> Here's the supreme irony. Those who won't vote for Kucinich
> because they think he can't win justify that decision on the
> grounds of "not throwing your vote away," "supporting someone with
> a chance to win," or "casting an effective vote." All of these
> justifications reject voting as an expressive act ("the ballot as a
> place to make a statement") in favor of voting as a causally
> efficacious act. But a moment's reflection will reveal that one's
> individual vote has zero causal effect. Not only is it
> extraordinarily unlikely that an election will be decided by one
> vote, but given the uncertainties of any vote-counting mechanism,
> one's vote is necessarily within the statistical margin of vote-
> counting error. It is therefore IRRATIONAL to vote in order to
> have an effect, an a fortiori irrational to vote (on grounds of
> causal efficacy) for a candidate who has a chance rather than a
> candidate who does not. Ironically, those who invoke instrumental
> rationality as the reason for voting as they do are the most
> deluded of all. The argument for not voting is very strong. The
> argument for voting as an expressive act is much weaker, though
> perhaps viable. But no one should vote because they think their
> vote makes a difference, and no one should vote under the sway of
> the flawed argument that voting for one candidate has an effect
> while voting for another does not.
I don't think this is true if you can reasonably expect like-minded others to do the same.
Ted