6 ms·

Please, do vote if you understand the issues, and where the candidates stand. But otherwise, please DO NOT VOTE. Just because an idea makes you feel warm and f

Please, do vote if you understand the issues, and where the candidates stand. But otherwise, please DO NOT VOTE. Just because an idea makes you feel warm and fuzzy doesn't make it right. There are plenty of things in this world that are counter-intuitive, and if you're relying only on your beliefs, there's a good chance you'll get it wrong. If you've never taken a class or read a book on economics, please don't vote. (I recommend Economics in One Lesson, by Henry Hazlett [1]) If you've never taken a class or read a book on political philosophy, please don't vote. If you don't know the difference between natural law and utilitarianism, please don't vote. (I recommend reading J S Mill [2], or Locke [3], or Mises [4], or Hayek [5]) And if you don't believe me, then you should also read The Myth of the Rational Voter, by Bryan Caplan [6]. He discusses not only why voters do vote irrationally, but also why it's rational for them to do so. [1] https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Economics_in_One_Lesson https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Economics_in_... [2] https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/John_Stuart_M... [3] https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/John_locke https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/John_locke [4] https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Ludwig_von_Mises https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Ludwig_von_Mi... [5] https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Friedrich_Hayek https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Friedrich_Hay... [6] https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/The_Myth_of_the_Rational_Voter%3A_Why_Democracies_Choose_Bad_Policies https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/The_Myth_of_t...

