They Also Serve Who Do Not Vote
I'd like to have a word with some of you voters before Election Day. Today, George W. Bush has around a 25% approval rating. In both his elections he got about 50% of the vote. This means about half the people who voted for him no longer like him. If you're in this group, I'm writing to you. You now understand that you made a mistake. You had two chances to avoid the lesser candidate and both times you got it wrong. Isn't it time to consider the possibility that you are just not very good at this voting thing?
We all complain about the lousy job our President has done and the mess this country is in. But if you helped put Bush in the Oval Office, you need to accept some responsibility for what he did there. If you give a laptop computer to a monkey, and the monkey smashes it on a rock, it doesn't make much sense for you to yell at the monkey. Even if the monkey reached out for it. Even if you asked the monkey, "Are you sure you know how to work this?" and he nodded enthusiastically.
I'm not trying to make you feel bad. There's no point in beating yourself up. The issues of our day are complicated. Voting well is hard. It's a skill, like anything else. You just don't have it. And given that, maybe you should sit this next one out.
There's no shame in being a bad voter. We're all bad at something. At most things. I stink at gardening, chess, speaking French, and figure skating. Do I feel bad about it? No. I just avoid those activities.
I also stink at basketball. In high school I didn't even try out for the team. That didn't mean I lacked school spirit. I liked the team. I went to games and cheered and rooted for them to win. I knew that the best thing I could do to help was to never touch a basketball.
"But," You may object. "Don't we all have the right to vote?" Of course we do. We also have the right to sing, but sit at any Karaoke night for a couple hours and tell me if you still think every right should be exercised by every person.
You probably see a lot of ads that say "Vote!" but those aren't for you. Those ads are only meant for people who know how to vote. Just like Chevy ads are only for people who know how to drive.
Not voting takes no time at all. You can not vote right up until the end of Election Day. Even if you've moved recently. Even if your driver's license has expired. There are many places to not vote so the lines are short.
I'm not saying you can never vote again. If you want to improve and work hard, I'm sure you can. But don't start with a presidential election. That's like trying a Rachmaninoff concerto for your first piano lesson. That's not how it's done. You start with Chopsticks and work your way up. So it is with voting. Start small. Maybe you and a group of friends can vote over what movie to watch. Did you pick a good one? If so try to pick an alderman or mayor. If your pick gets elected, watch them a few years and see how well you did. If it turns out you voted well, maybe move up to choosing a state legislator. Go slowly.
But for right now, just accept yourself as you are and take a break from voting. Next Tuesday, go straight home from work and watch the returns come in, secure in the knowledge that you did your part to not mess up the outcome. Be proud of yourself for being a good citizen. By not doing it a disservice, you will have done your country a great service.
I'm sure whoever is reading this to you will agree. And they and I and people all over the world offer you in advance our deepest gratitude.
I hope my mom and sisters read this.
Thanks for an awesome post. While I don't recommend "not voting", you have a very valid point.
October 29, 2008 10:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Brilliant :)
October 29, 2008 10:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely fabulous, DK. I just tried reading this aloud to a friend and had to stop because I was laughing so hard. THANKS!
October 29, 2008 10:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ha! I have a friend, a two-time Bush voter I'd send this to if I didn't think she'd never talk to me again.
October 29, 2008 10:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are wise, Hilary. Earlier today I sent the MoveOn personalized video to an otherwise-than-politically sophisticated conservative southern friend of mine. I thought the video was hilarious, and that sending it to someone I know will never vote for Obama was a way of saying "You and I don't agree, but we can laugh about it."
Uhmm, maybe not. Within a half hour I got three reply emails that escalated incrementally in fury. Stick with your instincts. (But do see the video.)
October 29, 2008 11:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, forgot the link:
http://www.cnnbcvideo.com/taf.shtml?hp=1
October 29, 2008 11:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Advertising experts warn against using humor, as it is so often misunderstood.
October 30, 2008 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mail it anonymously.
Or maybe sign Des' name. That'd be cool too.
October 29, 2008 11:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
don't be such a chicken! anyway you probably have plenty of other friends! (i need lots of attention.) although before you send, you should reread the last paragraph which is now even meaner! (i cut it and friends protested so i put it back.)
October 30, 2008 2:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Quinn ain't no chicken.
I ought to knoiw.
October 30, 2008 7:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hilarious. Jon Stewart should read it on the Daily Show.
October 29, 2008 11:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fun. Here's a hint for remedial voter education. When you're choosing a movie, if you vote for Beverly Hills Chihuahua, you're not ready to vote for mayor.
