Often, voters feel conflicted when they see one candidate as better for the country and the other as better for them personally. Which one should they pick? I think there’s a clear answer: they should pick the one that’s better for the country. Opting to vote for the candidate that’s better for oneself is both immoral and irrational. Even if you’re self-interested, it doesn’t make sense to vote self-interestedly.
>>538192247Voting at all gives the satanists your consent, and if you are too stupid to realize then that is your problem. No refunds, you vote for the raping of children.
>>538192247IrrationalIf you live in an extremely close swing state, the odds you’ll flip an election are below one in a million. We’ll be generous and assume the odds are one in a million. https://www.maximumtruth.org/p/deep-dive-is-voting-rational-in-swing Let’s assume the candidate who is better for you is way better for you. In fact, he’ll benefit you by $100,000 an unusually large amount. In this case, voting for him would benefit you by the equivalent of 10 cents. So voting in this scenario would be like walking all the way to the polling station and filling out your ballot just to collect a nickel. That would hardly pass any reasonable cost-benefit analysis.What if you’re so rich that the candidate would cut your taxes by ten million dollars? Even in this scenario, voting would only be equivalent to making ten dollars. Surely if you’re so rich that a candidate might cut your taxes by ten million dollars, you shouldn’t waste your time haggling over ten bucks!What if we assume the worst-case scenario? One of the candidates is literally going to kill you if he gets elected, it’s a razor-close election (pun intended, because he’ll kill you with razors), and you’re in a swing state. You have maybe forty years left of life about twenty million remaining minutes. Let’s say you spend a quarter of that time sleeping. Then you should vote if doing so takes less than fifteen minutes (for voting has a one in a million chance of adding fifteen million minutes to waking life). So even in this absurd homicidal scenario, voting probably wouldn’t pay off, if we factor in time spent registering and so on.In a local election, prospects might be a bit better. But generally speaking, the smaller an election is, the less benefit you get from the better candidate. If your vote has a one in ten-thousand chance of being decisive, even if the candidate would benefit you by $10,000, voting is equivalent to gaining $1 in expectation.
>>538192368Not exactly a great deal!So if you’re merely self-interested, it basically never makes sense to vote. However, if you’re concerned with the welfare of others, the equation changes. If the better candidate would benefit millions of people, their victory would be hugely important and make the time you lose by registering and filling out a ballot worthwhile. But if you only care about yourself, then voting isn’t worth it, because you don’t count the benefits to others.ImmoralVoting for the candidate that is better for you and worse for others is also transparently immoral.America is a large country (SOURCE???). It has about 340 million people. Morally, you’re arguably permitted to put your interests above others. But you aren’t permitted to weigh your interests 340 million times more than others’ interests. The average human life lasts about 2 billion seconds. So the scale at which you’d need to prioritize your interests over others to vote selfishly would also imply that you would prefer to extend your own life by 7 seconds rather than save the life of a baby. Note that this is conservative because it totally neglects the interests of all non-voters.Here is an analogy: imagine that there were 340 million people who were each on track to get $1,000 worth of goods, and you were one such person.1 However, you could also choose to get $2,000 while leaving no one else with anything. Surely that would be immoral. Similarly, it is immoral to vote self-interestedly, if this conflicts with voting for the better candidate. If your vote has any effect, it will make millions of people worse-off on net, even if it makes you better-off. You shouldn’t do that.This point is clearest in national elections, but it still basically holds in local elections. They’re still large enough that even if you’re pretty extreme in your prioritization of your own interests, you should still vote for the better candidate.
The basic reason you shouldn’t vote selfishly is that there are a lot of voters. This means your vote has a low probability of having an effect. It’s not worth it prudentially. And it’s immoral to prioritize your interests over those of millions of other people.
>>538192247this is my boy Monster
>>538192247can this be scaled up for niggers and jews?
>>538192247Voting is complete bullshit get rid of it
