I’m thinking of not voting this year.
After turning eighteen, I’ve never sat out a presidential election. So this would be a first.
Voting this year just doesn’t feel right. The bailout really pushed me over the top, at least for now. Both candidates said ignorant things about why we had to have it. Neither candidates can say no to any demand. Do you know how big spending is going to be next year? Three TRILLION and counting. But neither can find any significant program that has to go or be cut.
I’ve voted libertarian at times in the past. But Bob Barr doesn’t do it for me.
When I watch this, it makes me feel a lot better about not voting. (HT: Reason.tv’s Don’t Vote (Rational Ignorance Remix)), which also adds to the good feeling).
I know, not voting is un-American. But not respecting the Constitution is un-American. So voting for someone who does not respect the Constitution seems un-American to me.
I may change my mind. Use the comments to tell me why I should or shouldn’t.
Share
{ 50 comments }
Well, you could vote Libertarian or Constitution…I'd say that is a much better use of your protest.
Don't be a single-issue voter. Hayek's economic wisdom, if applied, would likely lead to a broad sustained increase in the general welfare, and it can be frustrating and disappointing to see the politicians just not getting it.
But there are other issues. Secret prisons and torture sponsored by the government, the idea that someone in the U.S. military or intelligence services will be lawfully ordered to torture, are much worse than a slow growth rate. Raise my taxes, hinder my investments, and I'll gnash my teeth at your foolishness and vanity; but do not make me a citizen of a nation that tortures "to save time."
Both major candidates are wrong on many significant issues. But it would be refreshing to have someone who at least appeared competent in office.
A non-vote is a vote for Obama.
I think you should vote for McCain with your nose up in the air.
I've already protested by supporting Ron Paul more actively than I've ever supported a politician before. My candidate lost in the primary, so I have no candidate in the general election. The idea that I must choose one of the Two Party State candidates to be "patriotic" is nonsense. That ain't democracy.
I too, was thinking about not voting. I had been leaning towards Obama strictly on foreign policy grounds (I was more willing to accept the uncertainty of his than the certainty of McCain's) but this whole bailout business has really pissed me off. I am going to vote libertarian for every office. They aren't going to win of course, but I think that it's important to show that there are people that do not think that the big two are good candidates. Even if Barr "doesn't do it" for you, surely the Libertarian party is more closely aligned to how you feel than either Obama or McCain. To me, that is the important thing when voting for a "third" party. Vote for the party, show that people support their platform.
You are voting by not voting. I'm philosophical. The current government succeeded in removing one of the biggest vehicles created by the Depression, namely Fannie Mae and it's latter cousin Feddie Mac. It wasn't clean and it's not done yet, but it's happening.
We know the biggest one is out there still—FICA, you must at least think, that if it's handled as badly as these two, the impact will be far greater. Neither candidate has been honest on this issue, so you sitting this one makes sense to me.
I prefer to err on the side of the government that just 'accidentally unbundled' the giant cancerous institutions rather than pick the one that promises to 'save' it (or them), even though it will probably mean I will have to retire with nothing and have no guaranteed medical care going into my latter years.
Don't vote. I guarantee it won't make a difference in the outcome. Do something productive instead.
As anyone who can count know, voting (on an individual basis) is an action with no consequence whatsoever.
I vote solely because it's hard enough to get people to debate intelligently in the first place. Then they pull out the "if you don't vote, then shut up" argument and I want to bang my head against a wall. So I vote only because it removes at least one stupid argument people can use.
That said, I agree with T L Holaday. Let them nationalize the whole damn economy – that's nothing compared to not living in a police state with secret prisons and evidence based on torture. Not that I'm unaware that the former will inevitably lead to the latter, but let's at least try to take the scenic route instead of using every shortcut we can find.
I can't stand either McCain or Obama. I'm voting for McCain because I think congress will go to the Democrats. I want to split the executive and legislative branches between the two parties to minimize the damage.
It's time to watch the South Park episode called "Giant Douche vs. Turd Sandwich". The moral of the story is that your vote doesn't matter that much but your choice is usually a turd or a douche.
