What Extremism?

The problem I have with voting is that in any election of appreciable size, the margin of error is greater than one vote. Statistically speaking, your vote literally does not count.

This needs to be remedied before you can convince any logical person that it is worth time voting.

Joseph,

Re; "Would you at least be concerned if a neighbor were possibly committing an illegal act, say spouse/child abuse or drugs manufacturing?"

Yes, I would. That's why I don't mind paying taxes to pay for police.

The military community does make an interesting example.

First, everyone in the military community has chosen to be there. There is indeed a great difference between a voluntary community and an involutary one.

Second, I took an oath "...to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic". Note that there is no reference to the "people" of the United States, only to the Constitution. And further, there is an explicit reference to the idea that some of the people living within the geographic boundaries of the United States may be enemies.

What do most people do when they vote? Are they voting for something to benefit an entire community? Sometimes. But more often, they are voting against other Americans. We're not a community. We're just people who've been forced to live together and generally recognize that voting is better than shooting. And some of us recognize further that most of it isn't worth fighting about at all.

Also, Mr. Boudreaux's main point about Kerry's equivocations, etc. only applies after the primary season is done when selected cndidates must then moderate their opinions to appeal to the majorty of national voters. In office, executives have to appeal to national constituencies to pressure Congressmen from localities. HRC is already playing for the general election.

What I said applies to general elections, but what if party affiliation and only primary voting was mansdatory?

On an anecdotal note, when I ask my parents why they don't vote, other than a lack of good choices, they always complain about jury duty. What about de-coupling jury duty and voting rolls to take party membership out of state scrutiny? Privacy could be maintained by entering the name into the Social Security network with a mark that the SSN recipient is registered with some party and is required to vote in primaries to maintain that status.

I made a typo..

I wrote:

"As under the Australian constitution, unlike the US, the Senate has the power to reject money bills, including the federal budget, this gives the minority parties an unusual."

I meant to write:

"As under the Australian constitution, unlike the US, the Senate has the power to reject money bills, including the federal budget, this gives the minority parties an unusual degree of power. When minorities control the Senate cross benches, governments have to negotiate their budget's with them. Thus the conservative government's sale of the formerly state owned Telco was approved only on condition that the funds raised from the sale be used for landcare, a massive national environmental conservation program."

Thanks, martin, that was a simple Poli 101 mistake to make. But, it did allow me to look up electoral systems. Looking at plurality voting systems in Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post), several diadvantages were listed relating to Ornstein's argument. Firstly, there is tactical voting, of which compromising is the most likely occurrence. Secondly, parties can win even if they do not achieve a majority of votes. Also, when countries become polarized, seats will reamin with incumbents. Reading the article, there are many sentiments American voters express that appear relatedly to the flaws in the plurality voting system. Someone better at domestic politics could elaborate, but gerrymandering, regionalism, safe seats, all thses aspects are haunted the American political system. The point about small parties dominating is relevent, because now small groups in each party will now lock in a candidate through the primary that moderate centrists will have to either accept of jump parties. The long list of independent voters meanwhile are penalized for not agreeing with the small factions. Plurality systems might be quick, but is the American one forcing voters to either vote someone they dislike or just stay at home and avoid the insult? In that sense requiring voting in thsi system, will coerce people to participate in a sysytem that might not reflect their choices.

Thanks, Martin!

Here in Australia we have had a compulsory voting system for almost a century. It was introduced (I believe) due a incredibly low voter turnout in the 1920s. Voters are required to turn up at polling booths and get their name crossed off the roll, they are not required to actually vote. In practice the fine is nominal and easily avoided with even the most lame of excuses.

Does the system prevent extremism and instability? Not as much as single seat electorates do. In our federal Senate we have a proportional representation system with 10 senators being elected per state. The result is that minority parties such as the Democratic Labor Party, Australian Democrats, Greens and various independent senators generally hold the balance of power in the upper house. As under the Australian constitution, unlike the US, the Senate has the power to reject money bills, including the federal budget, this gives the minority parties an unusual. This system has the advantage of making the reign of any elected government (ie the majority in the lower house, the House of Representatives) difficult, it also has the disadvantage of making the reign of any elected government difficult.

One consequence of compulsory voting is to make the rank and file party membership structure less important for the major political parties. They don't need a large mass membership to use as an army to 'get the vote out'. As a result Australia has extraordinarily low membership rates in it's political parties.

Joseph,

The UK does not have proportional representation for elections to Westminster, although a form of it is used for elections to the Scottish Parliament.

The second paragraph is a response to Randy, not A. Perla. My apologies!

Wild Pegasus: Australia and Britain also have proportional representation systems. That proposal might even be more appropriate in this context.

A.Perla: Would you at least be concerned if a neighbor were possibly committing an illegal act, say spouse/child abuse or drugs manufacturing? A notion of community used to be important in America. That's what community meetings are for, and they are the beginnings of democracy. Within the military family, one sacrifices privacy (and a great deal of civilian rights) for the greater good of the unit. What is different about a community, where individuals give up the right to do whatever they please to gain certain benefits, like security of numbers? Who really wants to be or could be completely self-sufficent? Or, is the military community an aberrant counter-culture completely separate from and operating under rules that cannot apply to the community it protects?

Voting is compulsory in Australia, which suffers little from extremism. Voting is not compulsory in the United Kingdom, which suffers little from extremism.

- Josh

Don - Exactly.

A. Perla,

1. You keep discussing the duty to vote as if it is a fact. What is the basis of such usage? It is certainly not in the law or people would indeed be required to vote. So its really just an opinion, yes?

2. I choose my community. There are many who would assign me to their chosen community for their own purposes, but I do not accept their assignment. This is freedom.

