Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Why I Don't Vote
Today it's appropriate for me to summarize my reasons for not voting. To put it in a nutshell, democracy is a repugnant and ridiculous system, and so I have no ethical duty to vote. And then, my vote by itself will almost certainly have no effect on the election, and hence I have no pragmatic interest in voting. So why would I do something morally dubious if it won't even make a difference?
Even though I'm sure you've heard this before, let's review just why your individual vote does NOT count. In order for your vote to make a difference (in the presidential race), your state would have to be decided by a margin of exactly one. In other words, suppose you don't vote. So long as the candidate who wins your state does so by a margin of two or more people, then your decision to abstain meant absolutely nothing.
But it gets worse. Suppose against all odds that it works out that the popular vote in your state is a dead tie, considering everybody else who votes, and then you cast the tie-breaking vote in favor of your candidate. (We already know this would never ever happen.) Even so, your vote still only affects the identity of the next president, if the margin in the Electoral College is close enough such that your state decides the outcome.
OK, now I should dispose of some of the obligatory objections.
* "That doesn't make sense. If you're saying it's rational to not vote, then nobody should vote. But then you get to write yourself in as president. So then everybody should vote. Duh, you economists are stupid."
---> No, there is nothing wrong with cost/benefit analysis, so long as you are framing the costs and benefits correctly. The reason I am virtually certain my vote won't affect the outcome, is that I am virtually certain that millions of Americans will stupidly vote. When Free Advice gains 10 million daily readers, perhaps I will revise my forecasts of voter turnout.
(Technically, if you do a formal model the symmetric Nash equilibrium is a "mixed strategy" where everybody is indifferent between voting or not, and so everyone is willing to pick a strategy of voting with probability x, where x is really small. So x times the whole population means you expect a certain amount of people to show up and vote, and that expectation is just enough to render you indifferent. But in the real world, we're not in a Nash equilibrium--at least, not if everyone just gets utility from influencing the outcome of the election--and so I get strictly more utility by not voting. Also, I should add that I don't really view the world as if I'm "in" a game theoretic model, I'm just showing how there's nothing contradictory about the analytical framework.)
* "What if everyone thought like you?"
---> If everyone thought like me that would be great. Nobody would vote, and so 535 people in Washington DC saying, "Send us half your income so we can bomb people and bail out bankers" would be a funny joke. If you want to do a Kantian deal, and pick the action you wish everyone else would, then why in the world are you voting for a guy you yourself admit is the "lesser of two evils"? That makes no sense at all. It's one thing to do a morally odious action because it provides tangible utilitarian benefits; e.g. making the bus swerve so it hits 3 people instead of 30. But why participate in voting in a guy you think will do evil, when your participation doesn't do anything to limit the evil? If you think Obama/McCain is the worse candidate, your vote for McCain/Obama doesn't do anything to contain him. Obama/McCain would win/lose with or without your vote, with about 99.9999% certainty.
* "If you don't vote, then you have no right to complain about our government."
---> This is just about the most asinine thing I've ever heard, and there is stiff competition in this category. We all agree that our government is run by thieves and liars, right? OK, so how do they get in there? Because voters put them there. So you're telling me that I'm responsible for the horrible people in DC, rather than the people who actually voted for them?
* "It's because of the apathy of people like you that our system isn't working properly."
---> This is related to the above objection. I really would like people who believe this, to just think through the implications of this type of statement. It means that the people who actually vote are (in general) morons and/or evil, whereas the people who don't vote are (in general) wise and virtuous. You have to believe that, if you claim that increasing voter turnout will improve the politicians we end up getting. I thank you for the kind words, but I think you are mistaken. If (as in some countries) the government forced people to vote, I don't think our politicians would suddenly become honest statesmen (and women). The reason democracy yields awful results is that it's a repugnant, ridiculous system, not because we're too lazy to "make it work."
WHY DEMOCRACY IS A REPUGNANT, RIDICULOUS SYSTEM
==================================================
I'll close by defending those strong words. Imagine if you had to get your brakes fixed, but you weren't allowed to pick the company to do the work. Instead, there was an election for city mechanic, and everyone in your city had the option to cast a vote deciding which person got to fix your brakes. Also, that person could then decide how much to charge you, and, you didn't even have the option of switching to riding the bus--you had to get in your car everyday after the work was done. Would you like that system?
