I think half an hour to go and vote is probably more effective than half an hour of loudly proclaiming, but I can’t think of a test for this. Perhaps look at elections where the vote showed that what people wanted was different from what the media said people wanted, and then see which way the parties moved.
I think half an hour to go and vote is probably more effective than half an hour of loudly proclaiming
The problem is that the party, when considering whether to change policies, has no idea who voted for/against it for which reason. All it knows is that it gained or lost certain number of voters (of certain demographics) in between two elections.
If issue Z is highly important to you and you vote on the basis of the party’s attitude to it, how does the party know this if the only thing you do is silently drop your ballot?
If issue Z is highly important to you and you vote on the basis of the party’s attitude to it, how does the party know this if the only thing you do is silently drop your ballot?
Provided that one exists. And provided that it isn’t completely screwed up about issues A to Y. And provided you are willing to sacrifice the rest of your political signaling power to a signal about Z.
If you’re lucky enough to be in a country with preferential voting, there’s usually a handful of 3rd parties with various policies (with published preferences so you know where the vote will ‘actually’ end up). So you’ll at least have the opportunity to cast a few bits of information, rather than a single bit.
I think half an hour to go and vote is probably more effective than half an hour of loudly proclaiming, but I can’t think of a test for this. Perhaps look at elections where the vote showed that what people wanted was different from what the media said people wanted, and then see which way the parties moved.
The problem is that the party, when considering whether to change policies, has no idea who voted for/against it for which reason. All it knows is that it gained or lost certain number of voters (of certain demographics) in between two elections.
If issue Z is highly important to you and you vote on the basis of the party’s attitude to it, how does the party know this if the only thing you do is silently drop your ballot?
Vote for a third party that cares about Z.
Provided that one exists. And provided that it isn’t completely screwed up about issues A to Y. And provided you are willing to sacrifice the rest of your political signaling power to a signal about Z.
If you’re lucky enough to be in a country with preferential voting, there’s usually a handful of 3rd parties with various policies (with published preferences so you know where the vote will ‘actually’ end up). So you’ll at least have the opportunity to cast a few bits of information, rather than a single bit.
Obligatory Ken the Voting Dingo comic about how it’s not possible to waste your vote: http://chickennation.com/website_stuff/cant-waste-vote/web-700-cant-waste-vote-SINGLE-IMAGE.png “I’ll look into this ‘hugs’”
I must say I appreciate the comic which starts with “It’s me, your good friend Dennis the Erection Koala” :-D
On the other hand if you actually do care about conveying bits of information, there are much more effective ways than voting.
Ah yes, you’re right. That clearly weakens the effect of voting substantially.