3. The purpose of the right to vote is not to participate in community, but to protect myself from the government. It is the "right" to vote that matters. If I feel no need to protect myself, then I have no need to vote. And I've got to tag along with Don's post above here, those who vote to help themselves at the expense of others via their right to vote, are hardly performing a civic duty.

Incidentally, aren't there countries that do require citizens to vote? I think Brazil is one of them... It causes a lot of distress and problems for people. They do not want to break the law, but they are forced to take time out of their day to vote for people they hate and weigh in on policies they do not care anything about.

Isaac

"Duty is your contribution to the community that supports you, whether that community is local, state of national. If you don't give, then neither expect to receive."

We all "give" in the sense that what we do with our time and efforts creates value for other people. What we get in return is equal to our contributions to society. Our "civic" duty neatly dovetails with our personal duty, we should strive to get the most out of life as possible. The only way to do that is by creating value for others. Voting is completely tangential. So explain to me what it is that I'm missing by not voting democrat or republican and how everyone else is worse off because of what I don't do. You will have to come up with something more than "duty" to make me vote because I already do what is important.

Isaac

Someone who votes for candidates who support interventions such as minimum-wage legislation, protectionism, and income redistribution are far less civil than honest, law-abiding people who mind their own business and never vote.

Give me a non-voting non-busybody any day over a "concerned" person who wields his or her vote as a means of coercing other people.

"Who exactly decided that I have a civic duty?"

First of all, as a citizen you have not only a civic duty but a civic responsibility. You are born with both. How important these are to you are generally a matter of education.

It is a civic duty to observe laws and even social customs. It is a civic responsibility to assure that laws are democratically voted. Both are flip sides of the same coin, called freedom or liberty.

Liberty does not come with the air you breath. It is exercised by means of the civic actions as described above. And, it is not accorded simply because a Declaration of Independence one said that all men have the right to "liberty and the pursuit of happiness". One must work for it.

"Who came up with the idea that I have a responsibility to stick my nose into other people's business?"

It is not a question of business. It is matter of simple fact: You are a citizen and have the right and duty to reflect upon questions/issues and vote accordingly.

If you don't need that right, then neither do you need democracy. Go live in North Korea where democratic voting is not allowed. You'll feel right at home.

Often, one must be deprived of freedom to understand its intrinsic value. That may, indeed, be your case.

"Wouldn't holding a steady job, taking care of my family, obeying the law, and serving 20 years on active duty with the US Air Force fulfill that responsibility?"

Your personal life is of no consequence and no excuse for not fulfilling your civic duty to vote. Your duty comes from the fact that you are citizen of a democracy, not what you do for your family or your military service or whatever else.

Duty is your contribution to the community that supports you, whether that community is local, state of national. If you don't give, then neither expect to receive.

Civic duty is a two way street. What you contribute to the community by excercising your duties, you can expect in return for yourself and your family. If you contribute nothing, expect nothing back.

P.S. I do not question the value of the "right" to vote. That is indeed important. It is only the "duty" to vote that I question.

P.S. I do not question the value of the "right" to vote. That is indeed important. It is only the "duty" to vote that I question.

A. Perla,

Re; "Civic Duty".

Who exactly decided that I have a civic duty? Who came up with the idea that I have a responsibility to stick my nose into other people's business? Because honestly, I think that idea is more of the problem than the solution.

That said, let's assume that I do have a civic duty. Wouldn't holding a steady job, taking care of my family, obeying the law, and serving 20 years on active duty with the US Air Force fulfill that responsibility? What does voting add to that? Or more precisely, if you can say that everyone "should" vote, can't I say that everyone "should" raise a family, hold a steady job, and serve in the military?

"Not voting is voting. It’s a vote that says things are going well enough for me that I don't really care who wins."

Indifference is not voting. It is avoiding one's civic duty to keep informed and implicated in the political process. It is civic laxness at its worse. Apathy of this sort prompts political parties to do as they see fit irrelevant of their constituents' desires.

In fact, the most democratic of systems is not the American version. It is the Swiss where, since more than 150 years, public referendums have a major impact upon the political process.

The ability of the people to call into question both local and federal legislation, by means of collecting signatures of a significant number of citizens to put the question to a referendum vote, induces politicians to think carefully before they promote laws. A law recalled by public referendum is a political embarrassment for the party that promotes it.

It is an important counterbalance to the power of parties to dominate the legislative process.

One can never vote enough to make the public will known. Voting for a political party is necessary but not sufficient. A referendum replaces the balance of political power back where it belongs … with the people who vote.

If you are capable of reflection, then you have an opinion. If you have an opinion, you need means to express it. Don't vote and you have no voice. You are invisible.

It would enhance American democracy to institute the referendum at both the state and federal level.

Professor Boudreaux,

Corporations aren't governments.

If the Founding Fathers could have created the Great Republic without giving it a government they would have. They were that smart.

What you really seem to be complaining about is the republic's shift away from the republican to the democratic model, to the dominance of the national voting majority over the states.

Why Professor, you could almost pass for a Buchananite.

Pluralist politics mitigate against the operation of extremism. What is dangerous is when the special interests huddle together and, for example, 'La Raza' adopts a pro-choice line. Then you find that they eventually merge into one ideological platform and extremism sets in.

As the late Douglas Adams might have put it, there are some who believe that this has already happened.

And a president who orders the invasion of other countries that haven't attacked his could hardly be called middle of the road.

Not voting is voting. Its a vote that says things are going well enough for me that I don't really care who wins. If things ever get bad enough to bring out 100% of the voters, they'll probably be bad enough to bring out the assault rifles and homemade bombs as well.

I hope Congress wastes all its time on stupid stuff like flag-burning, gay marriage, Schiavo and so on. The founders were right to give them lengthy vacations from robbing us.