Merkins 2012

[Rhinoqulous]

Victus wrote

No I'm not. I'm saying that it's irrational for individuals to vote as long as large numbers of others are also voting. If everyone stopped voting, voting would become entirely rational. But that's not going to happen, because more people are statistically illiterate and get the feelies from voting. So why not take advantage of the prevailing equilibrium?

So, voting is irrational because each single vote is meaningless, especially if the vote would be for the losing side. Does that mean any instance of speech that falls in the minority it is more rational to remain silent (as voting is an form of speech)?

But their individual votes wouldn't have changed anything, so its rational to stay home.

But, if everyone uses this rational, then everyone would stay home, making their individual vote count, meaning they should go vote (on the off chance no one shows up to vote).

Nope. The difference being the corporations and rock banks are voluntary associations; you join them. Not so for governments.

A government is still a collective, and in a democracy each person is supposed to have equal say. Obviously we do not have this now, but junking the entire system seems to be a bit reactionary and short sighted.

It's not terribly complicated. There are 3 main options for decision making: dictatorship (one individual decides for everyone), democracy (majority decides for everyone) and markets (everyone decides for themselves). I advocate the latter as the best option, and the democracy as distant 2nd best in a limited few circumstances where markets are theoretically impossible.

I really don't see how markets mean everyone decides for themselves when it comes to governance. You don't decide for yourself what is available to purchase, you make a decision based on what is offered. In democracy, anyone can decide to run for office and be part of government (though this "anyone" becomes limited in higher office because the costs involved have spiraled out of control, it's not a perfect system and needs to be fixed). If markets control everything, what's to stop some mega corporation taking control of the roads and banning competing corporations from using them? What's to stop a mega-church from taking over the schools in a state and deciding to stop teaching most of the sciences, as it disagrees with their beliefs?

*checks to watch*

Time to Godwin's Law, 2 posts.

Let's see, you believe education is a privilege of the rich and democracy should be abolished in favor of corporations (the market) becoming the ruling class. It's not Godwin's law when you actually support Fascism (or possibly Feudalism, it could be either).

[nkb]

It's only Godwin's Law when you specifically mention Hitler, or make it obvious, in some other way, that you are talking about him.

However, I remember many years ago we discussed fascism, and I remember you (Rhino) defining it as government run by the corporations. Is that what you're referring to, and, if so, do you have a source that defines it that way?

I couldn't find one, but then I didn't spend a lot of time looking.

[Irreligious]

Philboid Studge wrote

I thought this was a very good line because I'd read 'antiseptic,' which, following the 'don't listen to the Canadian' dig was very punny indeed.

But antisceptic? Typo?

No. I wish I could take credit for being that clever, but I'm just a bad speller. I meant to type "antiseptic."

[Rhinoqulous]

I think the actual term is "Fascist Corporatism", where political loyalty is controlled through the economy (Vote how we tell you or you're out of work). Think Italy in WWII, where corporations gained complete control of the economy and had unparallelled influence of State Affairs (all with the backing of the Catholic Church, I might add). It was claimed that Corporate Rule would result in a harmony and uphold individual Liberty. It ended up being the source of the term Totalitarian.

[Victus]

Rhinoqulous wrote

So, voting is irrational because each single vote is meaningless

Yes, because the probability that your vote will affect the outcome approaches zero.

Rhino wrote

especially if the vote would be for the losing side.

Nope, voting is irrational regardless of whether your side wins or loses.

Rhino wrote

Does that mean any instance of speech that falls in the minority it is more rational to remain silent (as voting is an form of speech)?

See above for why this is a non-starter.

Rhino wrote

But, if everyone uses this rational, then everyone would stay home, making their individual vote count, meaning they should go vote (on the off chance no one shows up to vote).

But not everyone uses this rationale (the mathematically accurate rationale); indeed, few do. The average person doesn't have enough knowledge of statistics to reach this conclusion Beyond that, many people have an emotional attachment to voting, and even if that fails, there's always peer pressure - voting is something that socially respectable people do.

So, again, why not let the statistically illiterate vote and enjoy the prevailing equilibrium from the comfort of my house?

Rhino wrote

A government is still a collective

But an involuntary collective, one people are forced into. That's not as good a starting point for consensus as, say, a group of like-minded people coming together for a common goal, as is the case in corporations or rock bands.

Rhino wrote

and in a democracy each person is supposed to have equal say.