kgosser 16y ago
Seth Godin disagrees with you: http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2010/11/voting-misunderstood.html http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2010/11/voting-misun... Additionally, "if you understand the issues" is a vague, relative parameter. I know in the state of wisconsin I don't know 100% of the issues (and probably not even 50%, sadly. Been a busy year), but I know enough of what I like and dislike about the Governor and Senate battles to vote with confidence. I think your argument is a mute point. It's either damned if we do, damned if we don't.
- jbooth 16y ago
  Well, hopefully you're voting for Feingold. That guy's been one of the best senators of the last 20 years, honest, doesn't take any lobbyist money and a fiscal conservative, too, but he's in danger of losing to a guy who's entire platform is "I'm not a socialist" (Feingold isn't either).
  - achompas 16y ago
    Unfortunately Nate Silver puts Feingold at a 3% chance of winning. [1] That means his only chance of victory is a high turnout...so I hope that parent (kgosser) can take some time to vote today. Feingold is truly one of the most important Senators of the last few decades. [1] http://elections.nytimes.com/2010/senate/wisconsin http://elections.nytimes.com/2010/senate/wisconsin
    - hnal943 16y ago
      High turnout will ensure his defeat. He's not listening to the Wisconsin electorate and they noticed.
  - CWuestefeld 16y ago
    I live in a different state, but I wouldn't be caught dead voting for Feingold. I know none of your local issues, but I know that he's co-author of the McCain-Feingold Incumbency Protection Act, which gags those interested in the issues from educating the rest of the electorate. Apparently Sen. Feingold believes that it's better to have an ill-informed electorate, and that we shouldn't be able to use our 1st Amendment rights to put a voice to our ideas, if it has anything to do with politics. IMHO, this is precisely what the 1st Amendment was designed to give us, and Feingold's disavowal of it overrides virtually anything else he may or may not have done.
    - jbooth 16y ago
      Sorry that you've been brainwashhed. "Apparently Sen. Feingold believes that it's better to have an ill-informed electorate, and that we shouldn't be able to use our 1st Amendment rights to put a voice to our ideas, " Let me get you on the record here -- you actually think the various "Americans for American Americans" groups are contributing to the debate? You think these groups deserve a voice? Let me re-enact a little play for you in 3 lines: Lobbyist: I've got 5 million to spend, Senator. I can spend it with you or against you. We need our subsidies. Senator: I'm going to do the right thing, not the corrupt thing. Americans for American Americans: "Senator X supports wasteful government spending and death panels" (Note that the lobbyist who was asking for money is now running ads accusing the senator of spending too much. That's ok, because it works.)
jimmyjim 16y ago
By virtue of suggesting the very specific texts that you have suggested you have in essence suggested voting for a candidate of a specific set of characteristics. I could very well in turn suggest another list of texts, to reach a differing conclusion. Seems much like a Catch-22 game. Therefore, please just vote. From your life experiences, what you believe in, what sounds good to you, or by whatever text is of your liking.
- CWuestefeld 16y ago
  They were suggestions only. Feel free to suggest your own. I tried to pick a varied set (Mill, Locke, and Mises should each give you a somewhat different philosophy of government). I'm not saying that you've got to have the same values as me. I'm saying that whatever your values are, you should (a) be able to support an argument about them; and (b) you should understand how the candidates relate to those issues. I'm not saying whether Hayek or Keynes is right about the economy. I'm saying that if you don't know the difference between the two, you've got no business voting an opinion about how the economy should be handled.
flatline 16y ago
I'm surprised this opinion has so much uptake. Ideally, we would all be highly informed. The reality however is that most of the voting public will not be, and your informed vote has no more weight than an uninformed one. I don't like voting based on party, and I think the two-party system we have is inadequate, but the parties are there for a reason. I know that I'm voting for a platform if I vote for a Democrat or Republican or Libertarian, and that the candidate is going to represent that platform at least to some extent. In most cases, candidates' platforms are drawn directly from the party platforms, and you're not likely to find out much more about them until they've been in office for a while. Even then, what is knowable about a candidate is mostly in aggregate. As to actual issues, these can be much less straightforward, but often it comes down to something as simple as, "do I want gambling at the mall?" (a current issue in my district). There are a lot of implications behind this - money coming in from out of state to protect other gambling interests, developers who want to build, etc. - but I still think it's valid for someone to vote for or against it for their own personal reasons. It is an expression of culture not just reason.
- CWuestefeld 16y ago
  I'm voting for a platform if I vote for a Democrat or Republican or Libertarian That's true to a certain extent. But it's only one side of the equation. Even if you can take party as a proxy for the candidate, it tells you nothing about the issues. So, let's say that your biggest concern at the moment is the economy. Without knowing something about economics, how do you decide which party to support? If you can't tell the difference between Keynes and Hayek, everything else is just demagoguery. You're just judging the propaganda. What if you're concern is healthcare? I know plenty of people who say "vote out the damn Democrats, and put in somebody who's smart enough to enact tort reform to fix the problem". These ill-informed views might make them feel superior, but giving people power to create policy based on them isn't going to help anything.