If you are a parent, I've got an even better one. Suppose you didn't get to choose who babysits your kid(s), but instead the position is decided by majority rule. If you are just skimming this it probably isn't sinking in. Seriously, imagine that you couldn't control who watches your kid(s), but that perfect strangers had just as much individual say as you did. And not only that, but that the pool of eligible candidates would be restricted, to those potential babysitters who didn't mind enduring a year-long investigation into their lives, with the backers of other potential babysitters starting nasty rumors and so on. Do you think the outcome would be good? Or would you rather the freedom to pick your own babysitter, using your own criteria?
Well, I hope you can see now what I mean when I say democracy is a repugnant and ridiculous system. It's true, you could argue that there are some things like national defense or the legal system, where it is practically impossible to have the freedom that we all agree is ideal in cases like fixing your brakes or hiring a babysitter. If that's your view, I encourage you to check out this pamphlet [pdf].
In conclusion, I don't vote because I see no reason to participate in the collective anointing of someone who will violate property rights and end up killing innocent people, when my vote doesn't even have the slightest chance of influencing the outcome.
Even though I'm sure you've heard this before, let's review just why your individual vote does NOT count. In order for your vote to make a difference (in the presidential race), your state would have to be decided by a margin of exactly one. In other words, suppose you don't vote. So long as the candidate who wins your state does so by a margin of two or more people, then your decision to abstain meant absolutely nothing.
But it gets worse. Suppose against all odds that it works out that the popular vote in your state is a dead tie, considering everybody else who votes, and then you cast the tie-breaking vote in favor of your candidate. (We already know this would never ever happen.) Even so, your vote still only affects the identity of the next president, if the margin in the Electoral College is close enough such that your state decides the outcome.
OK, now I should dispose of some of the obligatory objections.
* "That doesn't make sense. If you're saying it's rational to not vote, then nobody should vote. But then you get to write yourself in as president. So then everybody should vote. Duh, you economists are stupid."
---> No, there is nothing wrong with cost/benefit analysis, so long as you are framing the costs and benefits correctly. The reason I am virtually certain my vote won't affect the outcome, is that I am virtually certain that millions of Americans will stupidly vote. When Free Advice gains 10 million daily readers, perhaps I will revise my forecasts of voter turnout.
(Technically, if you do a formal model the symmetric Nash equilibrium is a "mixed strategy" where everybody is indifferent between voting or not, and so everyone is willing to pick a strategy of voting with probability x, where x is really small. So x times the whole population means you expect a certain amount of people to show up and vote, and that expectation is just enough to render you indifferent. But in the real world, we're not in a Nash equilibrium--at least, not if everyone just gets utility from influencing the outcome of the election--and so I get strictly more utility by not voting. Also, I should add that I don't really view the world as if I'm "in" a game theoretic model, I'm just showing how there's nothing contradictory about the analytical framework.)
* "What if everyone thought like you?"
---> If everyone thought like me that would be great. Nobody would vote, and so 535 people in Washington DC saying, "Send us half your income so we can bomb people and bail out bankers" would be a funny joke. If you want to do a Kantian deal, and pick the action you wish everyone else would, then why in the world are you voting for a guy you yourself admit is the "lesser of two evils"? That makes no sense at all. It's one thing to do a morally odious action because it provides tangible utilitarian benefits; e.g. making the bus swerve so it hits 3 people instead of 30. But why participate in voting in a guy you think will do evil, when your participation doesn't do anything to limit the evil? If you think Obama/McCain is the worse candidate, your vote for McCain/Obama doesn't do anything to contain him. Obama/McCain would win/lose with or without your vote, with about 99.9999% certainty.
* "If you don't vote, then you have no right to complain about our government."
---> This is just about the most asinine thing I've ever heard, and there is stiff competition in this category. We all agree that our government is run by thieves and liars, right? OK, so how do they get in there? Because voters put them there. So you're telling me that I'm responsible for the horrible people in DC, rather than the people who actually voted for them?
* "It's because of the apathy of people like you that our system isn't working properly."