They do. And as a result, the weight of any individual vote is approximately zero. So voting, in a functioning democracy, is irrational.

Rhino wrote

Obviously we do not have this now

Can you point to some policies that were highly unpopular when they passed (let's say < 35% support)?

Rhino wrote

but junking the entire system seems to be a bit reactionary and short sighted.

It's only short sighted if it provides some benefit. I'm not convinced it does.

Rhino wrote

I really don't see how markets mean everyone decides for themselves when it comes to governance.

Markets aren't a form of governance; they peel back what is governed.

Rhino wrote

You don't decide for yourself what is available to purchase

Retailers sell A) what exists and B) what consumers demand.

On its best day, democracy couldn't hope to achieve that level of effectiveness in satisfying individual preferences.

Rhino wrote

you make a decision based on what is offered.

And retailers offer what they think you will want. The retailers that make the best guesses win your business.

Rhino wrote

In democracy, anyone can decide to run for office and be part of government (though this "anyone" becomes limited in higher office because the costs involved have spiraled out of control, it's not a perfect system and needs to be fixed).

And your 'purchase' in a democracy is weighted against every other voters' preferences, such that any individuals' preferences are indistinguishable from zero. In a market, if I want a jug of orange juice, I can go buy some; I can even specify the specific type and amount I want, and to an extent, how much I pay for it. My preference is weighted at 100% in the decision.

In a democracy, my preference for orange juice is weighted at next to zero. There's no point in even going to the store.

Rhino wrote

If markets control everything, what's to stop some mega corporation taking control of the roads and banning competing corporations from using them?

There are always multiple routes between two points. If one company blocks the optimal route between two points (at the cost of buying and maintaining this path while decreasing traffic), its competitors can either take the next-most optimal route (and whoever owns that road would profit from it) or they can invest in building their own optimal-adjacent road.

The road-owner that discriminates least gets the most traffic, the most money, and therefore survives competition best.

Rhino wrote

What's to stop a mega-church from taking over the schools in a state and deciding to stop teaching most of the sciences, as it disagrees with their beliefs?

Nothing. And as soon as they did, and assuming parents actually want a non-religious education for their kids, then science schools would start opening statewide so as to cater to consumer demands, because there's money to be made.

Rhino wrote

Let's see, you believe education is a privilege of the rich

I'm pretty sure I've actually refuted this earlier.

Rhino wrote

and democracy should be abolished in favor of corporations (the market) becoming the ruling class.

How would they be the 'ruling class'?

Rhino wrote

It's not Godwin's law when you actually support Fascism (or possibly Feudalism, it could be either).

I guess we could take the test and see which of our views are more consistent with fascism. I can make up a chart if you post your coordinates.

[Victus]

nkb wrote

It's only Godwin's Law when you specifically mention Hitler, or make it obvious, in some other way, that you are talking about him.

"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches."

Calling me a fascist would seem to fall under that header, wouldn't?

[Irreligious]

Victus wrote

Exactly. You value voting in the same way a shamen might value doing a rain dance. It matters not whether your vote at all affects the outcome, or whether dancing brings rain, although both of you may or may not profess a belief that you're each 'doing' something to affect your world.

Wrong.

Your contemptible analogy would make sense if voting, unlike dancing for rain, was entirely unconnected to the outcome of an election. But a tally of actual votes cast is the only way to determine the outcome of an election. So, your analogy fails.

Victus wrote

Which is what I said. You get more out of an election, emotion/entertainment wise, when you win compared to when you lose. And you seem to believe that voting makes a difference in that outcome.

Clearly, you are not saying what I'm saying. You think an election is supposed to be about you getting what you want, regardless of the fact that there are other voters participating in an election who may not want what you want.

Victus wrote

Again, my values don't even enter into it. It's just math. After receiving a negative prognosis from a doctor, it is as though you would respond, "Well those are your values, not mine!!!".

More bad analogies from Vic. You used math to show that a single vote is 'statistically" insignificant in determining the outcome of an election and that makes you the equivalent of a doctor handing some patient a negative prognosis?

As individual human beings, each of us is statistcally irrelevant to the overall survival of the human species. Should we all just kill ourselves right now because you can do the math that would give us the negative prognosis regarding our own individual worth, Dr. Spock?

And dude, this is about your values. You value getting what you want over participating in a collective process, and it's consistent with almost everything you've posted on this forum.