Alex3917 16y ago
Do people who have taken political philosophy 101 vote significantly differently than the rest of the population? I highly doubt it.
- pjscott 16y ago
  That's either a very encouraging statement about the population at large, or a seriously scary statement about how much useful stuff people actually learn from political philosophy 101.
Jun8 16y ago
I understand that your comments are partly in jest (I hope!), but still the basic idea expressed in them is very misguided, dangerous and wrong: Misguided, because one can argue that everyone acts according to their beliefs, even an economics professor. You cannot talk about a clear dichotomy between those who vote on their belief and those who vote on "rational principles". It's wrong because voting is an inherent citizenship right; it cannot be made contiguous on intellectual (or any other, e.g. socio-economic class) aspects, e.g. knowledge of economics, full understanding of the issues etc. of a voter. If you open the door to voter discrimination by declaring some votes less equal than others, who knows what other ideologies may walk through it. It is also dangerous because it creates a sense of "right". The one thing that always amazed me in my discussions with liberals in the US is that they argue that their position is, how to put it, "inherently right", i.e. that they are the informed ones, whereas the "others" are the hoi polloi, the uneducated, stupid masses. Years earlier, in the race between Kerry and Bush, when I pointed to these people that Kerry came across as unlovable and stiff, I was met with disbelief: It was Kerry's "right" to be elected because he was "right". The danger of this view, of course, is that it often leads to defeat. In any confrontation, knowing the enemy's full power is crucial and belittling them will not make you win the war.
- CWuestefeld 16y ago
  I understand that your comments are partly in jest Nope, 100% serious. It's wrong because voting is an inherent citizenship right; it cannot be made... I agree completely. In no way do I advocate any sort of qualification. That's a slippery slope the first step of which is incredibly steep. What I'm advocating is that people self-select. I wish we could each reflect personally, and try to determine whether we really have the knowledge and understanding that's necessary to judge; and then honestly decide whether that the conclusion allows us to impose our thoughts on others. The government enforces its policies, ultimately, by force and violence. If you're going to threaten someone (by way of the government) with force, you'd better be damned confident that there's a good reason to do so.
  - Kisil 16y ago
    Perhaps in an ideal world some people should self-select out of voting; I haven't thought enough about that ideal world to say. But HN in general, and this page in particular, is the wrong forum to push for such self-selection. I would be willing to bet that the average HN reader is better informed, and better qualified to understand that information, than the general population. HN readers, please vote today.
ugh 16y ago
Why that specific set of economists? Wouldn’t a Econ 101 handbook suffice? Anyone can go further if they wish to do that, it’s of no use plunging them in the middle of views which are at least sometimes controversial.
colanderman 16y ago
By your own logic, your post is flawed. Those who are more likely to heed it (i.e. those who know what they don't know) are presumably more well-versed on the issues than those who will not heed your advice (i.e. those who don't know what they don't know). Your post will do more harm than good by increasing the relative number of willfully ignorant voters, and by your own logic you should delete it. P.S. The fact that it is reaching the limited audience of HN only strengthens my case, since HN readership tends to be more informed. P.P.S. You also missed the possibility that elite voters have a different set of priorities than uninformed voters and would therefore misrepresent the majority of the populace.
mcantelon 16y ago
>If you've never taken a class or read a book on economics, please don't vote. ... If you've never taken a class or read a book on political philosophy, please don't vote. If you're an elitist academic that thinks knowledge about how the world works can only be garnered via institutionalized knowledge, please don't vote. If you're willing to recommend that lower classes, made up predominantly of marginalized races, opt out of a say in their future, please don't vote.
- endtime 16y ago
  Yeah, reading books is terribly elitist.
  - mcantelon 16y ago
    That's not what was stated. Suggesting one is ignorant of how politics works, and shouldn't vote, unless one has read a book on political philosophy is, absolutely, elitist.
- CWuestefeld 16y ago
  Suppose that I go into the voting booth with a pair of dice, and use them to decide who to vote for. Am I morally correct in this approach? If a voter is reacting emotionally to propaganda, without taking the time to understand the real story, is this much different from rolling dice?
  - mcantelon 16y ago
    >If a voter is reacting emotionally to propaganda, without taking the time to understand the real story, is this much different from rolling dice? To understand the "real story", I'd trust someone who had paid attention to what the parties have done over decades, reading news and analysis, over someone who merely read a book on political philosophy at some point.
    - CWuestefeld 16y ago