---> This is related to the above objection. I really would like people who believe this, to just think through the implications of this type of statement. It means that the people who actually vote are (in general) morons and/or evil, whereas the people who don't vote are (in general) wise and virtuous. You have to believe that, if you claim that increasing voter turnout will improve the politicians we end up getting. I thank you for the kind words, but I think you are mistaken. If (as in some countries) the government forced people to vote, I don't think our politicians would suddenly become honest statesmen (and women). The reason democracy yields awful results is that it's a repugnant, ridiculous system, not because we're too lazy to "make it work."
WHY DEMOCRACY IS A REPUGNANT, RIDICULOUS SYSTEM
==================================================
I'll close by defending those strong words. Imagine if you had to get your brakes fixed, but you weren't allowed to pick the company to do the work. Instead, there was an election for city mechanic, and everyone in your city had the option to cast a vote deciding which person got to fix your brakes. Also, that person could then decide how much to charge you, and, you didn't even have the option of switching to riding the bus--you had to get in your car everyday after the work was done. Would you like that system?
If you are a parent, I've got an even better one. Suppose you didn't get to choose who babysits your kid(s), but instead the position is decided by majority rule. If you are just skimming this it probably isn't sinking in. Seriously, imagine that you couldn't control who watches your kid(s), but that perfect strangers had just as much individual say as you did. And not only that, but that the pool of eligible candidates would be restricted, to those potential babysitters who didn't mind enduring a year-long investigation into their lives, with the backers of other potential babysitters starting nasty rumors and so on. Do you think the outcome would be good? Or would you rather the freedom to pick your own babysitter, using your own criteria?
Well, I hope you can see now what I mean when I say democracy is a repugnant and ridiculous system. It's true, you could argue that there are some things like national defense or the legal system, where it is practically impossible to have the freedom that we all agree is ideal in cases like fixing your brakes or hiring a babysitter. If that's your view, I encourage you to check out this pamphlet [pdf].
In conclusion, I don't vote because I see no reason to participate in the collective anointing of someone who will violate property rights and end up killing innocent people, when my vote doesn't even have the slightest chance of influencing the outcome.
# posted by Bob Murphy @ 12:01 AM 
Comments:
As Brian Doherty said here and many others have said before, those who vote are the ones who have no right to complain about the outcome.
Thank you.
I've been a lewrockwell.com and mises.org reader for quite a while now. This article is the one that finally gave me the resolve to NOT VOTE tomorrow.
I've been a lewrockwell.com and mises.org reader for quite a while now. This article is the one that finally gave me the resolve to NOT VOTE tomorrow.
Bob, you've only made a half a case against a republican form of government (not "democracy"), and it can hardly be persuasive without advancing an argument that an alternative arrangement is preferrable and feasible - and that voting cannot help in moving governance in the direction of your preferences.
For me, voting is partially a tail risk hedge. I ask myself, "Could one of these two candidates lead us to an Orwellian state?" Even though my vote is a tiny fraction and the probability of the worst case scenario is a small one (in most elections), the disutility of being put in the ovens is near infinity.
Bob,
I agree that your vote makes zero outcome in this election but perhaps that is too short of a time to gauge its value. I voted for a 4th party candidate in the hope that if 3rd 4th and 5th party candidates get a larger percent of the vote they may change things. It is possible one could win office especially in congress or on the local level. Or if the major parties see they are losing votes they may modify their positions. I don't see a lot of other options that don't involve guns and I'm not pro-violence.
I agree that your vote makes zero outcome in this election but perhaps that is too short of a time to gauge its value. I voted for a 4th party candidate in the hope that if 3rd 4th and 5th party candidates get a larger percent of the vote they may change things. It is possible one could win office especially in congress or on the local level. Or if the major parties see they are losing votes they may modify their positions. I don't see a lot of other options that don't involve guns and I'm not pro-violence.
I think it would be horrible if people could permanently flood your house without a cent of compensation "because that's what the global majority thinks is right".
Hey,
Great article! I agree with your principled non-voting.
I thought you'd enjoy this video on non-voting, as well
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igbBItLemsM&fmt=18
I hope you enjoy it!
~Greg M.
Great article! I agree with your principled non-voting.
I thought you'd enjoy this video on non-voting, as well
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igbBItLemsM&fmt=18
I hope you enjoy it!
