5 ms·

"I have solved this political dilemma in a very direct way: I don't vote. On Election Day, I stay home. I firmly believe that if you vote, you have no right to

by edw519 14y ago

"I have solved this political dilemma in a very direct way: I don't vote. On Election Day, I stay home. I firmly believe that if you vote, you have no right to complain. Now, some people like to twist that around. They say, 'If you don't vote, you have no right to complain,' but where's the logic in that? If you vote, and you elect dishonest, incompetent politicians, and they get into office and screw everything up, you are responsible for what they have done. You voted them in. You caused the problem. You have no right to complain. I, on the other hand, who did not vote -- who did not even leave the house on Election Day -- am in no way responsible for that these politicians have done and have every right to complain about the mess that you created." - George Carlin

ohrus 14y ago
I love George Carlin, I think he's one of the greatest comedians to have ever lived. You can't seriously believe take this as truth though, can you? If you vote you caused the problem? That you cannot argue/complain that who you vote for turns out to be just another politician looking out for number one? By that 'logic' I have no right to complain if I hire someone who turns out to be completely incompetent? If you are governed by fools or charlatans everyone has the right to speak out, to bitch, whine, complain - voter or not. That's the right we have, and we're fortunate to have it. (Yes, we need better - but apathy changes nothing).
- sparkie 14y ago
  Your hiring analogy is flawed, because you have the right to not hire anyone in the first place. > If you are governed by fools or charlatans everyone has the right to speak out, to bitch, whine, complain - voter or not. You have the right to complain about the fool, but you don't have the right to complain about being governed - since that's what you consented to when you tick the box. Before being asked "Which fool should govern?" should you not be asked "Do you want to be governed by a fool?"
  - polshaw 14y ago
    You consent to it just as much by not voting. You pay taxes to fund them FFS! You are doing less to change the system by not voting than you are by voting. It would be lovely to be asked "Do you want to be governed by a fool?", but you don't get that, ignoring the question you are asked is not bringing that closer. You could at least spoil you ballot if you wish to protest. Doing nothing will be interpreted as laziness, apathy and comfort. Not voting because you disagree with the system is fundamentally misguided, at least if you want to be pragmatic.
  - ohrus 14y ago
    Sure, I'll admit it was not a well thought out analogy. Regardless, we have the right to complain either way. Consent or not, we are all governed. There's no opting out of that.
sgift 14y ago
> but where's the logic in that? You didn't vote. So, the better candidate (for whom you could have voted) wasn't voted into the office. So, the worse candidate was voted into the office. You are responsible for the election of a bad candidate. q.e.d. Note 1: I know, analyzing quotes is useless, but I couldn't resist. Note 2: If there are only bad candidates the situation is more complex, but this is an edge case which only happens in thought experiments.
- tatsuke95 14y ago
  >"If there are only bad candidates the situation is more complex, but this is an edge case which only happens in thought experiments" I think you and I have differing opinions about the candidates. What do you consider "good"? Has there even been a "good" candidate in the past 20, 30 years?
  - sgift 14y ago
    I am not from the US, so I have to draw my "Sorry, I don't know" card here, but I really cannot believe that there were only bad candidates - It isn't impossible, but without proof it seems highly unlikely, i.e. an edge case.
    - precisioncoder 14y ago
      Extreme variations are more likely the smaller your sample size is, considering America has a two party system they have a very small sample size causing it to be prone to extreme variation. Examples: No women candidate, no candidate that is not a politician, no candidate that favors alternate economic models, etc etc. This makes no "good" candidates according to a particular individual's view highly likely.
    - tatsuke95 14y ago
      Nor am I. My opinion is that most of these guys are interchangeable, and (of the elite subset they are part of) quite average. "Underwhelming" is a good descriptor. I've yet to experience someone describable as "good".
polshaw 14y ago
If you are to take this at face value, the answer to that (IMO) is to vote third party if you don't have a strong preference between the main two. Then you are doing your small bit[1] towards promoting plurality, and promoting the issues that probably align closer to your values than one of the main two. 1. You may say, 'i will make no difference', well, as one in 300m that is true no matter who you vote for. May as well vote with your conscience.
- sparkie 14y ago
  Carlin isn't complaining about who gets in - he is complaining that anyone gets in. A vote for anyone is your consent to be enslaved by whoever wins.
  - polshaw 14y ago
    It's not clear that he is making an Anarchistic argument (as you suggest) or just complaining about the status-quo of politicians. Either way, as of today, voting third party means you won't be 'voting them in' (NB: it does not follow that your vote will not have any impact).
- Shivetya 14y ago
  Yet voting third party in the US has no effect, or worse it can boost the party your least likely to be interested in. An interesting article on WSJ via Volokh about the Libertarian party covers this issue http://www.volokh.com/2012/11/05/my-wsj-op-ed-the-mistake-that-is-the-libertarian-party/ http://www.volokh.com/2012/11/05/my-wsj-op-ed-the-mistake-th...
  - bmelton 14y ago
    Not voting for the third party you believe in is the greater sin (IMHO) as garnering 5% of the popular vote makes them eligible for matching federal funds in the subsequent election. Simply put, let's say you're a Libertarian, but don't want to vote for Gary Johnson to prevent 'throwing your vote away'. But voting for him now possibly adds to his campaign funds in the 2016 election, which increases third party viability fairly substantially. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matching_funds#In_politics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matching_funds#In_politics