Victus wrote

Imagine a world where, immediately after voting, your ballot fell into a hidden incinerator. Your vote has a 0% chance of affecting the outcome of the election. Would voting make sense in such a world? If your answer is no, then you have to explain why the world we live in, where your vote has a 0% chance of affecting the outcome, is different from such a world.

Why would I even entertain this half-baked analogy of yours? It's just another failure. As far as I know, my vote is not incinerated, but counted along with the millions of others cast.

Victus wrote

Absolutely. If you want to see value in dancing for rain, it's totally up to you, shaman. Just don't be surprised when I mock you for your ignorance of hydrodynamics.

But you haven't demonstrated at all that I am dancing for rain when I vote. You just threw that very bad analogy out there as if it were actually worth something. If that amuses you and makes you feel superior, well, I don't have any control over your "feelies."

Victus wrote

Then what's the point of voting?

I told you already in my last posting, Victus. You don't value having a say amongst the many others in the collective; you're a party of one and you want to control the whole enchilada, so it doesn't make sense to you.

Victus wrote

Markets.

There are losers in the free market. The winners count on it.

Victus wrote

If the outcome isn't determined by whether or not you participate, do you really have a say, or just the appearance of a say?

If I cast a vote, I have a say.

Victus wrote

Miles better than in a democracy.

That's your feeling.

Victus wrote

I deny that there are necessarily losers in a market.

Of course you do, but that does not change the facts.

Victus wrote

The value of each grain of sand increases as its share of the beach increases. When you have a fully stocked beach, individual grains are worthless. Likewise, when you have millions of statistically-illiterate fools willing to vote, your individual vote is worthless.

Man, I'm glad you're Canadian.

Victus wrote

I value democracy for its palliative effect of giving the statistically-illiterate the appearance of providing input. I don't value it much beyond dictatorship as a means of satisfying individual preferences.

Yes, you've made your values pretty clear here.

Victus wrote

Does this apply to theists who put their emotional attachment to irrational beliefs above their capacity to reason their way out of them as well?

You mean, as opposed to some arrogant jackel who sincerely believes nothing has value unless he can have his way and when he wants it?

Victus wrote

But they do have access to the vote, and vote by the millions. And as such, voting remains irrational if your goal is to affect the outcome.

You know, you have not swayed many minds here since you started openly preaching your religion. So why do it, if it's not resulting in a satisfactory outcome for you? All you seem to be getting from the exercise is something that, apparently, feels good to you, which is strange, since you're, otherwise, so down on the "feelies."

[Irreligious]

Victus wrote

And in a democracy, the individual choice doesn't matter. The outcome is the same whether the individual expresses their choice or not.

Yeah. You don't always get what you want in a democracy. How horrible is that?

Victus wrote

I never claimed you were. But are you voting to affect the outcome of the election? When you vote do you vote for a particular party to help them win?

Once again, all I am doing when I vote is exercising my voice. Sometimes it aligns with the voices of enough other voters and my choice prevails (thanks to me and all the others who voted similarly), and sometimes it doesn't.

I have one vote, and that's all I can control. I do not live under any illusion that I am owed more than that.

Victus wrote

No, its worse than that. When you vote, you presume some measure of control over other peoples' lives (albeit, at the highly discounted rate necessitated by the statistics).

Well, if you really believe this, you can finally stop blaming me for philosophically supporting policies you don't like and think are detrimental. Otherwise, it sounds like you're trying to have your cake and eat it, too.

Victus wrote

And your vote has zero effect on the outcome. So why vote at all if you care about the outcome?

For the same reasons I don't commit suicide right now, even though my individual existence has no outsized bearing on the fate of the mass of humanity. I'm still here. I have a voice and I'm free to add it to the mix. And, yes, it feels good to have even that tiny amount of power, what you would call a zero effect.

Why ain't you dead yet?

Victus wrote

What biases? All I've done on this front is present a straight-forward statistical argument that your individual vote doesn't affect the outcome.

Your bias is that is you believe that this is the only valid way through which to view the value of casting a vote. You do tend to have a binary way of viewing the world. That is, in black-and-white terms, which would appear to be the basis for many of your stated biases throughout this forum.

Victus wrote

Definitely.

Poor Victus. He must not lose. Ever. Even though, like everybody else on the planet, sometimes he will, whether he's sitting idly by poo-pooing a democracy in which he refuses to participate or playing his own individual hand in the free market.