~Greg M.
As Joe Sobran pointed out, even if the vote margin came down to a single vote, your vote still wouldn't be decisive, because some court would decide the outcome (as we saw in 2000 in Florida, when the margin was significantly greater than one vote).
I mentioned this to a friend, and he said, well, my vote could make the difference between the vote total being decisive versus a court deciding. (Let's say my vote made the margin 300 instead of 299, and the court would intervene if the margin was 299 or less.) I couldn't think of a good response to that. But I still don't vote.
I mentioned this to a friend, and he said, well, my vote could make the difference between the vote total being decisive versus a court deciding. (Let's say my vote made the margin 300 instead of 299, and the court would intervene if the margin was 299 or less.) I couldn't think of a good response to that. But I still don't vote.
Larry,
OK, then your friend just moved the goalpost. Instead of your vote mattering when the votes of others are tied, now it only matters if the votes of others result in a margin of exactly 199 (or whatever).
So it's true that your friend defused Sobran's argument, but I wasn't relying on Sobran's argument. I conceded that it's mathematically possible your vote could change the outcome of the election.
OK, then your friend just moved the goalpost. Instead of your vote mattering when the votes of others are tied, now it only matters if the votes of others result in a margin of exactly 199 (or whatever).
So it's true that your friend defused Sobran's argument, but I wasn't relying on Sobran's argument. I conceded that it's mathematically possible your vote could change the outcome of the election.
As far as the 3rd party stuff: Look, you guys can do whatever you want. But whether Barr or whoever gets 205,505 votes, or 205,506 votes (if you vote for him), is not going to make a difference.
It's admittedly not that big a hassle if you vote by mail or something. But these people who wait 3 hours in line to vote? That is shocking to me.
It's admittedly not that big a hassle if you vote by mail or something. But these people who wait 3 hours in line to vote? That is shocking to me.
You do know that there are races other than the presidential one, correct? Ones in which one vote has a higher chance of making an impact? Ones in which there may be candidates who aren't as bad as the two main presidential candidates? Yes, I know this doesn't address the morality issue, but pragmatically, voting in local elections isn't as useless as voting in national elections.
You do know that there are races other than the presidential one, correct? Ones in which one vote has a higher chance of making an impact?
Have you, or anyone you know personally, ever decided the outcome of a local election? And if so, was it Hitler vs. Murray Rothbard in the race?
Have you, or anyone you know personally, ever decided the outcome of a local election? And if so, was it Hitler vs. Murray Rothbard in the race?
I think it's fun to invert and imagine that you knew in advance that everyone else was going to do the sensible thing and not go to the polls. Therefore yours for once would be the deciding vote...
excluding writeins, etc., can you think of anything more nausea-inducing than knowing that you must choose either Obama or McCain, you cannot choose "none of the above," and that yours will be the deciding vote?
maybe the reason people vote is because they know that theirs _won't_ be the deciding vote, thus absolving themselves of any blame when the winner makes things worse than they already are.
excluding writeins, etc., can you think of anything more nausea-inducing than knowing that you must choose either Obama or McCain, you cannot choose "none of the above," and that yours will be the deciding vote?
maybe the reason people vote is because they know that theirs _won't_ be the deciding vote, thus absolving themselves of any blame when the winner makes things worse than they already are.
# posted by 
: November 4, 2008 4:07 PM
: November 4, 2008 4:07 PM
Bob, you might note that the act of voting is in some degree participation in a public ritual by which voters positively assert that they are a member of society.
While it is possible to view participation as delusional and counterproductive (by providing creditibility to politicians), the act of affirming membership in a community is fundamentally positive, and in many ways is similar to going to church.
While it is possible to view participation as delusional and counterproductive (by providing creditibility to politicians), the act of affirming membership in a community is fundamentally positive, and in many ways is similar to going to church.
Tom mentioned the 'psychological' benefits of voting. This is, of course, a 'two way street', binding voters to the government as well as giving voters (a statistically false) belied that they 'control' the government.
Sometimes criminal gangs ensure the loyalty of junior members by making them commit crimes. This means the youth has 'thrown in his lot' with the gang. Maybe something similar happens with voting.