October 29, 2008 11:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know, unless you're voting for Barack. In which case, never mind.
October 29, 2008 11:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know this post was meant in fun. Nevertheless, let's do the math carefully:
Voter turn out in 2004 was 55.3%
Votes for Bush in 2004 were 50.74%
Therefore, 28% of the eligible voters voted for Bush in 2004. (A similar argument shows this number to be 24.6% in 2000.) These numbers are so close to his present approval rating that, assuming the approval rating polls accurately reflects the voting public, the logical conclusion is that only those who voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004 are left as the true believers.
Quite a different conclusion when you apply the math correctly. Does this spoil the joke? Sure it does. But it does give us a good argument for improving the school system.
October 30, 2008 5:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just because the math works, doesn't mean it's true. (There are a lot of examples in physics where you can get the "correct" answer from faulty equations.)
Actually, if I had to guess, I'd wager that a large percentage of those who still approve of Bush are too lazy to get out and vote. I personally know several people who voted for Bush who do not approve of the job he's doing. In fact, at least one of them didn't approve of the job he was doing when he voted for him because he thought Kerry was even worse.
October 30, 2008 6:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ben,
Actually it is you that doesn't have the correct equations. Conditional probabilities must be multiplied out, not subtracted.
Moreover, Dan doesn't even recognize this is a conditional probability problem so he doesn't even formulate it this way.
And as you know from your quantum mechanical studies, an individual matters not, it's the aggregate statistics.
May I suggest, grasshopper, that you keep your emotionalism out of your calculations? As a good scientist, you must go where the data leads -- not just say: mustn't work because I don't like the answer. You just added a bunch of other potential conditions -- which may or may not be valid but
a) you provide no data
b) you didn't try to fight Dan's calculation in this same way.
In other words, you aggressively tried to reject the model I offered because in your gut you liked the conclusion, even though it is obviously more accurate (because it is logical and internally consistent) rather than Dan's which was poorly conceived and constructed wrong, even for the most simple case (e.g. neglecting the conditional probability).
Were I on your thesis committee, I would have to reject (though not denounce ;-)) that type of work.
October 30, 2008 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, in my defense, I wasn't really providing a model, but a guess based on nothing more than truthiness. I thought I was being open about that, but I suppose following my mention of physics, it'd be easy to misunderstand the certainty inherent in my guess.
My main point was that you also didn't provide any proof, just that the numbers add up (or multiply out) a certain way. As for Dan's calculation, I took it as a joke, so I didn't think it needed any serious defense/refutation.
You will acknowledge, however, that however suggestive you might find it, your math doesn't prove your thesis, won't you?
October 30, 2008 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, Ben, the conditional probabilities align. My argument is sound... it is yours that is based literally on nothing.
I actually provided proof. The fact is that approval ratings are based on the number of people in the country eligible to vote, not the people in the country who voted. The latter number is smaller than the first in a non-trivial way.
What's even more impressive is that the number suggest my conclusion. Your argument is "well, I just can't believe that."
Teach theology if that's where your tastes lie!
I'm truly surprised by your inability to letting the fact run here.
October 30, 2008 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, you did not provide proof. You provided math. Let's say I have a group of people. X% of them can be described by A (e.g., they vote), Y% of the X% can be described by B (e.g., they voted for Bush), and Z% of them can be described by C (e.g., they approve of Bush). Now, if X*Y = Z, does that mean these are the same groups? No, it doesn't. It might be suggestive, but it doesn't count as evidence. At least, it doesn't count as anything more than circumstantial evidence.
And, yes, mine was based on nothing more than my gut. (Did you know your gut has more nerves than your brain?) I admitted initially that it was a guess. I then said again that it was a guess. However, that I know people who didn't bother to vote for Bush, but who still support him is as valid evidence that your theory is wrong (but not that my guess is right) as is your mathematical evidence that your theory is right. Consider it anecdotal evidence vs. circumstantial evidence. Neither one is very convincing, which was my primary point. You don't need to mention again that my guess is faulty. I know it is. I'm not trying to provide a dissertation here. My point is that your hypothesis is faulty, as well. ;)
October 30, 2008 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Go Ben, It's your Birthday........
You rock!
October 30, 2008 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually CT, there's three problems with your calculations.
First, you are basing the voting rates of eligible citizens on faulty data that doesn't take into account only voting age citizens who are eligible to vote. Try this census report from Election 2004:
72% of eligible voters were registered to vote
63.8 % of eligible voters actually voted (the actual turnout rate, not 50.74%)
88.5% of registered voters actually voted.