Same here. The bailout was too much. Not one politician has taken responsibility for this disaster. First I want hear a giant mea culpa starting from the Bush administration, the Clinton administration, the Republican leadership and the Democrat leadership. Instead they squeal about deregulation, greed and predatory lending. Sorry but at least I'm be able to say "Don't blame me, I'm not going to vote for any of these guys".
Do that next time when it's against Hillary. Not this time. Obama is just too far out there.
Well, speaking from a purely rational stance, one of these two men are going to be elected no matter what you do.
Given that you have a public – and growing – voice, you should approach the subject both rationally, and morally (because of the example you set for others – no one is putting a gun to your head and forcing you to have a public voice after all).
Make a list of those things which are most important for the long run, and choose the candidate from that.
Make the choice public beforehand, and perform a public service by allowing your readers to dissect that decision.
Methinks beat me to it. I was going to quote that episode of South Park.
I decided a long time ago that neither of these clowns deserves my vote. Choosing between socialism and quasi-socialism is not much of a choice.
Bob Barr is an insult to libertarians.
It's too bad that "none of the above" can't be on the ballot.
Vote for McCain so you can tell your grandchildren that you did vote against what will become known in history as the Obama Depression.
I think you should vote for McCain with your nose up in the air.
I think the Republicans need to lose this election, but I'm certainly not going to help them do it by voting for Obama.
The South Park reference is great. I would just add that this year you're getting less of a turd-sandwich in McCain and more of a giant douche in Obama. Call me naive, but
- I trust McCain not to put incompetent cronies into cabinet positions. Obama will appoint people based on their belief in government.
- I trust McCain to defend this country. I wouldn't trust Obama with the neighbor's dog.
- I trust McCain not to tax us like a European utopia. Perhaps he can get Charlie Rangel to lower the corporate rate, if Rangel doesn't get indicted. Obama's first item of business is to raise taxes on the productive and give to the unproductive.
Because of people like George Soros and Rupert Murdoch, it will always be a choice for the lesser of TWO evils. At least give yourself a fighting chance. You're still going to have evil no matter what you do (even staying home), so you might as well vote for the less evil candidate who has a chance. It's not that hard.
You can always protest and change the less-evil party later.
Maybe I'm just passionate because I live in Nevada, where my vote will actually count this time.
I agree with the comment above that a non-vote is similar to a vote for Obama. I had a multi-post debate on the value of voting with a friend of mine (a fellow GMU PhD student). You can view all of my related posts here: http://thinkingonthemargin.blogspot.com/search/label/democracy
One of my key points was:
"[Voting] has significant positive externalities when exercised in large numbers. Economically speaking, perhaps the optimal strategy is to free-ride, but I think that misses a large human side of the equation. I was a Boy Scout long before I became an economist and do believe there is value in being a contributing citizen to the society you belong to. I get utility from this and believe it helps set positive examples to others, reinforcing this behavior. I think many of the processes of democracy (such as voting, rallying, making speeches, etc.) serves to help preserve social order, promote peace within a society, and can be a vehicle for positive social change. It’s something I think is often under-appreciated by many economic models and economists."
From a purely rational, individualistic analysis, tipping and voting are arguably irrational. However, I don't want to turn into the kind of person who doesn't tip based on this reasoning. I have the same feeling about turning into a non-voter — particularly if I avoid it out despondency. I do believe that our political system relies on people believing that voting is important and that it works. On a moral level, I don't want to contribute on the margin to an eroding of that public confidence in our political system, which is the best the world has ever seen.
There are many issues that a president has influence over — particularly on foreign policy issues, nomination of Supreme Court Justices, and counter-balancing Congress. If I don't feel like I can vote for a candidate who I think will do the most good, I can at least vote for the one that I think will do the least harm.
"Then they pull out the "if you don't vote, then shut up" argument and I want to bang my head against a wall."
You could just claim you voted, for all it matters.
I usually respond to these people by asking if I went to the polls and voted for "Daffy Duck" would that then mean I can complain? Either way they answer it shows the inanity of their claim.
Reject the propaganda. Be true to who you are, and not who they tell you to be.
