I think you are right to characterize voting as a collective action problem, but wrong to conclude that you have a duty not to defect. Mangu-Ward is right about the quality of voters. Most people are incapable of thinking about statistics or economics or foreign policy or tradeoffs or doing cost-benefit analysis, all of which you need to do a good job deciding on a candidate. In theory their errors in judgment could average out to a good decision, but as Bryan Caplan argues in “Myth of the Rational Voter”, they don’t, and instead are systematically biased (namely, towards socialism and nationalism). Saying “It doesn’t matter who you vote for, just vote!” is like saying “It doesn’t matter if you don’t know how to do surgery, just cut him up!”
Now, you could maybe argue that you have the duty not to defect if you have taken the time to become well-informed and unbiased (i.e., you are not the sort of person who watches Fox News or MSNBC all day, and you have made an effort to think non-tribally about which candidate will be best for you and all your countrymen). But do you have the duty to become well-informed and unbiased in the first place? I think not, since there are lots of other more effective pro-social ways to spend your time, and you could do one of those instead.
Good article, but...you've missed The Point. All arguments to this matter have merit. The reason your pro argument is flawed, however, is for the very reason it dismisses the counter argument(s).
Voting in an insufficient or otherwise flawed system does not necessitate reason to continue That System. A better argument would be to erect a
different system- which does not necessarily require participation in the Current One. As a matter of fact, many who were ineligible voters Yesteryear, are now eligible- from action outside of
Excellent question. I'm working on publishing "Tenets of a Democratic Republic". Imagine moving away from the "representative government" fashioned upon a time when news traveled slow. Imagine stripping "perks" (read: power) from politicians so that the position actually reflects public service- no paying for publicist, speech writers, politicking. Imagine placing politicians on an hourly wage, removing unapproved "closed-door" meetings, and forcing politicians to receive voter approval before being allowed "recess" or vacations.
There are numerous ways to fashion a system "of, The People, by The People, for The People". I aim to see it so.
I would like to learn more. I have long been fascinated by the prospect of removing elected reps from the equation. I have sortition as a possible pathway. You may like my discussion on this: https://www.lianeon.org/p/imagining-our-martian-government
Sortition - I hadn't thought of electing officials in that exclusive manner but do believe the concept may be more reasonable and germane for today's world. I'll delve into some historical reference, for better context, and your discussion link. I'll have a better response, then.
I will read through a few things and can follow-up via DM, if you're okay with that. I checked your profile- had no idea someone inclined towards investment in risks and progress existed. That...very interesting.
Well said! Only through individual actions, even when seemingly random, can we achieve a rational outcome—despite any irrationality at the individual level. I believe those who promote inaction based on individual irrationality are not true libertarians. VOTE!
Maybe a simple "yes" or "no" is also necessary as a survival tool in our society? Maybe that's why the Neanderthals disappeared without this simplicity? It's possibly a feature, not a bug. Who knows!
You may find this post of mine interesting. Mangu-Ward's 1-in-60-million is way off (though she was probably accurately citing a now-obsolete and flawed study.)
When one uses reasonable estimates, voting has a very high value for society (if not any given individual.)
“Not because voting is individually rational, but precisely because it is not.”
Very good piece.
*Fantastic* closing sentence.
I think you are right to characterize voting as a collective action problem, but wrong to conclude that you have a duty not to defect. Mangu-Ward is right about the quality of voters. Most people are incapable of thinking about statistics or economics or foreign policy or tradeoffs or doing cost-benefit analysis, all of which you need to do a good job deciding on a candidate. In theory their errors in judgment could average out to a good decision, but as Bryan Caplan argues in “Myth of the Rational Voter”, they don’t, and instead are systematically biased (namely, towards socialism and nationalism). Saying “It doesn’t matter who you vote for, just vote!” is like saying “It doesn’t matter if you don’t know how to do surgery, just cut him up!”
Now, you could maybe argue that you have the duty not to defect if you have taken the time to become well-informed and unbiased (i.e., you are not the sort of person who watches Fox News or MSNBC all day, and you have made an effort to think non-tribally about which candidate will be best for you and all your countrymen). But do you have the duty to become well-informed and unbiased in the first place? I think not, since there are lots of other more effective pro-social ways to spend your time, and you could do one of those instead.
Good article, but...you've missed The Point. All arguments to this matter have merit. The reason your pro argument is flawed, however, is for the very reason it dismisses the counter argument(s).
Voting in an insufficient or otherwise flawed system does not necessitate reason to continue That System. A better argument would be to erect a
different system- which does not necessarily require participation in the Current One. As a matter of fact, many who were ineligible voters Yesteryear, are now eligible- from action outside of
The System...and then from within. |
What different system could exist? Curious to hear your suggestions.
Excellent question. I'm working on publishing "Tenets of a Democratic Republic". Imagine moving away from the "representative government" fashioned upon a time when news traveled slow. Imagine stripping "perks" (read: power) from politicians so that the position actually reflects public service- no paying for publicist, speech writers, politicking. Imagine placing politicians on an hourly wage, removing unapproved "closed-door" meetings, and forcing politicians to receive voter approval before being allowed "recess" or vacations.
There are numerous ways to fashion a system "of, The People, by The People, for The People". I aim to see it so.
...an excellent question.
I would like to learn more. I have long been fascinated by the prospect of removing elected reps from the equation. I have sortition as a possible pathway. You may like my discussion on this: https://www.lianeon.org/p/imagining-our-martian-government
Sortition - I hadn't thought of electing officials in that exclusive manner but do believe the concept may be more reasonable and germane for today's world. I'll delve into some historical reference, for better context, and your discussion link. I'll have a better response, then.
I will read through a few things and can follow-up via DM, if you're okay with that. I checked your profile- had no idea someone inclined towards investment in risks and progress existed. That...very interesting.
Thanks..DM me if you cannot access the essay.
Well said! Only through individual actions, even when seemingly random, can we achieve a rational outcome—despite any irrationality at the individual level. I believe those who promote inaction based on individual irrationality are not true libertarians. VOTE!
The voting system is the core problem. We get simple "yes" or "no" choices that do not reflect the intensity of our convictiona or beliefs.
It's a zero sum game with FPTP.
Maybe a simple "yes" or "no" is also necessary as a survival tool in our society? Maybe that's why the Neanderthals disappeared without this simplicity? It's possibly a feature, not a bug. Who knows!
Maybe!
You may find this post of mine interesting. Mangu-Ward's 1-in-60-million is way off (though she was probably accurately citing a now-obsolete and flawed study.)
When one uses reasonable estimates, voting has a very high value for society (if not any given individual.)
https://www.maximumtruth.org/p/deep-dive-is-voting-rational-in-swing