Question

You wrote on the site several times that from a consequentialist standpoint there is no point in voting, because the chance that a single person’s vote will change anything is not something worth acting for [and you wrote that one should vote for a moral reason that I did not understand, and therefore I did not vote in the last election].
But I think that a person who is concerned about the election results really should go vote for a consequentialist reason, because people do not usually take a risk regarding something they care about when the effort involved is small and negligible. For example, if someone knows that right now they are conducting a lottery among about 25,000-30,000 slips with people’s names on them, and whoever is picked has to pay [for example] twenty thousand shekels, but it is possible to come beforehand and remove his slip from the list, do you think many people would not make the negligible effort to remove their slip from the box so they will not be surprised later if their name is nevertheless drawn in the lottery?
And as for the fact that people are not worried about car accidents, it seems to me that the probability there is still much lower than one in thirty thousand, and also that this is something one cannot conduct oneself around out of that fear, so one has to take the risk. But with something that comes as a one-time event and could lead to consequences that a person very much wants to prevent, even a remote chance is worthwhile for him to make the effort to prevent it.