One comment on the recent US elections that I found interesting is the possibility that former Bush voters voted for Obama to expiate their guilt or disappointment with their previous choice. So maybe instead of "once bitten, twice shy", it's a case of "once shy, twice bitten".
Sometimes criminal gangs ensure the loyalty of junior members by making them commit crimes. This means the youth has 'thrown in his lot' with the gang. Maybe something similar happens with voting.
One comment on the recent US elections that I found interesting is the possibility that former Bush voters voted for Obama to expiate their guilt or disappointment with their previous choice. So maybe instead of "once bitten, twice shy", it's a case of "once shy, twice bitten".
Here is another reason not to vote. At least for an American (of which I am not). It's the patriotic thing to do. Remember John Addams? George Washington? Thomas Jefferson? The Founding Fathers. Well that generation of Americans were the all time record holders for non-voting.
Don't believe me?
Well you can check out the statistics here.
The good professor has a different interpretation to the data than I do, but mine is more fun.
Don't believe me?
Well you can check out the statistics here.
The good professor has a different interpretation to the data than I do, but mine is more fun.
My favorite part of "Chaos Theory" is still the credits on page four.
To Tokyotom:
Thomas Paine very well put forth the notion that society and government must not be considered one in the same.
Society is based upon mutually voluntary exchanges, while government--all government--is based upon violence.
Think about it. You can abstain from social interaction (if you can and if you want to), but government doesn't give a damn about your consent.
You need not participate in political matters to be a good contributor to society.
To Tokyotom:
Thomas Paine very well put forth the notion that society and government must not be considered one in the same.
Society is based upon mutually voluntary exchanges, while government--all government--is based upon violence.
Think about it. You can abstain from social interaction (if you can and if you want to), but government doesn't give a damn about your consent.
You need not participate in political matters to be a good contributor to society.
Aristos, while your summary of the differences between society and government is a generalization that I don't agree fully with, that's besides my point - that voluntary voting has an aspect of identifying oneself as an active and caring member of the community (local, state of national).
Bob's efforts to get out the non-vote - that is to form a protest "opt-out" community - certainly mirror the participation of larger society in voting, and may reflect a desire to avoid feelings of guilt about deliberately not participating in the broader voting ritual.
Note that this is NOT an argument that Bob is wrong.
Bob's efforts to get out the non-vote - that is to form a protest "opt-out" community - certainly mirror the participation of larger society in voting, and may reflect a desire to avoid feelings of guilt about deliberately not participating in the broader voting ritual.
Note that this is NOT an argument that Bob is wrong.
This post is the stupidist thing I have ever read. To pretend that a democracy is bad, to pretend that your vote doesn't count, to throw a blanket 'everyone in Washington is a thief' comment out, shows how stupid and naive you are.
I teach government. I have worked in government. I am an elected official. Not everyone in government is bad. The good people in government, the ones who are fighting tooth and nail to keep your taxes low and government restrained, need your votes. When you piss away your vote as you did in this election, you are doing more harm than good. When you get so focused on the Presidential election that you forget about all the other races, you are an idiot. When you say your vote doesn't matter, you forget that at the bottom of the ballot, a strict libertarian like me needed your vote, and you sat home and pooped instead, that pissed me off.
Stupid article, stupid author.
I teach government. I have worked in government. I am an elected official. Not everyone in government is bad. The good people in government, the ones who are fighting tooth and nail to keep your taxes low and government restrained, need your votes. When you piss away your vote as you did in this election, you are doing more harm than good. When you get so focused on the Presidential election that you forget about all the other races, you are an idiot. When you say your vote doesn't matter, you forget that at the bottom of the ballot, a strict libertarian like me needed your vote, and you sat home and pooped instead, that pissed me off.
Stupid article, stupid author.
When you say your vote doesn't matter, you forget that at the bottom of the ballot, a strict libertarian like me needed your vote, and you sat home and pooped instead, that pissed me off.
Well, I checked out your blog, but it wasn't obvious where you lived. Do you live in Tennessee? If not, then my staying home didn't affect you.
And if I really am one of your would-be constituents, did you lose the race by a single vote? I don't remember hearing about that in the local news.
I know, I know, it's not really that my decision affected you one way or the other, but you just wanted to tell me how stupid I was for not participating in a useless gesture.
