Why Voting is for the Dumb

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Are you going to vote on Tuesday? If you are, please forgive me for stating that you are dumb as far as politics and government. There are MANY reasons why it makes no sense to vote, each one stands on its own as a sufficient reason not to vote. But if you can't find one out of the many sound reasons not to vote, then you are just dumb about voting.

Consider the public choice theorist Gordon Tullock and his argument for not voting.

Voting Schmoting - YouTube

This is a very sound logical reason not to vote, you aren't going to make a difference. If you ignore this argument and vote, you aren't acting logically.

But there are other reasons not to vote. Politicians lie to us about what they will do when they are elected. I am currently reading FDR Goes To War. It is a fascinating chronicle of how FDR ran on a peace platform, while desperately, behind the scenes, working to get the United States involved in the war against Germany and Japan.

EconomicPolicyJournal.com: Why Voting is for the Dumb

For the record, I don't think voting necessarily means you're "dumb." Those are the author's words, not mine. I just think it's an interesting article.

 

[House]

Are you going to vote on Tuesday? If you are, please forgive me for stating that you are dumb as far as politics and government. There are MANY reasons why it makes no sense to vote, each one stands on its own as a sufficient reason not to vote. But if you can't find one out of the many sound reasons not to vote, then you are just dumb about voting.

Consider the public choice theorist Gordon Tullock and his argument for not voting.

Voting Schmoting - YouTube

This is a very sound logical reason not to vote, you aren't going to make a difference. If you ignore this argument and vote, you aren't acting logically.

But there are other reasons not to vote. Politicians lie to us about what they will do when they are elected. I am currently reading FDR Goes To War. It is a fascinating chronicle of how FDR ran on a peace platform, while desperately, behind the scenes, working to get the United States involved in the war against Germany and Japan.

EconomicPolicyJournal.com: Why Voting is for the Dumb

For the record, I don't think voting necessarily means you're "dumb." Those are the author's words, not mine. I just think it's an interesting article.

I'm no fan of the two-party manipulation machine, but abstaining from voting is ridiculous.

According to your signature, you're Libertarian. If that is true, vote Libertarian. No shame in saying, "Gary Johnson 2012!"

 

[Toronado3800]

I think you all should stay home so my vote counts more.

Afterall I am always right

 

[House]

I think you all should stay home so my vote counts more.

Afterall I am always right

E-mail ballots rock, yo.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Are you going to vote on Tuesday? If you are, please forgive me for stating that you are dumb as far as politics and government. There are MANY reasons why it makes no sense to vote, each one stands on its own as a sufficient reason not to vote. But if you can't find one out of the many sound reasons not to vote, then you are just dumb about voting.

Consider the public choice theorist Gordon Tullock and his argument for not voting.

Voting Schmoting - YouTube

This is a very sound logical reason not to vote, you aren't going to make a difference. If you ignore this argument and vote, you aren't acting logically.

But there are other reasons not to vote. Politicians lie to us about what they will do when they are elected. I am currently reading FDR Goes To War. It is a fascinating chronicle of how FDR ran on a peace platform, while desperately, behind the scenes, working to get the United States involved in the war against Germany and Japan.

EconomicPolicyJournal.com: Why Voting is for the Dumb

For the record, I don't think voting necessarily means you're "dumb." Those are the author's words, not mine. I just think it's an interesting article.

I'm no fan of the two-party manipulation machine, but abstaining from voting is ridiculous.

According to your signature, you're Libertarian. If that is true, vote Libertarian. No shame in saying, "Gary Johnson 2012!"

I wish I could vote for Johnson, but he's not good enough. He's demonstrated repeatedly that he doesn't understand libertarianism. He's expressed support for Guantanamo Bay Prison in the past, he supports some sort of military interventionism, thinks FEMA is an example of something government should be doing, and while campaigning to balance the federal budget has gone into debt. He was a great Governor, but I can't support him.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I think you all should stay home so my vote counts more.

Afterall I am always right

I am staying home, and it will have no effect on your vote whatsoever. Your vote is meaningless whether I vote or not.

 

[House]

thinks FEMA is an example of something government should be doing

Yeah, FEMA is totally government bloat until disaster hits home and it's needed.

Just ask Chris Christie.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

thinks FEMA is an example of something government should be doing

Yeah, FEMA is totally government bloat until disaster hits home and it's needed.

Just ask Chris Christie.

It's not needed, and the only thing I would ask Chris Christie is how he can live with himself after creating a shortage in gasoline by keeping prices artificially low.

 

[mamooth]

The OP video: "Well-off white male says voting not important. Film at 11".

There are no poor libertarians, and darn few woman libertarians. It's almost entirely an upper middle class white male club. When you've already got it, you don't have to worry about those who don't.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The OP video: "Well-off white male says voting not important. Film at 11".

There are no poor libertarians, and darn few woman libertarians. It's almost entirely an upper middle class white male club. When you've already got it, you don't have to worry about those who don't.

Boring.

 

[LibertyLemming]

I'll have to read the article later but I disagree with your subect. Not voting for one of the 2 main morons I can get down with but there are other candidates.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I'll have to read the article later but I disagree with your subect. Not voting for one of the 2 main morons I can get down with but there are other candidates.

