Voting

[exnihilo]

The logic of that deduction escapes me.

Which section of the catechism gives you that idea?

The logic is simple. When you have large numbers then adding one more single unit becomes less important. It becomes extremely unlikely to change the results. It is like insisting on counting all the pennies in your house to calculate your net worth. That is what a vote is like in most elections that people consider it so important to vote in. The race for local dog catcher, where a single vote might possibly matter, is unimportant to them.

The catechism says:

“Submission to authority and co-responsibility for the common good make it morally obligatory to pay taxes, to exercise the right to vote, and to defend one’s country:”

It seems to suggest voting is a right. Voting as a right limits legitimate government to democracies. Had the catechism said ‘exercise the vote, where granted’ then it wouldn’t imply that democracy is the only form or legitimate form of government.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The logic is simple. When you have large numbers then adding one more single unit becomes less important. It becomes extremely unlikely to change the results. It is like insisting on counting all the pennies in your house to calculate your net worth. That is what a vote is like in most elections that people consider it so important to vote in.

While it is true that any one vote has an effect inversely proportional to the number of votes cast, each vote is just as significant as any other vote. But the deduction was supposed to show that “voting is meaningless”. That you have not shown. If a large portion of the population believed that voting was meaningless, the outcome of the election is very likely to change, proving that it was not meaningless. A very small number is not the same as zero. And when many small numbers are added up, you can get a very large number. But when many zeroes are added up, you still get zero. That is the significant difference between zero and a very small number.

The catechism says:

“Submission to authority and co-responsibility for the common good make it morally obligatory to pay taxes, to exercise the right to vote, and to defend one’s country:”

It seems to suggest voting is a right. Voting as a right limits legitimate government to democracies. Had the catechism said ‘exercise the vote, where granted’ then it wouldn’t imply that democracy is the only form or legitimate form of government.

You are applying that section of the catechism to the wrong group. That section was directed at citizens, not at government leaders. It is telling us that we we are morally obliged to pay our taxes. It is not telling government leaders that they must levy taxes. If a government thinks it can get by with little or no taxes, that is not against Church teaching. Similarly, we as citizens are taught by the catechism that we have a moral duty to exercise the right to vote, for those countries that have voting. If a country does not have voting, it is no sin on the part of the citizens or the rulers, unless those rulers are simultaneously acting contrary to the common good. Requiring the qualifier ‘exercise the vote, where granted’, would mean you would also insist on the qualifier ‘pay your taxes when levied’. If you are willing to assume the second qualifier, why are are unwilling to assume the first one? As it stands, the catechism seems to favor governments that collect taxes over governments that do not - according to your interpretation of the catechism.

 

[exnihilo]

While it is true that any one vote has an effect inversely proportional to the number of votes cast, each vote is just as significant as any other vote. But the deduction was supposed to show that “voting is meaningless”. That you have not shown. If a large portion of the population believed that voting was meaningless, the outcome of the election is very likely to change, proving that it was not meaningless. A very small number is not the same as zero. And when many small numbers are added up, you can get a very large number. But when many zeroes are added up, you still get zero. That is the significant difference between zero and a very small number.

Each vote is not significant. As I pointed out during recounts the total vote almost always changes. So some vote is not being counted at all during the various tallies. If the election is close the courts will intervene to determine which votes are to be counted and how. The significant vote is the one that decides the election. In the US with first past the post elections the only vote that really matters is the one that gets a person past the post. If you vote for the loser of the election your vote didn’t have any significance. If you are the three hundred thousandth vote past the post for the winner your vote had no significance.

I’m not saying an election doesn’t determine who wins an office. I’m saying for the individual your vote is statistically meaningless. You are better off doing something else other than voting. It’s like the lottery. Someone will win the lottery. Someone will win millions of dollars. But it is very unlikely to be you. You can spend your money on it but I think there are better uses for it and your time. Many people don’t think much about those who play the lottery thinking they’ll win but don’t apply the same thinking to the act of voting.

You are applying that section of the catechism to the wrong group. That section was directed at citizens, not at government leaders. It is telling us that we we are morally obliged to pay our taxes. It is not telling government leaders that they must levy taxes. If a government thinks it can get by with little or no taxes, that is not against Church teaching. Similarly, we as citizens are taught by the catechism that we have a moral duty to exercise the right to vote, for those countries that have voting. If a country does not have voting, it is no sin on the part of the citizens or the rulers, unless those rulers are simultaneously acting contrary to the common good. Requiring the qualifier ‘exercise the vote, where granted’, would mean you would also insist on the qualifier ‘pay your taxes when levied’. If you are willing to assume the second qualifier, why are are unwilling to assume the first one? As it stands, the catechism seems to favor governments that collect taxes over governments that do not - according to your interpretation of the catechism.