BTW, I also say at your website that you think the Bush years were "conservative." It is precisely because of watered-down people like you--who applaud a guy who presided over a humungous increase in the national debt, prescription drug benefits, not to mention partial nationalization of the banking sector--that I don't vote. I want to make sure people don't confuse my advocacy of the free market with people like you.
Well, I checked out your blog, but it wasn't obvious where you lived. Do you live in Tennessee? If not, then my staying home didn't affect you.
And if I really am one of your would-be constituents, did you lose the race by a single vote? I don't remember hearing about that in the local news.
I know, I know, it's not really that my decision affected you one way or the other, but you just wanted to tell me how stupid I was for not participating in a useless gesture.
BTW, I also say at your website that you think the Bush years were "conservative." It is precisely because of watered-down people like you--who applaud a guy who presided over a humungous increase in the national debt, prescription drug benefits, not to mention partial nationalization of the banking sector--that I don't vote. I want to make sure people don't confuse my advocacy of the free market with people like you.
Sorry Bob, I've been debating this one with aconservativeteacher on my blog, so I sent him the link to your post. He was never so rude on my site with his comments, even when I was somewhat rude to him.
It did make me laugh, though, when he called you stupid. However, he calls Bush "conservative" and voted for McCain.
In person and in most correspondences, he's actually a decent guy.
Again, I'm sorry that I sent him to you.
It did make me laugh, though, when he called you stupid. However, he calls Bush "conservative" and voted for McCain.
In person and in most correspondences, he's actually a decent guy.
Again, I'm sorry that I sent him to you.
No problem, Aristos. And ConservativeTeacher, we would probably get along if you hadn't read my blog post on non-voting as an introduction to me, and I hadn't read your comment as an introduction to you. :)
Hey Aristos, why don't you post on your blog your thoughts on cap & trade. Then I'll send a link to Silas and TokyoTom to return the favor to you.
Hey Aristos, why don't you post on your blog your thoughts on cap & trade. Then I'll send a link to Silas and TokyoTom to return the favor to you.
One last loose end: Tom, c'mon man, sometimes I think you go out of your way to disagree with me, and that you can't possibly be serious.
Sure, there's a sense in which voting and going to church are the same, just like witnessing a public execution and going to a Little League game are similar.
But there are also important differences, and I think it's a shame that so many people get hyped out when we all go out and pick the next mass murderer and get cute little stickers to boot.
Sure, there's a sense in which voting and going to church are the same, just like witnessing a public execution and going to a Little League game are similar.
But there are also important differences, and I think it's a shame that so many people get hyped out when we all go out and pick the next mass murderer and get cute little stickers to boot.
Hey Aristos, why don't you post on your blog your thoughts on cap & trade. Then I'll send a link to Silas and TokyoTom to return the favor to you.
And will you then feel the need to apologize to Aristos because you expect my comments to be rude or otherwise obnoxious?
Bob, I'm sorry that you seem to think I'm responding to you with reflexive disagreement - and that you seem to feel my comments somehow are unwelcome.
If that's how you feel then I don't mind obliging you.
I often agree with you, but except for a few times when I have noted it with an "Amen!" I prefer to comment when I think I've got something to add. It's my own conceit, but I also like to think that my comments are not only well-mannered but thoughtful. Your mileage apparently varies.
As for my comments on this thread, sometimes I think it is you who are being deliberately obtuse. Rituals of all sorts - religious and non-religious - make up some of the ties that bind us together at various levels into a society, and man has an inherent need to belong. Surely you are aware of how leaders of many stripes (including priests and other religious figures) manipulate both our needs and the rituals that feed them.
By pointing out that voting has elements of participating in a ritual that ties society together (like church-going, which I too have been known to do) I have merely tried to cast light on one aspect of voting behavior (this helps to understand why people vote, and why appeals to vote may be effective). This does NOT address the merits of your arguments that we should NOT vote - though it may provide some indication of how you might strengthen your own mission. (You might, for example, form and name a club of like-minded thinkers that shares posts, a creed, a motto or slogan, and an identifiable symbol that members could post on their blogs or use on a t-shirt or bumber-sticker.)
And will you then feel the need to apologize to Aristos because you expect my comments to be rude or otherwise obnoxious?
