[MB.]

I will only vote for parties in Canada and the United States that openly state in their party platform that they will unilaterally legalize marijuana.

I can't take the fucking hypocrisy anymore.

[Dave]

If legalizing marijuana is your number one political issue, I'd say it's time to get a job.

I am pro-legalization by the way, but give me a break.

[kuros_taken]

Agreed. In fact, it is probably the only time I will vote.

[MB.]

If legalizing marijuana is your number one political issue

Strawman. Come on, Dave. Give me a little credit.

[Dave]

From now on I will only vote for political parties which promote the enslavement of people with dread locks.

[MB.]

Now you're just derailing my thread.

[Dave]

This thread is really more of an ox-drawn cart on a dirt road than a train on steel rails.

[MB.]

You're really more of a troll parody spammer than a real poster, aren't you, Dave?

[Dave]

I'm both.

And sorry MB, this thread is trash and you know it.

CANT STAND

THE HYPOCRISY

GOTTA LEGALIZE IT

[MB.]

I'm interested in finding some political parties in Canada and the United States that have legitimate platforms which include marijuana legalization. However, I am not interested in voting for libertarians, thus, most so-called 'marijuana' parties do not fit the bill.

A brief look at the Canadian Green party produced no information regarding marijuana legalization, however I generally support the Green platform. Does anyone know of any 'green' parties in Canada or the US that support legalization?

[Dave]

What would the purpose of such a vote be? Logically I know you realize it has no effect, and I doubt enough people are going to vote in this manner for the platform to be coopted. Your best bet would be trying to influence an estabilshment party in one way. Why not join the Canadian Green Party or the NDP and try to circulate your pro-legalization views?

[MB.]

What would the purpose of such a vote be? Logically I know you realize it has no effect, and I doubt enough people are going to vote in this manner for the platform to be coopted

In a democracy it is only rational for the individual to vote for a party that encompasses all the ideals and beliefs of that individual, regardless of the likelihood of victory amongst fringe parties.

Your best bet would be trying to influence an estabilshment party in one way. Why not join the Canadian Green Party or the NDP and try to circulate your pro-legalization views?

Right now I'm gathering information. It is very possible that the parties you mentioned in fact have extensive recreational drug reform/legalization policies that I am simply unaware of.

[Dave]

In a democracy it is only rational for the individual to vote for a party that encompasses all the ideals and beliefs of that individual, regardless of the likelihood of victory amongst fringe parties.

How is that rational? If anything rational utility maximization in a democracy would be NOT voting.

Right now I'm gathering information. It is very possible that the parties you mentioned in fact have extensive recreational drug reform/legalization policies that I am simply unaware of.

It seems highly likely to me that many NDP and Green supporters are in favor of legalization.

[MB.]

How is that rational? If anything rational utility maximization in a democracy would be NOT voting.

Your assumption about the nature of rationality in a democracy is invalid. It is rational for voters to maximize their civic utility by voting. Furthermore, it is irresponsible for citizens to avoid the ballot given the weight of history that demands a maximum of participation from the individual holding citizenship in a democratic nation.

Anyway, I am open to hearing how you believe a citizen is maximizing their utility by not voting.

It seems highly likely to me that many NDP and Green supporters are in favor of legalization.

But you have no specific information?

[InDiGa]

but the own consumption isn't legal?

[MB.]

but the own consumption isn't legal?

Come again?

[Dave]

Your assumption about the nature of rationality in a democracy is invalid. It is rational for voters to maximize their civic utility by voting.

How is civic utility maximized by voting? A valid reason might be that many people derive senses of satisfaction and belonging from voting, so therefore voting, for an individual, is rational due to the positive emotions it generates.

Furthermore, it is irresponsible for citizens to avoid the ballot given the weight of history that demands a maximum of participation from the individual holding citizenship in a democratic nation.

Agreed, but that doesn't make it rational for the individual.

Anyway, I am open to hearing how you believe a citizen is maximizing their utility by not voting.

Simple. By not voting, you save time. By voting, you accomplish nothing and have spent time.

But you have no specific information?

Nope. Don't you agree with my hunch though?

[MB.]

By voting, you accomplish nothing

Incorrect. By voting the individual produces a statistic that is instructive to the party in question as the statistic indicates the degree of support that party enjoys.

How is civic utility maximized by voting?

By voting the individual indicates the direction they believe the civis should follow. As the voting institution is binary (a vote vs no vote) is should be clear which choice demonstrates utility and which does not. As you correctly point out, the individual may also receive personal gratification from the act of voting.

Don't you agree with my hunch though?

I am hoping one of our Green party or Social party representative forumites will reduce our shared ignorance with some information.

[Dave]

Incorrect. By voting the individual produces a statistic that is instructive to the party in question as the statistic indicates the degree of support that party enjoys.

The problem is that a single vote is far too small to register in this kind of statistical analysis. Point stands.

By voting the individual indicates the direction they believe the civis should follow. As the voting institution is binary (a vote vs no vote) is should be clear which choice demonstrates utility and which does not.

Point conceded.

[MB.]

The problem is that a single vote is far too small to register in this kind of statistical analysis

In countries where accurate vote tallies are kept the vote of a single individual is crucially important- more so for fringe parties.

For example, according to the official 40th Federal Election Results (http://www.elections.ca) Marxist-Leninist candidate Anne Jamieson received 1 vote at poling station 3 in Vancouver East, BC.

Clearly, individual votes do register and can be counted.