Victus wrote

That's understandable if you're a democratic fundamentalist, such as yourself.

Hmm. It sounds like you're trying to insult me but, somehow, I don't feel insulted.

Victus wrote

I don't. Why would I need a consensus when I can just do what I want instead?

My goodness. You're probably younger than I even realize.

Victus wrote

It doesn't have anything to with what I value, only what is true. It is objectively false that individual votes matter in determining the outcome of an election, based on the math.

OK. We've already had this argument and it doesn't look like it's going anywhere, per usual.

Whaddaya say we end it now, since I think we both have made our points already, and all we're going to wind up doing now is bore the rest of our fellow posters to death with this nonsense?

[nkb]

Victus wrote

"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches."

Calling me a fascist would seem to fall under that header, wouldn't?

No, he could be comparing you to Mussolini, which is probably a more appropriate comparison, based on what he said about corporate fascism.

I vaguely remember having a discussion about the term "fascism", and I remembered Rhino defining it differently than I did. That's why I asked him for a source for his definition.

So, no, I don't think he was comparing you to Nazis or Hitler.

[Rhinoqulous]

Gotta love Victus, how he will contradict himself withing the space of a few inches. He claims there is nothing wrong with schools that decide to stop teaching science, because there will be other schools, elsewhere, that will teach science, if you can afford to go there. He than claims he doesn't believe education isn't a privilege of the rich. So if you're lucky enough to be born into a rich family, congratulations! You get to learn biology! If you're unlucky and constitute one of the millions born in a poorer, rural area, where there will be more likely to be church run (or at least highly influenced by church teachings) schools, you get to learn intelligent design. But maybe if you're lucky and mom and pop both take on a third job at $3/hr (but hey, at least they're employed! Hooray for the end of wage laws!) you might get to go to the school down the street run by Burger King, where you can learn just enough math to run a register! But don't think about driving to that job by the quickest route, those roads are owned by McDonalds. You have to drive an extra 45 miles on the BK roads (which of course, will be toll roads, but I'm sure you'll get a discount being a BK employee).

And I never called you a nazi or Hitler. I called you a fascist, and a feudalist, but you don't seem to mind that second one. Fascism didn't start, or end, with Nazi Germany, but who cares! Things like historical accuracy won't be important in our bright corporatist future! It's like when Wal-Mart freed the slaves and defeated Target in the civil war, the future is ours for the taking (terms and conditions apply, monthly fees may vary).

[Victus]

Irreligious wrote

Wrong.

Your contemptible analogy would make sense if voting, unlike dancing for rain, was entirely unconnected to the outcome of an election. But a tally of actual votes cast is the only way to determine the outcome of an election. So, your analogy fails.

Whether or not you as an individual engage in a rain dance doesn't make it rain. Similarly, whether or not you as an individual vote does not influence the outcome of the election. In both cases, the outcome would be the same if you just stayed in bed.

Irr wrote

Clearly, you are not saying what I'm saying. You think an election is supposed to be about you getting what you want, regardless of the fact that there are other voters participating in an election who may not want what you want.

Why shouldn't I prefer a system that satisfies individual preferences relative to one that doesn't?

Irr wrote

More bad analogies from Vic. You used math to show that a single vote is 'statistically" insignificant in determining the outcome of an election and that makes you the equivalent of a doctor handing some patient a negative prognosis?

You don't get how analogies work, do you?

Irr wrote

As individual human beings, each of us is statistcally irrelevant to the overall survival of the human species. Should we all just kill ourselves right now because you can do the math that would give us the negative prognosis regarding our own individual worth, Dr. Spock?

The overall human species isn't a goal requiring an action, like voting to affect the outcome of an election is.

Irr wrote

And dude, this is about your values. You value getting what you want over participating in a collective process, and it's consistent with almost everything you've posted on this forum.

Sure, and what kind of person doesn't want to get what they want?

Irr wrote

Why would I even entertain this half-baked analogy of yours? It's just another failure. As far as I know, my vote is not incinerated, but counted along with the millions of others cast.

If it were incinerated, would you even notice?

Irr wrote

But you haven't demonstrated at all that I am dancing for rain when I vote.

That's just basic statistics. In an election of any size, with even a slight skew in the polls, the odds of having the deciding vote are typically lower than the odds of winning the lottery.

