Kiss me, I\'m a voter

Brian and I actually agree on a big political issue today: we're both LP voters. I don't expect Michael Badnarik to win the presidential race because of my vote, nor do I expect Micha Ghertner to win the race for Clerk of the Superior Court. What I do expect is that now my voter friends and acquaintances will listen to me more when we argue tonight. I agree that there are much more effective avenues for social change, but since it only took five minutes to give me some argument leverage, it was worth it.

I don't consider voting to be a priori a rights violation. The rights violation will take place no matter what, and my action is an attempt, admittedly meager, to challenge it. Voting for a candidate who wants to decrease the amount of rights violation is perfectly moral if you ask me.

That is not to say that I don't agree with much of the sentiment expressed by some of my fellow Catallarchists recently. There are much more effective ways of making people more free. I do want to advance civil society and decrease interest in governing others. These things I've been doing and will continue to do now that my part in the election is over. But if the voting instrument is there and doesn't cost me much, I see no reason not to use it. The mistake that most people make is thinking that voting is the important part of their social action. It's one of the least.

For justification of my position, here's an analogy: an angry mob is storming through my neighborhood looking to kill someone. They stop at my house and then hold a vote about killing me. I throw my two cents in and say don't kill me. I don't legitimize the democratic process by which my sentence is passed by doing so. They're coming anyway, and they're taking a vote anyway, and I obviously don't want to die. Nobody would argue that I bound myself to going along with the verdict by asking them not to kill me. (Of course, in this particular example, at least a few of these people should be prepared to get shot, but that's not really an option in the broader context.)

I can't wait until this whole election circus is over. The news channels will talk about other things, P-Diddy will shut the fuck up, and people will focus on civil society again.

Share this

Rock on. :cool:

Rock on. :cool:

Your voter friends will

Your voter friends will listen to you more if you pretend to agree with them, too. That's how politicians get into office. Maybe you should run!

:kiss: Big smooches to you.

:kiss:

Big smooches to you. But not for voting... for getting to the finest ideological position you know how to get to, and then sticking to it like a codependent ex-girlfriend.

That did NOT come out quite the way I intended. I meant to say something involving the "courage of your convictions," but I hate to sound like a corporate morale poster.

Woot! I'm a candidate! I

Woot! I'm a candidate!

I didn't know clerks had to run for office, though. I thought they were appointed by judges.

"But if the voting

"But if the voting instrument is there and doesn't cost me much, I see no reason not to use it."

1. The number of people who have a reasonable, if any, evaluation of the current state of affairs is minute. Such votes are less than insignificant. Thus, what value the outcome.

Government complexity, that requires specialists spending all their time attempting to stay informed, disenfranchizes the the ordinary citizen almost as efficiantly as does denial of vote. And it does it without seeming to.

2. To vote is to legitimaize the facade.

Ah so,
T

2. To vote is to legitimaize

2. To vote is to legitimaize the facade.

I don't see why voting legitimizes anything, for the reasons Randall gave. Objecting to an angry mob doesn't legitimize the actions of the angry mob.

I donâ??t see why voting

I donâ??t see why voting legitimizes anything, for the reasons Randall gave. Objecting to an angry mob doesnâ??t legitimize the actions of the angry mob.

He doesn't mean moral legitimacy. He means 'creating the aura of legitimacy' attributed to the system by observers.

I donâ??t see why voting

I donâ??t see why voting legitimizes anything, for the reasons Randall gave. Objecting to an angry mob doesnâ??t legitimize the actions of the angry mob.

I don't see how one can vote and yet somehow not implicitly condone the system. Even if Badnarik were to win this election, the mandate would be sanctioned by what is ultimately a reprobate process.

Randall, I fully agree with

Randall,

I fully agree with your moral argument. Nobody is obligated to not vote, despite what a better-looking McElroy once said. :wink:

However, my reasons for not voting are for consequential reasons - namely that voting will not have the consequences I desire, and therefore, I actively try to express my disguist with the system by not voting.

I can respect your reasons for trying to bring about change. I'm glad that you and Brian voted for Badnarik instead of one of the two real nuts.

I donâ??t see how one can

I donâ??t see how one can vote and yet somehow not implicitly condone the system. Even if Badnarik were to win this election, the mandate would be sanctioned by what is ultimately a reprobate process.

I don't condone the system. I don't have to, because it exists anyway.

As far as that hypothetical Badnarik victory goes, if a majority of people said "let's agree to leave each other alone" I don't see how that could be considered undesirable.

I voted too. My personal

I voted too. My personal utility from doing so was lower than the time it would take to go to a real polling place, but when I was told how little time it takes to do an absentee ballot, I realized that my utility was higher than those 5 minutes.

What matters is understanding that your vote is not a voice for social change, it does not legitimize the system, and it doesn't count as activism. Given that, if you feel it's fun, go for it.

As far as that hypothetical

As far as that hypothetical Badnarik victory goes, if a majority of people said "let's agree to leave each other alone" I donâ??t see how that could be considered undesirable.

Well, as far as I can tell, you are in favor of the angry mob as long as it is the one you prefer; because there are clearly large numbers of people who favor the policies Badnarik proposes to eliminate.

Well, as far as I can tell,

Well, as far as I can tell, you are in favor of the angry mob as long as it is the one you prefer; because there are clearly large numbers of people who favor the policies Badnarik proposes to eliminate.

In the best of all possible worlds the mob wouldn't be there in the first place. However, if the mob must be there, I'd rather it sided with me than against me.