I’m not applying the catechism to any group. I’m saying it uses the phrase ‘right to vote’. Those words without qualification suggest there exists a right to vote. It naturally follows if there is no right to vote that any such government is deficient and possibly illegitimate as it deprives citizens of a right.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

In the US with first past the post elections the only vote that really matters is the one that gets a person past the post. If you vote for the loser of the election your vote didn’t have any significance. If you are the three hundred thousandth vote past the post for the winner your vote had no significance.

That is an arbitrary intuitive understanding. It has no mathematical significance. The order in which the votes are cast is irrelevant. Only the total matters. Thinking of votes as coming in sequentially is an imaginary way of looking at things.

I’m not applying the catechism to any group. I’m saying it uses the phrase ‘right to vote’. Those words without qualification suggest there exists a right to vote.

Not true. Any more than “duty to pay your taxes” assumes that every country should have taxes.

 

[exnihilo]

That is an arbitrary intuitive understanding. It has no mathematical significance. The order in which the votes are cast is irrelevant. Only the total matters. Thinking of votes as coming in sequentially is an imaginary way of looking at things.

The order absolutely does matter to the individual. It doesn’t matter to the overall vote. If there are a thousand voters and nine hundred ninety nine have all voted and all voted one way then your vote would have no meaning. You may not know this but not having knowledge of this reality doesn’t make it not true. This is precisely why people get upset when news agencies call an election early. It takes away from the myth of every vote counts.

Not true. Any more than “duty to pay your taxes” assumes that every country should have taxes.

So I’m to understand ‘right to vote’ in the catechism as ‘right to vote if the government has granted you this right’? Such a way of looking at it eviscerates the whole concept of rights.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The order absolutely does matter to the individual. It doesn’t matter to the overall vote. If there are a thousand voters and nine hundred ninety nine have all voted and all voted one way then your vote would have no meaning. You may not know this but not having knowledge of this reality doesn’t make it not true.

It is a totally artificial reality. I could just as easily imagine the votes being counted in a different order.

This is precisely why people get upset when news agencies call an election early. It takes away from the myth of every vote counts.

That is a valid point. In that case voting on the East coast has a different effect than voting on the West coast. But that is an ancillary feature of US elections. If this were a smaller country that fit into one time zone, this would not be too much of a factor. Anyway, it is not a feature of voting so much as it is a feature of polling and media reporting about voting. Each vote does count.

So I’m to understand ‘right to vote’ in the catechism as ‘right to vote if the government has granted you this right’? Such a way of looking at it eviscerates the whole concept of rights.

That section of the catechism was not about rights. It was about responsibilities. The wording could just as well have been “Submission to authority and co-responsibility for the common good make it morally obligatory to pay taxes, to vote in elections, and to defend one’s country:” Using the phrase “right to vote” in a section that is specific labelled as “Duties of Citizens” is not an explicit endorsement of that particular way of running a state, especially considering that such endorsement is missing from the section where you would expect to see it - namely, sections 2235 - 2237, entitled “Duties of Civil Authorities”. To save you the trouble of looking them up, I will quote them here:
*
2235 Those who exercise authority should do so as a service. "Whoever would be great among you must be your servant."41 The exercise of authority is measured morally in terms of its divine origin, its reasonable nature and its specific object. No one can command or establish what is contrary to the dignity of persons and the natural law.

2236 The exercise of authority is meant to give outward expression to a just hierarchy of values in order to facilitate the exercise of freedom and responsibility by all. Those in authority should practice distributive justice wisely, taking account of the needs and contribution of each, with a view to harmony and peace. They should take care that the regulations and measures they adopt are not a source of temptation by setting personal interest against that of the community.42

2237 Political authorities are obliged to respect the fundamental rights of the human person. They will dispense justice humanely by respecting the rights of everyone, especially of families and the disadvantaged.
The political rights attached to citizenship can and should be granted according to the requirements of the common good. They cannot be suspended by public authorities without legitimate and proportionate reasons. Political rights are meant to be exercised for the common good of the nation and the human community.*

If there was an endorsement of elected representative government above other forms of government, this is where they would be. You are reading way to much into the mere use of a word that is not even the focus of the sentence.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Love it!