Again, if you vote and only your vote was incinerated, would you even notice when the results were read?

Irr wrote

I told you already in my last posting, Victus. You don't value having a say amongst the many others in the collective; you're a party of one and you want to control the whole enchilada, so it doesn't make sense to you.

There is no collective.

Irr wrote

There are losers in the free market. The winners count on it.

Who are the losers?

Irr wrote

If I cast a vote, I have a say.

You have the appearance of a say, but not a say. Suppose you voted to declare war on China and send a man to the dark side of the sun, because, dammit, that's what you want the government to do. What are the odds the government is going to do those things? How much did your voting increase those odds by?

Yeah, zero.

Irr wrote

That's your feeling.

Did you want to argue that a system where the majority controls the actions of the individual will better preserve individual liberty than a system where individuals control their own actions?

Irr wrote

Of course you do, but that does not change the facts.

What facts?

Irr wrote

You mean, as opposed to some arrogant jackel who sincerely believes nothing has value unless he can have his way and when he wants it?

So you're going to side with the theists on the position of 'my beliefs are based on how they make me feel, rather than what I can prove or argue'? Interesting.

Irr wrote

You know, you have not swayed many minds here since you started openly preaching your religion. So why do it, if it's not resulting in a satisfactory outcome for you?

As I've repeatedly said, I find your irrationality amusing. I don't care whether I change your beliefs.

Irr wrote

All you seem to be getting from the exercise is something that, apparently, feels good to you, which is strange, since you're, otherwise, so down on the "feelies."

Where have I been down on doing things that entertain you? All throughout, I've merely been using that as an alternate description as to why people vote, since its obviously unrelated to a desire to influence the outcome of an election.

[Rhinoqulous]

I'd like to see all politicians decked out like this, left and right. Now THAT would be transparency.

[Victus]

Irreligious wrote

Yeah. You don't always get what you want in a democracy. How horrible is that?

Pretty horrible!

It seems like a good reason to supplant democracy with markets wherever possible. I want people to be get what they want out of life, don't you? What kind of terrible human being would support a system that doesn't give people what they want when alternatives systems exist that do? Certainly not I.

Irr wrote

Once again, all I am doing when I vote is exercising my voice. Sometimes it aligns with the voices of enough other voters and my choice prevails (thanks to me and all the others who voted similarly), and sometimes it doesn't.

And the outcomes would be the same regardless of whether you voted for the party you wanted, the party you hated, or stayed at home that day.

Irr wrote

I have one vote, and that's all I can control. I do not live under any illusion that I am owed more than that.

I am under the illusion that when I can get what I want on my own or by voluntarily interacting with others, I shouldn't need others' input on the matter.

Irr wrote

Well, if you really believe this, you can finally stop blaming me for philosophically supporting policies you don't like and think are detrimental. Otherwise, it sounds like you're trying to have your cake and eat it, too.

Nope. You're the equivalent of a guy pointing a gun at someone and pulling the trigger. That you're too ignorant to know that it's empty doesn't win you any points.

Irr wrote

Your bias is that is you believe that this is the only valid way through which to view the value of casting a vote. You do tend to have a binary way of viewing the world. That is, in black-and-white terms, which would appear to be the basis for many of your stated biases throughout this forum.

If my thinking were binary, I wouldn't be able to provide point estimates.

Irr wrote

Poor Victus. He must not lose. Ever. Even though, like everybody else on the planet, sometimes he will, whether he's sitting idly by poo-pooing a democracy in which he refuses to participate or playing his own individual hand in the free market.

What kind of person doesn't try to minimize their wins and minimize their losses?

Irr wrote

Hmm. It sounds like you're trying to insult me but, somehow, I don't feel insulted.

Then the label sticks, fundie!

Irr wrote

My goodness. You're probably younger than I even realize.

That doesn't answer my question at all.

[Victus]

nkb wrote

No, he could be comparing you to Mussolini, which is probably a more appropriate comparison, based on what he said about corporate fascism.

I vaguely remember having a discussion about the term "fascism", and I remembered Rhino defining it differently than I did. That's why I asked him for a source for his definition.

So, no, I don't think he was comparing you to Nazis or Hitler.

Ah ok, he's using his own weird little definition then.

Rhino wrote

Gotta love Victus, how he will contradict himself withing the space of a few inches. He claims there is nothing wrong with schools that decide to stop teaching science, because there will be other schools, elsewhere, that will teach science, if you can afford to go there.

