a third party gets 5% of the popular vote(not even effected by the electoral college) then they retro-actively qualify for federally assisted campaign financing for that election AND qualify for the next election?
Now to, preempt some criticisms.
The common criticisms of voting third party go like this.
1. Third party candidates steal votes from one side of the major parties, dividing it's base and causing it to lose. AKA the spoiler theory. While not usually an issue, and it doesn't look to be one in the upcoming debate, there could be some legitimacy to this criticism in select cases. In 2000, there was an unprecedentedly close vote in Florida, When all the hanging chads were counted George Bush defeated Al Gore by 537 votes while third party candidate Ralph Nader, who was viewed as a left of center candidate, received 97,421 votes. Exit polls reported that 25% of Nader voters second option would have been Bush, 38% would have voted for Gore and the rest wouldn't have voted at all. Did Nader tip the scale in favor of Bush leading to a loss for liberals? It's a topic of much debate, but regardless, something THAT close is unlikely to happen again anytime soon. If it does appear that it could be that close again, then the voter should decide how much they dislike the opposing candidate and vote accordingly.
If you live in a swing state, the two main party candidates are neck and neck, and you prefer one over the other, then the best use of your vote will be to vote for that candidate. But that is rarely the case, is it the case for you?
2. It's throwing your vote away. That candidate doesn't have a chance of winning so you're wasting your vote. I think I've already rebutted this pretty soundly but I will note that the more people believe this, the more entrenched the two-party system is. Third parties are only un-viable because we believe that everyone else believes that they are. The only way to end that belief is to break ranks.
To bring things full circle, I've highlighted that a vote is a consequence oriented action, but it's also a symbolic one.
The republicans aren't what's wrong with the country. The democrats aren't what's wrong with the country. They both are and the system that supports them.
I voted for Gary Johnson in 2012 and I may be voting for Jill Stein in 2016, Not because I want either to become president(safe to say they won't), but because, as I've argued, it was the most utilitarian use of my vote towards improving our country. I also did it because of it's symbolic power.
Without further ado, I give you, 6 reasons to vote third party(doesn't even matter which).
1. Because a third party vote is a vote against the two-party system. And the two-party system is a worse disease(and a more treatable one) than either party within it.
2. A third party vote is a vote to expand the overton window and broaden the national discourse
3. To really get rid of the two-party system we'd need voting reform(get rid of first past the post). By voting third party you'll be encouraging that debate.
4. I get to vote against mudslinging attack ads, public interest subverting super-pacs, fear mongering rhetoric and that just has personal moral significance.
5. Unless you live in a swing state, it's the only way your vote will matter anyways.
6. I get to say I didn't vote for the clowns everyone else keeps putting into office, which is it's own reward.
What do I predict the actual outcome of my vote will be? Negligible. Small, unlikely to tip any scales at all, but It has a better chance here than anywhere else, so that's where it goes.So join me by casting the most powerful vote available to you in 2016 by voting third-party and encouraging reform that might actually matter.
Comments
Post a Comment