Other candidates with no chance of winning, and, more importantly, who aren't that great of candidates to begin with.

 

[LibertyLemming]

I'll have to read the article later but I disagree with your subect. Not voting for one of the 2 main morons I can get down with but there are other candidates.

Other candidates with no chance of winning, and, more importantly, who aren't that great of candidates to begin with.

All true, well the first part entirely true at least, but I'm not sure that doesn't mean they don't deserve your vote. Voting with your ideals in mind is the just path in my opinion. I think Gary Johnson is a pretty good candidate and would be thrilled if he had any chance of winning, but he is not my ideal candidate either.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I'll have to read the article later but I disagree with your subect. Not voting for one of the 2 main morons I can get down with but there are other candidates.

Other candidates with no chance of winning, and, more importantly, who aren't that great of candidates to begin with.

All true, well the first part entirely true at least, but I'm not sure that doesn't mean they don't deserve your vote. Voting with your ideals in mind is the just path in my opinion. I think Gary Johnson is a pretty good candidate and would be thrilled if he had any chance of winning, but he is not my ideal candidate either.

I vote for the person that I want to be President. I can't honestly say that I want Gary Johnson to be President. He talks about balancing the federal budget, but can't even balance his campaign's budget. He once said that Guantanamo Bay Prison, or one like it, would have to remain open, and is open to certain military interventions. He supports the ridiculous Fair Tax, rather than the libertarian notion of getting rid of taxes. So while he may be better than Romney or Obama, I won't vote for the lesser of three evils anymore than I will the lesser of two.

 

[LibertyLemming]

Other candidates with no chance of winning, and, more importantly, who aren't that great of candidates to begin with.

All true, well the first part entirely true at least, but I'm not sure that doesn't mean they don't deserve your vote. Voting with your ideals in mind is the just path in my opinion. I think Gary Johnson is a pretty good candidate and would be thrilled if he had any chance of winning, but he is not my ideal candidate either.

I vote for the person that I want to be President. I can't honestly say that I want Gary Johnson to be President. He talks about balancing the federal budget, but can't even balance his campaign's budget. He once said that Guantanamo Bay Prison, or one like it, would have to remain open, and is open to certain military interventions. He supports the ridiculous Fair Tax, rather than the libertarian notion of getting rid of taxes. So while he may be better than Romney or Obama, I won't vote for the lesser of three evils anymore than I will the lesser of two.

Which is totally fine. I support not voting if there is no candidate that you are behind, however, if there is, you should vote. Unfortunately, not everyone shares our viewpoints on government and so if it is communism you want vote for a communist.

In Gary Johnson's defense on one thing, he did balance his state's budget. I agree 100% that he is a basically a Republican in Libertarian clothing.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Then, of course, there is what the Nobel Prize laureate economist Friedrich Hayek wrote in his brilliant chapter in The Road to Serfdom, tiltled, "Why the Worst Get on Top":

..if we wish to find a high degree of uniformity and similarity of outlook, we have to descend to the regions of lower moral and intellectual standards where the more primitive and "common" instincts and tastes prevail. This does not mean that the majority of people have low moral standards. It is, as it were, the lowest common denominator which unites the largest number of people. If a numerous group is needed, strong enough to impose their views on the values of life of all the rest, it will never be those with highly differentiated and developed tastes--it will be those who form the "mass" in the derogatory sense of the term, the least original and independent, who will be able to put weight of their numbers behind their particular ideals...
[A] potential dictator...will be able to obtain the support of all the docile and gullible, who have no strong convictions of their own but are prepared to accept a ready-made system of values if it is only drummed into their ears sufficiently loudly and frequently. It is those whose vague and imperfectly formed ideas are easily swayed and whose passions and emotions are readily aroused who will thus swell the ranks of the totalitarian party.

From your link.

It is the perfect example of seeing into the future. This is where we are now, at the lowest common demoninator.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

All true, well the first part entirely true at least, but I'm not sure that doesn't mean they don't deserve your vote. Voting with your ideals in mind is the just path in my opinion. I think Gary Johnson is a pretty good candidate and would be thrilled if he had any chance of winning, but he is not my ideal candidate either.

I vote for the person that I want to be President. I can't honestly say that I want Gary Johnson to be President. He talks about balancing the federal budget, but can't even balance his campaign's budget. He once said that Guantanamo Bay Prison, or one like it, would have to remain open, and is open to certain military interventions. He supports the ridiculous Fair Tax, rather than the libertarian notion of getting rid of taxes. So while he may be better than Romney or Obama, I won't vote for the lesser of three evils anymore than I will the lesser of two.

Which is totally fine. I support not voting if there is no candidate that you are behind, however, if there is, you should vote. Unfortunately, not everyone shares our viewpoints on government and so if it is communism you want vote for a communist.

In Gary Johnson's defense on one thing, he did balance his state's budget. I agree 100% that he is a basically a Republican in Libertarian clothing.

Well like I said in the first post, I'm not saying that if you vote you're automatically dumb. That's the author. I've voted in the past, and possibly will in the future.

 

[LibertyLemming]

Indeed, I wasn't criticizing you.

I'll be skipping this election especially since I'm currently in a state that votes the same way every year forever.