Second, the people who respond to polls (particularly political polls) tend to be the type of folks that are MORE likely to be registered and have voted in the past. In fact many polls are weighted to smoke as close as possible to the probable electorate (you know folks who actually vote). You'd have to drill down to the poll details to answer that question. Checkout this most recent CBS/NYT poll:
Approval rating for GWB 24%
Sample size = 1,070. Registered voters = 972
Which means 91% of folks sampled in the poll are registered voters. Compare that to the 72% who were registered in 2004 (although that % has gone up this year)
Percentage of responders who actually voted for Bush in 2004: 40%
Third, it's freaking snark and your griping about data accuracy which seems to be pretty accurate when looking at available poll data - or at least much closer than your estimate! Lighten up!
October 30, 2008 6:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, it was you griping about data accuracy. I was pointing out something quite different: that Dan modeled the world wrong to begin with -- regardless of data used.
This is the type of analysis that FlyOnTheWall uses all the time (e.g. conditional probabilities) and for all his rec's you'd hope that people are actually following his comments rather than rec'ing because they like his conclusions. ;-)
As far as the business of it being a joke, I understand your frustration -- I even addressed it in my original comment. I pose, however, this is one of the reasons why you don't see this type of "joke" on the Daily Show as suggested above. It's merely a mud sling that isn't ground properly. (As a guy who has been paid for his humor professionally, I believe you can still salvage this post, but you need a better set up... it's key.)
Unless, of course, you aren't that bothered by this type of fuzzy thinking -- which is exactly what a place like FNC counts on when they twist reality for a much more nefarious purpose (e.g. outright lying).
October 30, 2008 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
PS The data I provided was sourced as:
Federal Election Commission. Data drawn from Congressional Research Service reports, Election Data Services Inc., and State Election Offices.
October 30, 2008 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
You were arguing his math was wrong. Your data is wrong-er. Regardless of the rightness or wrongness of his math model, his answer was a lot closer to reality than yours. :)
BTW Do you ever stop dwelling in the minutia enough to appreciate the broader aspects of anything or to appreciate common ground? Geez! You would say the Mona Lisa is an abject failure because it is hung .00000001 centimeter too far to the left from your perspective. I didn't think this post was mean-spirited as opposed to some of your comments which seem to be directed at people rather than with them. If I had to translate your comment style into comedy, I think this is the closest estimation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSwS9TsF9NE
October 30, 2008 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is not a sports event. This is about life. Your emotional reaction is that you can't stand the conclusion so
a) you try to find another data source to back you
b) you neglect to see how the original thinking was fuzzy at best (regardless of data)
I know you are very stubborn because you are a Clinton apologist regardless of what data is presented.
Since the world is so black and white to you, you shouldn't be surprised it is equally black and white to those people from the right side of the spectrum. Your attitude is why the country is screwed up. No one thinks, people just react.
Trust me when I say, your senior elected officials (of both parties) are smarter than that. They take advantage of the emotions and use that to propel themselves. For those of you who argue this point saying "but we are human", all I can say is that's why Bush was elected to office -- and Clinton as well.
The founders knew what they were doing when they set up a Republic and not a Democracy.
October 30, 2008 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Geez you are hard headed. Your data admittedly says it determines voter turnout based on percentage of voting age population. How many of the voting age population are not citizens and not eligible to vote? How many are incarerated and ineligible to vote (far, far too many)? That's what the Census data I used figures out the turnout. Also the source cited by this WaPo article so methinks it's official, so enjoy this secondary source :)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/25/AR2005052501965.html
Who's the stubborn one again?
And quit ruining a snarky thread with actual substance. It's okay to have fun once in a while.
October 30, 2008 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
This has to be the quote of the year, Dij.
Go ahead: keep indulging in the junk food. It leads to early death.
I'm mostly concerned about people's lack of ability to think. There is no Obama revolution without it. We will just keep bouncing from feel-good candidate to feel-good candidate...
The point I'm making should be educational. If you can't handle that -- as well as enjoy the rhetoric -- then your thinking is truly inflexible.
October 30, 2008 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, lighten up a bit. Even a perpetually pissed off bastard like me makes an occasional joke.