True, there is not good choice in this race for President of the USA. But there is one overwhelmingly statist choice: Obama (and, BTW, his minion Biden). Best case senario: McCain is elected, but after 2 or 3 years if forced out of office due to health issues (that nonetheless allow him to live out a long and blissful retirement on a tropical island with his lovely and rich beer barron wife). Palin, now with 2 or 3 years experience under her NRA gun-belt, becomes President. Under Palin, taxes are reduced (for all those who now pay them), energy prices fall (as Alaska is found to have 20 times the reserves currently estimated), and Bork is finally appointed to the Supreme Court.
Absolute worst case senario, Obama gets elected and, of course, takes on the mantle of "community organizer writ large" and gives us the New Deal all over again. Holy sh#*!?
While I appreciate the sentiment expressed by Brian and indiana jim, hell, I used to agree with the two of you, I see little reason to make such claims with any degree of certainty.
The only difference between the Commie-crats and the Republi-comrades (sorry, I just couldn't help myself; I'm feeling snarky this evening)is what the say. And their deeds put the lie to their words.
Don't vote.
Voting isn't pointless, but there is a point to not voting.
The winning candidate doesn't care who didn't vote, but the loser does. The next contender for office has to decide where he thinks the loser went wrong, and how to get more votes. He can a) try to prise his opponent's supporters away, or b) try to recruit new support from the nonvoters. How can he do that? By offerring them something which they haven't been getting, and therefore, inspiring them to vote next time.
Not voting signals that there is a gap in the market, so to speak. More important than voting, I think, is the potential vote–that is what politicians btoh covet and fear.
Vote for divided government. Having the Orwellian Marxist party in all 3 branches is a recipe for much worse than the clueless Republicans have given us.
There is not a single thing that I would trust the Troika of Reid, Pelosi and Obama to do that would be GOOD for us.
I'm not sure McCain will veto much or enough, or can do anything if the Dems have a veto-proof majority, but even if he is a voice against them…well, we know what Obama is going to do.
I don't want a New (Raw) Deal Redux. So yes, even if it's irrational, vote McCain and hope for better than most of us expect from him.
Obama and the Dems are not to be trusted. There is some small ray of hope with McCain. There is none, for me, with Obama and his Thought Police.
So it sounds like the Libertarian vote total so far is as follows
Obama 0
McCain 9
Libertarian 1
Wonder why I keep confusing Libertarians with 6,000 Year Old Earth Believing Republicans?
Ranking Presidents on Real Economic Growth – The Definitive List
1. FDR
2. LBJ
3. JFK
4. Clinton
5. Reagan
6. Carter
7. Nixon
8. Ike
10. GW (that's 10 so far – don't be surprised if he sinks further into the mire)
11. Ford
12. Bush Sr.
13. Truman
14. Hoover
Funny too that I'm the only one voting for the party that hands down does the best with the economy.
Why is the choice of NOT going to a government-sanctioned polling place and pulling the lever for a government-sanctioned candidate considered invalid?
BTW, I can't believe no one quoted Rush: "If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice." Yes, I know the context is not the same.
"Wonder why I keep confusing Libertarians with 6,000 Year Old Earth Believing Republicans?"
Because you can't comprehend what you read, and believe that the "success" or "failure" of the economy is based on what political party is in power.
Sounds to me like you're confused about a lot of things.
Russ,
Assuming you meet the constitutional age, residency and citizenship requirements, why not vote for yourself? I assume that you wouldn't actually want to be President due to the nature and magnitude of power the office wields, but consider:
1. You'd be voting for a humble and reluctant candidate–probably the safest kind to vote for.
2. You'd be voting with a clear conscience–no holding your nose, no voting for any policy you disagree with.
…
Quick question for those who'd care to answer: If you had the opportunity to vote for any Presidential candidate from any historical election, who'd it be?
If Bob Barr really doesn't do it for you, don't vote. And don't feel bad about it. I'm still weighing my options between Barr and abstention, and it's a tough call for me.
Just don't listen to the "a nonvote is a vote for Obama" business. The two major parties don't own your vote, as you well know. A nonvote is nothing more or less than a rejection of the process—an eminently valid statement with this slate of candidates.
If in good conscience you can only vote for the person who follows the right ideals, and none of the candidates does that, then don't vote for president is the right thing to do.
However, there are two things I would like for you to think about before you decide not to vote at all.