      My list wasn't meant to be exhaustive. Of course you're right, that an understanding of history and who the actors are is important as well. However, to prefer that point of view is to exclude other possibilities outside of the status quo. For example, the Republicans were pretty new back in the mid-1800's, with Abraham Lincoln being the first Republican elected president. If my vote were based on past performance of the parties, I'd only have considered Democrats and Whigs. And if you're following along, you'll notice that the President credited with freeing the slaves was a Republican. How did that happen? Over time, the positions of the American parties have changed quite drastically. In the early 1900s, it was the Democrats who were backing big business. but the civil rights movement shuffled things significantly. Similarly, the (American) definition of "liberal" has changed significantly since the late 1800s. Back then, a liberal's ideas would correspond more closely to today's Libertarians or perhaps a small-government Republican. My point here is that history can only have limited utility. First, by definition, it excludes new ideas. Second, the parts of the players shift so that long-term comparisons become problematic.
siculars 16y ago
Do you know that in NYC (at least) you are not required to show your ID when voting? Due principally to undue burden on the voter, as I understand. And here you are suggesting that if you do not have a particular level of knowledge on certain subjects then you should not vote. "...if you're relying only on your beliefs..." Of course, I would argue the exact opposite. Between any number of subjective opinions, is it not ones beliefs that enable you to make a decision? "If you've never taken a class or read a book on economics, please don't vote." Perhaps you should not vote because i believe that you, Sir, are out of your mind.
jozo 16y ago
I think you should vote, even if you don't seem to understand what representation[1] means. You also seem to only refer to liberals, but at the same time you say people shouldn't vote? I thought individual freedom and equal rights was a core principle in liberalism, but I guess you are only counting positive freedom. If you really believe that people shouldn't have a say in elections based on your criteria, you should at least ask them to actively do so by casting a blank vote. Otherwise your motives might be misinterpreted as trying to demoralize people who don't share your views from voting. And as someone once said: "It ain’t so much the things we don’t know that get us into trouble. It’s the things we know that just ain’t so" Not necessarily true just because someone said so, but I do agree with the point being made. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representation_(politics) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representation_(politics)
- CWuestefeld 16y ago
  You also seem to only refer to liberals,... I thought individual freedom and equal rights was a core principle in liberalism, but I guess you are only counting positive freedom. Huh? I mentioned JS Mill and Locke, Mises and Hayek. The first two were classical liberals. That's a very different thing than what we label "Liberal" (with a capital "L") today. You'll find individual freedom at the core of their work (e.g., Mill's advocacy for women's suffrage). Mises and Hayek would, I imagine, also consider themselves as classical liberals, but by their time the definition (in America) of "liberal" was changing (which is why I drew the capital-L distinction above). Both of them wrote extensively about the primacy of the individual. You reference positive freedom, but the idea itself wasn't coined until the mid-1900s, long after Mill and Locke were dead, and with much of Hayek's career behind him. But I feel safe in saying that none of them would find much of value in the concept of positive freedom. But my advocacy that you understand something is not the same thing as saying that you must agree with something. Indeed, in order to disagree with an idea, you must first understand what that idea is -- know your enemy, right? As I've said elsewhere in this thread, the government backs up its policies with force and violence, ultimately. Thus, advocating a policy is, in the end, a threat of violence against those who disagree. If you're going to do that, you better be damned sure that your ideas are correct.
zephyrfalcon 16y ago
I guess not many people get to vote, using this system...
jberryman 16y ago
As others have mentioned, there is an epistemological issue with your point. You should not be so confident in your ability to judge whether others are making decisions based on their "beliefs" or informed rationality, nor in your own ability to choose rationally.
jfager 16y ago
Having people disenfranchise themselves based on whether or not they feel they have an adequate grasp on the real issues would not end as you'd hope. Are you familiar with the Dunning-Kruger effect? If people took your advice to heart, the likely result would actually be a less-informed electorate: the only people who would actually disqualify themselves would be the only ones thoughtful and self-critical enough to countenance the possibility that they weren't qualified. There is no principled way to distinguish between a vote based on propaganda from a vote based on knowledge that doesn't actively disenfranchise voters. So why even try? Just vote your say, and rather than expending your energy trying to keep people out of the ballot box, expend it on educating them.
firemanx 16y ago
While I support the idea of people educating themselves (and I would also recommend the reading list you provided), who can guarantee 100% that they are free from propaganda or brainwashing? Especially given the vast amount of information everyone is confronted with every day. We are emotional creatures, each susceptible to misdirection by those who intended it (or perhaps even worse, by those we trust who don't intend it). Advocating that people take themselves out of the pool because they may not understand the entire situation would eliminate every possible voter.
- tjr 16y ago
  Advocating that people take themselves out of the pool because they may not understand the entire situation would eliminate every possible voter. It'd eliminate all of the candidates, too...
  - Semiapies 16y ago
    Feature, not bug.
kungfooguru 16y ago
Or read Marx.