October 30, 2008 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey CT, here's a book you might want to read:
http://www.amazon.com/Whats-Funny-Sharpen-Sense-Humor/dp/1430301147/ref=pd_sim_b_1/180-8943136-6090242
October 30, 2008 8:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry to be a party pooper, dan kaufman, but this is so wrong. I'm sure there were plenty of editorials like this about women when they earned the right to vote. As much as I despise George W. Bush, people have a right to vote for him.
October 30, 2008 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
rtb, I didn't see anything in this blog about not having the right to vote. It is a tongue-in-cheek essay which compares, for example singing off-key at a karaoke bar to voting off-key in a Presidential Election. It is simply some friendly advice.
If you drove a car once every four years, and for the last two of those times, you smashed your car into the same tree -- you might want to leave it up to a driver who has taken the time to be informed about how to steer, and also knew how to put on the brakes. You'd have a much greater possibility of arriving safely at your destination.
PS: I won't bite on the woman's sufferage tease. It is unworthy of your great mind!
October 30, 2008 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I get what dan was trying to do, and I'm saying he failed to pull it off, imo. The point of dan's blog is to tell people they are stupid, and therefore they shouldn't vote (just as I'm sure women were told not to bother to vote, because they were too stupid). Is that funny? If that's the funniest dan can be, then maybe he's too stupid to post.
So, was my comment funny?
October 30, 2008 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
The point of his post was in the short term to tell fuck-ups -- those who vote Republican -- to stop voting, and that particular form of fucking-up will cease for them.
And in the longer term to tell those who would vote Republican to not vote. Period.
As for the humor: mild, at best.
October 30, 2008 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Damn. I've never seen a punchline killed with such brutality.
October 30, 2008 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your attitude is why the country is screwed up.
(Sorry, had to say it. Am pee'ing myself.)
Hey Dan! Nice blog! V. funny. No really, we'd love to see more!!
(Still laughing. It's just hopeless.)
October 30, 2008 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Funny piece. Well done!
October 30, 2008 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Brilliant! Bravo!
October 30, 2008 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, regardless of all this, I absolutely think that people who are still undecided really and truly should stay home on November 4th. Why? Because after all this time, with all the facts out there, they are most likely to vote based on some event, like their kid asking for Cheerios for the first time ever (a sign that Obama is the one) or seeing an ad for Alaskan tourism first thing that morning on the teevee (a sign that McCain is the one).
Seriously, anyone who has not been able to stack one candidate up against the other and realize which one is the most likely to deliver what the voter wants, simply doesn't know what they want, or hasn't been paying close enough attention. I say stay home and passively accept the situation since that is what they are familiar with.
What are they waiting for? A fact? A reassuring statement? No. They are believers in magical thinking, and they believe that when the time comes, the right choice will show up like an aura -- it is so much easier than thinking. So please. Stay home.
October 30, 2008 6:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
What stuns me is your point that intelligent people who thought Bush was a better choice are the ones who are making the mistake. Why is it that Acorn and other GOTV people are focussing on poor and minority areas to register people and then come and provide transportation to vote? It would appear they are TARGETING the poor and then 'guiding' them to vote for the candidate of choice. Not an intelligent voter group. Not smart enough to get off their couches and register and then make an effort to vote?? Are they?? SO what makes THEM so smart? Drop outs, homeless, unemployed, and on public assistance. If Obama wins it will be becaue the ignorant masses elected him--just like when the ignorant masses elected to have Hitler and Castro come and 'change' things. And if you bothered to pay attention to history you would know how those deals turned out.
The biggest warning should be that the entire world wants Obama--he is obviously not much of a threat to the world but what does that say about what his priorities are? WHy does he want to be the universal 'messiah'? WHen I first heard of the anti-christ theory I laughed. I ain't laughing now and I sure ain't gonna stay home. And I will vote. I am legally able to vote. And YOU CAN'T STOP ME!
McCain/Palin 2008
October 30, 2008 6:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Joe Bill you took the words out of my mouth. Don't stay home! VOTE! While I have already voted I intend to volunteer to help on the 4th as others use their right to vote. Where I suppose we differ is I encourage people to vote but I do NOT tell them for whem to vote. I encourage them to read factual information and watch as much live material as possible so they can hear what each side says--from the president all the way down to a school board post. Don't get caught up with the parties, look at the people, what they have done and what they promise to do. Then AFTER the election write your newly elected whomevers and make sure they know that you remember what they said on the stump and you are going to hold them to it. Accountability is the key, folks. If you choose to sit this one out, them please keep very quiet for the entire time anyone holds office. This is your chance to count. Have a voice! Get out and vote.
October 30, 2008 6:57 PM | Reply | Permalink