One is that there are other names, and there are (probably) issues or questions on that same ballot that deserve (or require) your consideration and vote. Leaving one office blank does not invalidate any ballot I know of.
The other is this–the logic gets a little twisty.
The way the system works in real life is this: one of two people will get elected (assuming the fraud and other misbehavior allows ballots to actually determine the outcome).
It is probably reasonable to say that one of those two is more likely than the other to do serious harm, or, perhaps, to do more serious harm, or perhaps, to do more, serious harm than the other.
It is reasonable for me to ask you to vote for the one you think will do the least harm.
Nicole, only the loser will hear your "statement". The winner will be too busy trying to figure out how to waste your tax dollars.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/columnists/boudreaux/s_554376.html
muirgeo posits:
"Ranking Presidents on Real Economic Growth – The Definitive List
1. FDR"
What a joke…
For what it's worth I won't be voting simply because endorsing McCain's or Obama's policies, not that there's much difference, is infinitely more offensive to me than the act of not voting. And I don't do the lesser of two evils or vote for A because a vote for B is really a vote for C. I could end up voting Libertarian but there is a reason it's referred to as the "two-party system," which in reality is about 1.1 parties.
Andrew,
Muirgeo Counts you as another vote for McCain. A no vote for Obama is automatically a yes for McCain in his limited brain capacity. Also, he thinks everybody who posts in this blog is a libertarian, that includes Muigeo himself. LOL
An argument for voting can only be made on moral grounds. If voting will make you feel better about yourself, then by all means go ahead. If you're disgusted with the candidates it probably won't make you feel better. Since probabistically speaking your vote has no signifance, I would only vote for someone who shared my moral outlook. I'm not voting this year. In fact I do gain some moral value from this decision. I'd rather not fool myself into thinking I'm more important than I am.
Russ,
If you must drive to the polling place, then I recommend you do not vote. Don't you care about your carbon footprint?
Also, I would sport a button saying, "I DIDN'T vote today!" That would be a little jarring to some, but it might lead to an opportunity for you to teach someone about why … and about how a choice among corporatist parties is no choice at all.
My students are already asking, "if we don't vote, then what else can we do?" This is a good chance for you to provide a suggestion.
SIX REASONS:
1. McCain's solid free trade record vs. Obama's consistent protectionism.
2. McCain's spending freeze (why do we never hear about that) and earmark reform vs. Obama's hundreds of millions of earmarks and trillions in new spending proposals.
3. Obama raising capital gains taxes vs. McCain cutting corporate taxes and keeping capital gains low.
4. Obama's support for asinine labor measures like dismantling secret ballots in union elections.
5. The inevitable boom in financial regulation under Obama vs. McCain's stand of deregulation while supporting tightening Fannie and Freddie (enjoyed your podcast with Kling about them, btw).
6. McCain appointing justices to the court who are in line with the view of the Constitution people like your colleague Dr. Williams see it vs. Obama appointing more ACLU judges.
MnM,
As John McCain is correctly hammering on in tonight's debate there is a stark difference in the voting records of he and his opponent. Again, as I said above already, Obama is a pure statist who wants to be the community organizer writ large and give us the New Deal all over again. McCain's voting record, while not that of a classical liberal, is an ocean away from that of pure statist Obama.
So MnM, I suggest that you be more circumspect about what is said and focus more on the voting records. "With certainty" we can say that Obama's voting record is far, far more statist than McCain's. You've got to listen to what Lindsey Graham said in an interview after the first debate: "Obama could probably charm the skin off a snake." I don't think anyone would say that about McCain. But the evidence of their records is what should matter more to us, don't you agree?
It's my first year being able to vote in a presidential election (I missed the 2004 election by approximately two weeks.) I've been waiting for it since then, but cannot find a reason to vote.
It's not un-American to refuse to vote. These candidates need to earn my vote; they do not deserve it. Furthermore, I refuse to endorse political philosophies and platforms that I find morally abhorrent.
You'll notice that, at tonight's debate, neither candidate asserted that he has no right to demand sacrifice on behalf of the people he would govern over. They simply ignored the fact that the government exists to serve the people, not vice versa. This was the last straw for me.
Quite simply, it's these two who are un-American, not me.
