> Voting is a weird thing. I do believe it's important, but only on a large scale. Darien pointed out why: my own individual vote is meaningless. Where I live, even close local elections are decided by thousands of votes. State and federal elections are usually won by millions of votes.
>

It's even worse than that, I think. Even when an issue *would* have come down to being tied or a one-vote victory for one side (or one vote away from a runoff, etc.) -- the remarkable situation where your vote *could* be construed as somewhat meaningful, you have the case where the "best outcome" was so difficult to resolve that about as many people were for it as there were against it. I'm assuming, for this, that it's an issue/election with only two sides, where the majority wins.

Thus, even if your single vote pushes one side over the edge, you have to wonder whether, through a peculiarity of your unique viewpoint of the world, you've actually made the "wrong" decision and made the best outcome fail. (This assumes that your utility is some aggregate measurement in which you're looking out for the good of society as a whole, not just your own welfare.)

If the benefit of a certain issue or the effectiveness of a certain politician is clear and overwhelming, it will pass / he will be elected by a comfortable margin -- if the majority of the voters think clearly, unselfishly, and rationally, that is. That may be too much of an assumption, now that I think about it.