by edw519 14y ago

ohrus 14y ago

I love George Carlin, I think he's one of the greatest comedians to have ever lived. You can't seriously believe take this as truth though, can you? If you vote you caused the problem? That you cannot argue/complain that who you vote for turns out to be just another politician looking out for number one? By that 'logic' I have no right to complain if I hire someone who turns out to be completely incompetent? If you are governed by fools or charlatans everyone has the right to speak out, to bitch, whine, complain - voter or not. That's the right we have, and we're fortunate to have it. (Yes, we need better - but apathy changes nothing).

sparkie 14y ago
Your hiring analogy is flawed, because you have the right to not hire anyone in the first place. > If you are governed by fools or charlatans everyone has the right to speak out, to bitch, whine, complain - voter or not. You have the right to complain about the fool, but you don't have the right to complain about being governed - since that's what you consented to when you tick the box. Before being asked "Which fool should govern?" should you not be asked "Do you want to be governed by a fool?"
- polshaw 14y ago
  You consent to it just as much by not voting. You pay taxes to fund them FFS! You are doing less to change the system by not voting than you are by voting. It would be lovely to be asked "Do you want to be governed by a fool?", but you don't get that, ignoring the question you are asked is not bringing that closer. You could at least spoil you ballot if you wish to protest. Doing nothing will be interpreted as laziness, apathy and comfort. Not voting because you disagree with the system is fundamentally misguided, at least if you want to be pragmatic.
- ohrus 14y ago
  Sure, I'll admit it was not a well thought out analogy. Regardless, we have the right to complain either way. Consent or not, we are all governed. There's no opting out of that.

sgift 14y ago

> but where's the logic in that? You didn't vote. So, the better candidate (for whom you could have voted) wasn't voted into the office. So, the worse candidate was voted into the office. You are responsible for the election of a bad candidate. q.e.d. Note 1: I know, analyzing quotes is useless, but I couldn't resist. Note 2: If there are only bad candidates the situation is more complex, but this is an edge case which only happens in thought experiments.

tatsuke95 14y ago
>"If there are only bad candidates the situation is more complex, but this is an edge case which only happens in thought experiments" I think you and I have differing opinions about the candidates. What do you consider "good"? Has there even been a "good" candidate in the past 20, 30 years?
- sgift 14y ago
  I am not from the US, so I have to draw my "Sorry, I don't know" card here, but I really cannot believe that there were only bad candidates - It isn't impossible, but without proof it seems highly unlikely, i.e. an edge case.
  - precisioncoder 14y ago
    Extreme variations are more likely the smaller your sample size is, considering America has a two party system they have a very small sample size causing it to be prone to extreme variation. Examples: No women candidate, no candidate that is not a politician, no candidate that favors alternate economic models, etc etc. This makes no "good" candidates according to a particular individual's view highly likely.
  - tatsuke95 14y ago
    Nor am I. My opinion is that most of these guys are interchangeable, and (of the elite subset they are part of) quite average. "Underwhelming" is a good descriptor. I've yet to experience someone describable as "good".

polshaw 14y ago

If you are to take this at face value, the answer to that (IMO) is to vote third party if you don't have a strong preference between the main two. Then you are doing your small bit[1] towards promoting plurality, and promoting the issues that probably align closer to your values than one of the main two. 1. You may say, 'i will make no difference', well, as one in 300m that is true no matter who you vote for. May as well vote with your conscience.

sparkie 14y ago
Carlin isn't complaining about who gets in - he is complaining that anyone gets in. A vote for anyone is your consent to be enslaved by whoever wins.
- polshaw 14y ago
  It's not clear that he is making an Anarchistic argument (as you suggest) or just complaining about the status-quo of politicians. Either way, as of today, voting third party means you won't be 'voting them in' (NB: it does not follow that your vote will not have any impact).
Shivetya 14y ago
Yet voting third party in the US has no effect, or worse it can boost the party your least likely to be interested in. An interesting article on WSJ via Volokh about the Libertarian party covers this issue http://www.volokh.com/2012/11/05/my-wsj-op-ed-the-mistake-that-is-the-libertarian-party/ http://www.volokh.com/2012/11/05/my-wsj-op-ed-the-mistake-th...
- bmelton 14y ago
  Not voting for the third party you believe in is the greater sin (IMHO) as garnering 5% of the popular vote makes them eligible for matching federal funds in the subsequent election. Simply put, let's say you're a Libertarian, but don't want to vote for Gary Johnson to prevent 'throwing your vote away'. But voting for him now possibly adds to his campaign funds in the 2016 election, which increases third party viability fairly substantially. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matching_funds#In_politics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matching_funds#In_politics