I like to think about how my vote (in aggregate with votes like mine) will be interpreted. A non-vote might be noticed if a lot of people abstain, and if so, it can either be interpreted (or spun) to mean that the people are apathetic, or that they did not approve of the candidates. A 3rd-party vote, if large enough, will likely be interpreted as a rejection of the status quo. I want my vote to be an explicit rejection of the status quo and the ignorant candidates we've been offered by the major parties.
I will probably vote for Barr, despite the fact that I really don't like him much. In this case, since I know the candidate won't win, I justify it as a vote for the benefit of the party. It would be really sad if the Barr candidacy hurt the LP when their ideas are most needed.
On a certain level, I agree with you jim. However, on a philosophical level I see little difference between McCain and Obama.
For some reason Republicans have all of the sudden forgotten McCain-Feingold, an unbelievable abridgement of free-speech that was inexplicably held up by the Supreme Court. While McCain has generally been a Budget Buster, he isn't solid when it counts (bailout, anyone?).
I might would vote for him if I thought he had the same integrity now that he had when he refused to leave a POW camp when he had the opportunity.
Call me cynical.
I drew the line for Barr as a 'what the hell' vote.
The support for McCain expressed here are for the slightly lesser of two evils.
Which I think is a mistake as, despite their actual record, Republicans are usually on record as favoring limited (ha) government and (double ha) markets.
Thus if McCain is in office for the meltdown, guess what will get the blame.
Russ,
I am not familiar with the ballot where you live, but I guess there is some issue on that ballot worth your time and consideration. This is an important point, as local issues and elections tend to have a more direct impact on your daily freedoms in my opinion.
However, I realize you were discussing the election of our next President. I view the presidential election through the responsibilities granted in the constitution, not general political issues. Voting for president based on political issues is a waste. The best example is how George W. Bush promoted himself primarily as the non-interventionist candidate in 2000. Once in office, the campaign messasge means nothing.
Either Obama or McCain will be President in January. Do you care which one will nominate judges to the Supreme Court? Which one will promote treaties that fit your ideals? Which one will command our troops to your ideals? Which one has character you prefer, given that the issues to be faced in the next four years will probably be different from the issues currently in focus? Which one will compile a better cabinet?
If you have a strong preference on these issues, you might just want to vote on this race when you go down to address your local issues.
I've lost a fair amount of respect for Dr. Roberts and Dr. Boudreaux this week, particularly over the question of voting. (In their case, non-voting.) If you were looking at the comments, Dr. Boudreaux went so far as to call democratic voting a "farce." Do as you will. As a person who does vote, mine matters more if you value yours so much less that you don't even use it. In a two-party government, like it or not, voting IS a zero-sum game.
Professors, and those of us who are listening: I challenge you to stop wasting time picking apart the newspaper columns and start trying to be part of the solution.
Worried about mortgages? I went to a meeting and wound up on the board of my homeowners association. Happy about your pay and working conditions? I became a union representative in my workplace (I'm a high school teacher). Do you feel misrepresented at times in the world by your government, as an American? This is the really crazy one–I adopted an Ethiopian orphan last year.
Sorry about the long-winded nature of this post, and I didn't wake up this morning thinking I needed to throw down the gauntlet. But you sound like a couple of whiny tenth graders with an SAT vocabulary book. Let's have some IDEAS out of you two, OK?
Dear Russ
When you were a child your mother might have told you always to finish what's on your plate; because not doing so would be disrespectful to children of the world who newer get the chance to fill their stomachs.
I tend to agree with you Prof. Roberts. After tonight's debate I am more disgusted than ever. McCain removed all doubt he is an economic idiot with his cure for housing.
However, I truly believe the best government is one that is in gridlock. The best chance for that is a less liberal McCain vs a very liberal Obama since Congress will certainly be controlled by the Democrats.
If the Republicans were going to control Congress, I could actually see myself voting for Obama (dang did I just say that?) since Republican controlled politics was a disaster.
It is a sad state of affairs when the greatest nation on earth is selecting its leader based on who would do the least amount of damage. There is no way these two (make it four) people are even in the top 25% of Americans that should be considered for this post.
There is always the Ron Paul write in campaign. My fear is this is really a vote for Obama. Some democracy….