kgosser 16y ago

Seth Godin disagrees with you: http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2010/11/voting-misunderstood.html http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2010/11/voting-misun... Additionally, "if you understand the issues" is a vague, relative parameter. I know in the state of wisconsin I don't know 100% of the issues (and probably not even 50%, sadly. Been a busy year), but I know enough of what I like and dislike about the Governor and Senate battles to vote with confidence. I think your argument is a mute point. It's either damned if we do, damned if we don't.

jbooth 16y ago
Well, hopefully you're voting for Feingold. That guy's been one of the best senators of the last 20 years, honest, doesn't take any lobbyist money and a fiscal conservative, too, but he's in danger of losing to a guy who's entire platform is "I'm not a socialist" (Feingold isn't either).
- achompas 16y ago
  Unfortunately Nate Silver puts Feingold at a 3% chance of winning. [1] That means his only chance of victory is a high turnout...so I hope that parent (kgosser) can take some time to vote today. Feingold is truly one of the most important Senators of the last few decades. [1] http://elections.nytimes.com/2010/senate/wisconsin http://elections.nytimes.com/2010/senate/wisconsin
  - hnal943 16y ago
    High turnout will ensure his defeat. He's not listening to the Wisconsin electorate and they noticed.
- CWuestefeld 16y ago
  I live in a different state, but I wouldn't be caught dead voting for Feingold. I know none of your local issues, but I know that he's co-author of the McCain-Feingold Incumbency Protection Act, which gags those interested in the issues from educating the rest of the electorate. Apparently Sen. Feingold believes that it's better to have an ill-informed electorate, and that we shouldn't be able to use our 1st Amendment rights to put a voice to our ideas, if it has anything to do with politics. IMHO, this is precisely what the 1st Amendment was designed to give us, and Feingold's disavowal of it overrides virtually anything else he may or may not have done.
  - jbooth 16y ago
    Sorry that you've been brainwashhed. "Apparently Sen. Feingold believes that it's better to have an ill-informed electorate, and that we shouldn't be able to use our 1st Amendment rights to put a voice to our ideas, " Let me get you on the record here -- you actually think the various "Americans for American Americans" groups are contributing to the debate? You think these groups deserve a voice? Let me re-enact a little play for you in 3 lines: Lobbyist: I've got 5 million to spend, Senator. I can spend it with you or against you. We need our subsidies. Senator: I'm going to do the right thing, not the corrupt thing. Americans for American Americans: "Senator X supports wasteful government spending and death panels" (Note that the lobbyist who was asking for money is now running ads accusing the senator of spending too much. That's ok, because it works.)

jimmyjim 16y ago

By virtue of suggesting the very specific texts that you have suggested you have in essence suggested voting for a candidate of a specific set of characteristics. I could very well in turn suggest another list of texts, to reach a differing conclusion. Seems much like a Catch-22 game. Therefore, please just vote. From your life experiences, what you believe in, what sounds good to you, or by whatever text is of your liking.

CWuestefeld 16y ago
They were suggestions only. Feel free to suggest your own. I tried to pick a varied set (Mill, Locke, and Mises should each give you a somewhat different philosophy of government). I'm not saying that you've got to have the same values as me. I'm saying that whatever your values are, you should (a) be able to support an argument about them; and (b) you should understand how the candidates relate to those issues. I'm not saying whether Hayek or Keynes is right about the economy. I'm saying that if you don't know the difference between the two, you've got no business voting an opinion about how the economy should be handled.

flatline 16y ago

I'm surprised this opinion has so much uptake. Ideally, we would all be highly informed. The reality however is that most of the voting public will not be, and your informed vote has no more weight than an uninformed one. I don't like voting based on party, and I think the two-party system we have is inadequate, but the parties are there for a reason. I know that I'm voting for a platform if I vote for a Democrat or Republican or Libertarian, and that the candidate is going to represent that platform at least to some extent. In most cases, candidates' platforms are drawn directly from the party platforms, and you're not likely to find out much more about them until they've been in office for a while. Even then, what is knowable about a candidate is mostly in aggregate. As to actual issues, these can be much less straightforward, but often it comes down to something as simple as, "do I want gambling at the mall?" (a current issue in my district). There are a lot of implications behind this - money coming in from out of state to protect other gambling interests, developers who want to build, etc. - but I still think it's valid for someone to vote for or against it for their own personal reasons. It is an expression of culture not just reason.

CWuestefeld 16y ago
I'm voting for a platform if I vote for a Democrat or Republican or Libertarian That's true to a certain extent. But it's only one side of the equation. Even if you can take party as a proxy for the candidate, it tells you nothing about the issues. So, let's say that your biggest concern at the moment is the economy. Without knowing something about economics, how do you decide which party to support? If you can't tell the difference between Keynes and Hayek, everything else is just demagoguery. You're just judging the propaganda. What if you're concern is healthcare? I know plenty of people who say "vote out the damn Democrats, and put in somebody who's smart enough to enact tort reform to fix the problem". These ill-informed views might make them feel superior, but giving people power to create policy based on them isn't going to help anything.

Alex3917 16y ago

Do people who have taken political philosophy 101 vote significantly differently than the rest of the population? I highly doubt it.

pjscott 16y ago
That's either a very encouraging statement about the population at large, or a seriously scary statement about how much useful stuff people actually learn from political philosophy 101.