Bob, I'm sorry that you seem to think I'm responding to you with reflexive disagreement - and that you seem to feel my comments somehow are unwelcome.
If that's how you feel then I don't mind obliging you.
I often agree with you, but except for a few times when I have noted it with an "Amen!" I prefer to comment when I think I've got something to add. It's my own conceit, but I also like to think that my comments are not only well-mannered but thoughtful. Your mileage apparently varies.
As for my comments on this thread, sometimes I think it is you who are being deliberately obtuse. Rituals of all sorts - religious and non-religious - make up some of the ties that bind us together at various levels into a society, and man has an inherent need to belong. Surely you are aware of how leaders of many stripes (including priests and other religious figures) manipulate both our needs and the rituals that feed them.
By pointing out that voting has elements of participating in a ritual that ties society together (like church-going, which I too have been known to do) I have merely tried to cast light on one aspect of voting behavior (this helps to understand why people vote, and why appeals to vote may be effective). This does NOT address the merits of your arguments that we should NOT vote - though it may provide some indication of how you might strengthen your own mission. (You might, for example, form and name a club of like-minded thinkers that shares posts, a creed, a motto or slogan, and an identifiable symbol that members could post on their blogs or use on a t-shirt or bumber-sticker.)
Tom wrote:
By pointing out that voting has elements of participating in a ritual that ties society together...I have merely tried to cast light on one aspect of voting behavior (this helps to understand why people vote, and why appeals to vote may be effective). This does NOT address the merits of your arguments that we should NOT vote...
OK when I first read that, I felt bad. "Jeez, I just assumed Tom was criticizing me, when maybe he was just trying to shed light on why people vote..."
But then I read your previous comments, and forgave myself for "jumping to conclusions." Before your comment comparing voting to church-going, you wrote:
Bob, you've only made a half a case against a republican form of government (not "democracy"), and it can hardly be persuasive without advancing an argument that an alternative arrangement is preferrable and feasible - and that voting cannot help in moving governance in the direction of your preferences.
So now can you see why I thought your second comment was continuing your criticism?
BTW I don't have a problem if you and/or Silas only post objections here; that's what I do to Tyler Cowen at his blog. But if I think your objections are dumb I will say so. :)
By pointing out that voting has elements of participating in a ritual that ties society together...I have merely tried to cast light on one aspect of voting behavior (this helps to understand why people vote, and why appeals to vote may be effective). This does NOT address the merits of your arguments that we should NOT vote...
OK when I first read that, I felt bad. "Jeez, I just assumed Tom was criticizing me, when maybe he was just trying to shed light on why people vote..."
But then I read your previous comments, and forgave myself for "jumping to conclusions." Before your comment comparing voting to church-going, you wrote:
Bob, you've only made a half a case against a republican form of government (not "democracy"), and it can hardly be persuasive without advancing an argument that an alternative arrangement is preferrable and feasible - and that voting cannot help in moving governance in the direction of your preferences.
So now can you see why I thought your second comment was continuing your criticism?
BTW I don't have a problem if you and/or Silas only post objections here; that's what I do to Tyler Cowen at his blog. But if I think your objections are dumb I will say so. :)
There's plenty of stuff that I post that might interest/outrage Silas and TokyoTom. They just have to tolerate the randomness and occasional inanity of my posts.
I'm thinking of one of my first posts--the one in which I blamed global warming on immigration.
http://notthisguyagain.blogspot.com/2006/04/mexicans-are-coming.html
I'm thinking of one of my first posts--the one in which I blamed global warming on immigration.
http://notthisguyagain.blogspot.com/2006/04/mexicans-are-coming.html
Bob, while I did make some initial comments - which you declines to address - as to why I thought your position was unpersuasive, in my later comments I WAS "just trying to shed light on why people vote".
if I think your objections are dumb I will say so. :)
By all means; it's certainly better that what I seem to be earning so far (which seems to me to be both a disinclination to address my substantive comments and a labelling of me as somehow obnoxious).
Post a Comment
if I think your objections are dumb I will say so. :)
By all means; it's certainly better that what I seem to be earning so far (which seems to me to be both a disinclination to address my substantive comments and a labelling of me as somehow obnoxious).
<< Home
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]