Whoever as a group has a large voting influence will have their issues at least addressed. The remainder can and do rest assured that their lives in this great, thriving democracy will be largely unaffected by whoever governs them politically.
But if nobody voted, then all elections could be decided by a single vote. So the utility from voting increases as fewer people vote.
There appears to be statistical evidence that people do think their vote matters i. For me, the problem isn't that too few people vote. The problem is that too few people pay attention to what's going on in their community, or know anything about who's controlling their tax dollars. I think low voter turnout is just a symptom of that condition. In other words, if someone is politically engaged and knowledgeable, but decides not to vote, I'm fine with that. And perhaps that's the case with most economists.
But it isn't the case with most non-voters. The simple fact that 'voting day' isn't a national holiday shows how little the US values voting.
Think about it we can't even achieve one day off every two years to choose our representatives and to vote on issues. Quite sad if you ask me. Of course one vote almost never decides and election. Just like one persons tax dollars do not make or break a system like public schools. However, voting is probably something that falls under Kant's categorical imperative,.
We know that a lot of things don't fall under this statement; like gender, if everyone was the same gender we wouldn't get very far.
But, sometimes the converse of the categorical imperative can be true, i. Always try to act according to that maxim whereby if it should NOT become a universal law, the whole world would fall apart. A vote of NO is definitely a vote. Another good reason not to vote is that it is usually better when your candidate is not elected : thus you cannot be blamed for having helped electing the monster in power. Last time I voted against a candidate, the one who got my ballot got the seat as well : I really do not feel good about it!
Last but not least, the more voters turn up, the more the politicians feel they have some legitimity, not that they care much about it but still better not to be responsible for that. I take the responsibility of voting on behalf of myself and on behalf of those who choose not to vote very seriously.
While it is certain that those who do not vote do not share all of my preferences, it is indeed humbling to carry the responsibility of voting for them. Principled non-voters are the purists who keep libertarian ideals from being watered down into some grotesque version of conservatism or liberalism. I look at Gary Johnson and I see great harm being done to the libertarian brand with his various unprincipled positions, from foreign interventions to forced vaccinations.
A libertarian non-voter says to the world: Not Good Enough. By choosing to not participate in validating tyrants, the non-voting libertarian helps the core ideas of libertarianism from being hopelessly corrupted in the future.
I have always voted, and I have only once voted for a candidate that actually won. However, she is still in office 12 years later and she has been a economic and civil liberties disaster. This will be my first non-voting year, even though I have some reason to believe Trump may be slightly less tyrannical than Hillary.
Once elected, there is no guarantee that will remain true. Look at Nixon…anti-Communist cold-warrior who significantly decreased tensions with China. Oh these desk jockeys with too much time on their hands to think. Move to Ohio if you want your vote to matter, and add ammunition to that list of things to stock up on. A number of young, impressionable people see your talks or read your blog and are convinced by your arguments. But they are then put off by your refusal to vote. Some of them remain fully convinced of your arguments, but you persuade them not to vote.
I want to ask how many such people would there need to be to convince you to vote? Is there a number? A single vote is small, but a room full of voters could sway an election, particularly at the local and state level. The lesser evil always also depends on perspective.
Hitler was seen by Hindenburg as the controllable lesser evil. It turned out that the lesser evil was only that in his perception and not in the absolute sense. You already invested all the time in forming an informed opinion.
Those are sunk costs, just go for a walk and put your vote down. Jacky Sep 12 at pm. Daniel Klein Sep 13 at am.
Keith Sep 13 at am. Robert Wiblin Sep 13 at am. MikeP Sep 13 at am. Maybe with a small change in attitude, voting can be fun for you too! Richard O. Hammer Sep 13 at am. AntiSchiff Sep 13 at am. Caplan, I think the contradiction here is that you seem too emotional about a potential decision to vote that you say has a miniscule chance of mattering much.
Evan McIntosh Sep 13 at am. Yaakov Sep 13 at am. Shane L Sep 13 at am. Phil Sep 13 at am. Peter Schueth Sep 13 at am. Sep 13 at am. Mike W. Peter Sagan Sep 13 at am. GregS Sep 13 at am. Pajser Sep 13 at pm.
GregS Sep 13 at pm. Generally, people who choose not to vote fall into "several camps," says Leonie Huddy , a professor and the chair of the department of political science at Stony Brook University and an expert in the psychology of elections.
Here's a look at the psychology of those who choose not to vote. One set of non-voters are the chronically skeptical, says Christopher Federico, a professor of political science at the University of Minnesota , who has conducted research on political psychology and belief systems.
There are potentially more people who don't trust the system this year than in others, too, according to Huddy. According to Huddy, another group of non-voters are people who "don't like the candidates," like The Doe's Norman. My non-vote says presidential candidates and government officials aren't quite up to snuff. Do better. Furthermore, elections that are extremely close are more likely to be subject to a recount or to be decided by the courts.
Therefore, it makes sense that Americans are not going out in droves to vote each time election season comes around. Economists R. Tollison and T. Willet found that individuals may very well benefit in the short run from not voting, but their behavior will indirectly harm society in the long run.
0コメント