This is an interesting article that is true in the abstract but invalid in practice, I think.
Take the passenger pigeon when there still were passenger pigeons. You point up to the sky, at the thousands of pigeons in a flock and tell me, “There is no reason why you shouldn’t shoot some of those pigeons. There are millions of them in the world. It’s impossible for one dead pigeon to make any difference.”
And if I were the only person you ever told that to, you would be correct. But you don’t just tell me. You publish a guest editorial in the N.Y. Times and express the same thoughts.
Over the next year 50,000 people agree with you and each of them shoots three or for pigeons. And they tell their friends. And chefs publish passenger-pigeon pie recipes.
You see where this is going.
So, yes, if you convince one and only one person that it’s a waste of their time to vote, that non-vote will have no effect.
On the other hand, if you publish an article and convince thousands or tens of thousands of people that it’s a waste of time to vote, your argument becomes completely invalid.
— David Grace