Jun8 16y ago

I understand that your comments are partly in jest (I hope!), but still the basic idea expressed in them is very misguided, dangerous and wrong: Misguided, because one can argue that everyone acts according to their beliefs, even an economics professor. You cannot talk about a clear dichotomy between those who vote on their belief and those who vote on "rational principles". It's wrong because voting is an inherent citizenship right; it cannot be made contiguous on intellectual (or any other, e.g. socio-economic class) aspects, e.g. knowledge of economics, full understanding of the issues etc. of a voter. If you open the door to voter discrimination by declaring some votes less equal than others, who knows what other ideologies may walk through it. It is also dangerous because it creates a sense of "right". The one thing that always amazed me in my discussions with liberals in the US is that they argue that their position is, how to put it, "inherently right", i.e. that they are the informed ones, whereas the "others" are the hoi polloi, the uneducated, stupid masses. Years earlier, in the race between Kerry and Bush, when I pointed to these people that Kerry came across as unlovable and stiff, I was met with disbelief: It was Kerry's "right" to be elected because he was "right". The danger of this view, of course, is that it often leads to defeat. In any confrontation, knowing the enemy's full power is crucial and belittling them will not make you win the war.

CWuestefeld 16y ago
I understand that your comments are partly in jest Nope, 100% serious. It's wrong because voting is an inherent citizenship right; it cannot be made... I agree completely. In no way do I advocate any sort of qualification. That's a slippery slope the first step of which is incredibly steep. What I'm advocating is that people self-select. I wish we could each reflect personally, and try to determine whether we really have the knowledge and understanding that's necessary to judge; and then honestly decide whether that the conclusion allows us to impose our thoughts on others. The government enforces its policies, ultimately, by force and violence. If you're going to threaten someone (by way of the government) with force, you'd better be damned confident that there's a good reason to do so.
- Kisil 16y ago
  Perhaps in an ideal world some people should self-select out of voting; I haven't thought enough about that ideal world to say. But HN in general, and this page in particular, is the wrong forum to push for such self-selection. I would be willing to bet that the average HN reader is better informed, and better qualified to understand that information, than the general population. HN readers, please vote today.

ugh 16y ago

Why that specific set of economists? Wouldn’t a Econ 101 handbook suffice? Anyone can go further if they wish to do that, it’s of no use plunging them in the middle of views which are at least sometimes controversial.

colanderman 16y ago

By your own logic, your post is flawed. Those who are more likely to heed it (i.e. those who know what they don't know) are presumably more well-versed on the issues than those who will not heed your advice (i.e. those who don't know what they don't know). Your post will do more harm than good by increasing the relative number of willfully ignorant voters, and by your own logic you should delete it. P.S. The fact that it is reaching the limited audience of HN only strengthens my case, since HN readership tends to be more informed. P.P.S. You also missed the possibility that elite voters have a different set of priorities than uninformed voters and would therefore misrepresent the majority of the populace.

mcantelon 16y ago

>If you've never taken a class or read a book on economics, please don't vote. ... If you've never taken a class or read a book on political philosophy, please don't vote. If you're an elitist academic that thinks knowledge about how the world works can only be garnered via institutionalized knowledge, please don't vote. If you're willing to recommend that lower classes, made up predominantly of marginalized races, opt out of a say in their future, please don't vote.

endtime 16y ago
Yeah, reading books is terribly elitist.
- mcantelon 16y ago
  That's not what was stated. Suggesting one is ignorant of how politics works, and shouldn't vote, unless one has read a book on political philosophy is, absolutely, elitist.
CWuestefeld 16y ago
Suppose that I go into the voting booth with a pair of dice, and use them to decide who to vote for. Am I morally correct in this approach? If a voter is reacting emotionally to propaganda, without taking the time to understand the real story, is this much different from rolling dice?
- mcantelon 16y ago
  >If a voter is reacting emotionally to propaganda, without taking the time to understand the real story, is this much different from rolling dice? To understand the "real story", I'd trust someone who had paid attention to what the parties have done over decades, reading news and analysis, over someone who merely read a book on political philosophy at some point.
  - CWuestefeld 16y ago
    My list wasn't meant to be exhaustive. Of course you're right, that an understanding of history and who the actors are is important as well. However, to prefer that point of view is to exclude other possibilities outside of the status quo. For example, the Republicans were pretty new back in the mid-1800's, with Abraham Lincoln being the first Republican elected president. If my vote were based on past performance of the parties, I'd only have considered Democrats and Whigs. And if you're following along, you'll notice that the President credited with freeing the slaves was a Republican. How did that happen? Over time, the positions of the American parties have changed quite drastically. In the early 1900s, it was the Democrats who were backing big business. but the civil rights movement shuffled things significantly. Similarly, the (American) definition of "liberal" has changed significantly since the late 1800s. Back then, a liberal's ideas would correspond more closely to today's Libertarians or perhaps a small-government Republican. My point here is that history can only have limited utility. First, by definition, it excludes new ideas. Second, the parts of the players shift so that long-term comparisons become problematic.

