There's a logical scenario which often comes up in discussions around the question of voting. We all know the conversation...
Person 1: I don't vote because my vote has no impact on the outcome of the election.
Person 2: Not on it's OWN it doesn't, but if everyone thought that, no one would vote, and THEN what would happen?!
Person 1: But I don't decide whether all those other people vote, I only have control of my 1 vote!
My question here relates not to whether or not one should or shouldn't vote, or to the voting example alone, but rather to the logic of this situation.
For this example let us assume (for the sake of the point I am interested in) that it is universally agreed that all people (including Person 1 and 2) agree that nobody voting is an outcome that everyone wishes to avoid. And also assume (despite the conversation above!) that everyone decides privately whether to vote or not, such that their decision cannot influence others decisions) Finally assume that the election involved has never been decided by a margin of less than 1000 votes. To me Person 2's argument is something like the following:
There would be negative consequences of a number of people doing X, therefore no one should do X, even if any one of them taken in isolation has no impact.
So I guess my question is: Is this a logical fallacy?
I've tried to search for discussion of this scenario before on the web but never found anything. There's probably even a name for it! Help...