Yep.

Rhino wrote

He than claims he doesn't believe education isn't a privilege of the rich.

Yep.

Now swap out school and education for grocery store and food. I think the market can handle the operation of grocery stores without food being the exclusive privileged of the wealthy. Same goes for education.

Rhino wrote

And I never called you a nazi or Hitler. I called you a fascist, and a feudalist, but you don't seem to mind that second one.

If by feudalism you mean one person renting land from another, I'm not sure I see a problem with it.

[Irreligious]

Victus wrote

Whether or not you as an individual engage in a rain dance doesn't make it rain. Similarly, whether or not you as an individual vote does not influence the outcome of the election. In both cases, the outcome would be the same if you just stayed in bed.

We've already been through this. Your analogy does not hold up.

Victus wrote

Why shouldn't I prefer a system that satisfies individual preferences relative to one that doesn't?

Because, like heaven and Jesus, there is no such system.

Victus wrote

You don't get how analogies work, do you?

No, I do.

Victus wrote

The overall human species isn't a goal requiring an action, like voting to affect the outcome of an election is.

And, yet, the only thing that affects the outcome of an election is votes.

Victus wrote

Sure, and what kind of person doesn't want to get what they want?

The better question is what kind person assumes they're entitled to everything they want?

Victus wrote

If it were incinerated, would you even notice?

Only if I were in the room while it was being incinerated.

Victus wrote

That's just basic statistics. In an election of any size, with even a slight skew in the polls, the odds of having the deciding vote are typically lower than the odds of winning the lottery.

How many times must I tell you that I don't vote with any assumption that mine is going to be the deciding vote? I'm not that self-centered though, apparently, you are. Mine is just one vote. I'm not trying to rule the world with it. I'm just having my say, like whole lot of other people in the collective who vote.

If it's all about you, why do you even live in society?

Victus wrote

Again, if you vote and only your vote was incinerated, would you even notice when the results were read?

This has already been answered above.

Victus wrote

There is no collective.

Yes, there is. Where I live, it's called the United States of America. And all of us who live here are under its jurisdiction. Collectively, we support it in various ways, just one of them being to cast a ballot at election time.

Victus wrote

Who are the losers?

The poor and the destitute would be the most obvious losers if your vaunted free market reigned without constraints or mitigation. Why are you asking such a silly question? Surely, you're not going to tell me that everybody's wants, needs and unproscribed preferences are going to be met under a pure free market system. Because you know you don't have any evidence for that claim.

Victus wrote

You have the appearance of a say, but not a say.

If I have a vote, I have a say. That's what a vote is.

Victus wrote

Suppose you voted to declare war on China and send a man to the dark side of the sun, because, dammit, that's what you want the government to do. What are the odds the government is going to do those things? How much did your voting increase those odds by?

Better question: What are the odds that a war would be put to a public referendum in the United States? You ask very dumb questions and it's annoying.

Victus wrote

Yeah, zero.

Says Victus. But, so what?

Victus wrote

Did you want to argue that a system where the majority controls the actions of the individual will better preserve individual liberty than a system where individuals control their own actions?

The latter does not exist as an absolute option.

Victus wrote

What facts?

The fact that there are "losers" in the market. They're called poor people, the ones you and Brick keep talking about throwing to wolves, remember?

Victus wrote

So you're going to side with the theists on the position of 'my beliefs are based on how they make me feel, rather than what I can prove or argue'? Interesting.

The usual trolls who call themselves theists when they post here have got nothing to do with this argument. This is about your religion, you faith in something that does not exist, which is an entirely benevolent market that gives you everything you want. That's a myth.

Victus wrote

As I've repeatedly said, I find your irrationality amusing. I don't care whether I change your beliefs.

So, the "feelies" are OK and perfectly rational only when the self-centered poster calling himself Victus indulges them? I see.

Victus wrote

Where have I been down on doing things that entertain you?

Don't pretend you're doing anything for me, because I know better than that.

Victus wrote

All throughout, I've merely been using that as an alternate description as to why people vote, since its obviously unrelated to a desire to influence the outcome of an election.

If you want a surefire way to influence the outcome of an election, hijack the ballots. Otherwise, suspend your dictator-like tendencies and accept that you have just one vote like everybody else who has a say in the system.