siculars 16y ago

Do you know that in NYC (at least) you are not required to show your ID when voting? Due principally to undue burden on the voter, as I understand. And here you are suggesting that if you do not have a particular level of knowledge on certain subjects then you should not vote. "...if you're relying only on your beliefs..." Of course, I would argue the exact opposite. Between any number of subjective opinions, is it not ones beliefs that enable you to make a decision? "If you've never taken a class or read a book on economics, please don't vote." Perhaps you should not vote because i believe that you, Sir, are out of your mind.

jozo 16y ago

I think you should vote, even if you don't seem to understand what representation[1] means. You also seem to only refer to liberals, but at the same time you say people shouldn't vote? I thought individual freedom and equal rights was a core principle in liberalism, but I guess you are only counting positive freedom. If you really believe that people shouldn't have a say in elections based on your criteria, you should at least ask them to actively do so by casting a blank vote. Otherwise your motives might be misinterpreted as trying to demoralize people who don't share your views from voting. And as someone once said: "It ain’t so much the things we don’t know that get us into trouble. It’s the things we know that just ain’t so" Not necessarily true just because someone said so, but I do agree with the point being made. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representation_(politics) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representation_(politics)

CWuestefeld 16y ago
You also seem to only refer to liberals,... I thought individual freedom and equal rights was a core principle in liberalism, but I guess you are only counting positive freedom. Huh? I mentioned JS Mill and Locke, Mises and Hayek. The first two were classical liberals. That's a very different thing than what we label "Liberal" (with a capital "L") today. You'll find individual freedom at the core of their work (e.g., Mill's advocacy for women's suffrage). Mises and Hayek would, I imagine, also consider themselves as classical liberals, but by their time the definition (in America) of "liberal" was changing (which is why I drew the capital-L distinction above). Both of them wrote extensively about the primacy of the individual. You reference positive freedom, but the idea itself wasn't coined until the mid-1900s, long after Mill and Locke were dead, and with much of Hayek's career behind him. But I feel safe in saying that none of them would find much of value in the concept of positive freedom. But my advocacy that you understand something is not the same thing as saying that you must agree with something. Indeed, in order to disagree with an idea, you must first understand what that idea is -- know your enemy, right? As I've said elsewhere in this thread, the government backs up its policies with force and violence, ultimately. Thus, advocating a policy is, in the end, a threat of violence against those who disagree. If you're going to do that, you better be damned sure that your ideas are correct.

zephyrfalcon 16y ago

I guess not many people get to vote, using this system...

jberryman 16y ago

As others have mentioned, there is an epistemological issue with your point. You should not be so confident in your ability to judge whether others are making decisions based on their "beliefs" or informed rationality, nor in your own ability to choose rationally.

jfager 16y ago

Having people disenfranchise themselves based on whether or not they feel they have an adequate grasp on the real issues would not end as you'd hope. Are you familiar with the Dunning-Kruger effect? If people took your advice to heart, the likely result would actually be a less-informed electorate: the only people who would actually disqualify themselves would be the only ones thoughtful and self-critical enough to countenance the possibility that they weren't qualified. There is no principled way to distinguish between a vote based on propaganda from a vote based on knowledge that doesn't actively disenfranchise voters. So why even try? Just vote your say, and rather than expending your energy trying to keep people out of the ballot box, expend it on educating them.

firemanx 16y ago

While I support the idea of people educating themselves (and I would also recommend the reading list you provided), who can guarantee 100% that they are free from propaganda or brainwashing? Especially given the vast amount of information everyone is confronted with every day. We are emotional creatures, each susceptible to misdirection by those who intended it (or perhaps even worse, by those we trust who don't intend it). Advocating that people take themselves out of the pool because they may not understand the entire situation would eliminate every possible voter.

tjr 16y ago
Advocating that people take themselves out of the pool because they may not understand the entire situation would eliminate every possible voter. It'd eliminate all of the candidates, too...
- Semiapies 16y ago
  Feature, not bug.

kungfooguru 16y ago

Or read Marx.