Comments on: Vote, if you want to, and are willing to think carefully about it. http://crookedtimber.org/2008/03/05/vote-if-you-want-to-and-are-willing-to-think-carefully-about-it/ Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made Sun, 27 May 2012 05:09:40 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: David Estlund http://crookedtimber.org/2008/03/05/vote-if-you-want-to-and-are-willing-to-think-carefully-about-it/comment-page-1/#comment-231536 David Estlund Mon, 10 Mar 2008 04:29:13 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2008/03/05/vote-if-you-want-to-and-are-willing-to-think-carefully-about-it/#comment-231536 Chris (at 38) is probably right that there are some issues about which there is no significant issue of justice or right, but just a question of how many want what. But it's useful to actually try to think of some. I think they are surprisingly unusual. Should we have a playground or a sculpture in the town square? Is that just a matter of aggregating preferences? If you put it on the ballot you'll almost certainly become convinced that it's more than that. How well is that neighborhood served by playgrounds? Is there enough public art in the city? So I agree with Harry that the vast majority of issues at stake in politics are ones that include a moral dimension beyond the mere satisfaction of voter preferences. I think Joshua (in 13) puts a good dilemma to Harry. It is indeed hard to account for any great importance of a single person voting, as Harry says. But if you say it's not morally very important whether you vote, and precisely because it is virtually certain to make no difference, then how could it matter whether you thoughtfully or hastily? If you have a good account of why you should vote thoughtfully if you vote, I suspect it will be a good account of why you should vote. Chris (at 38) is probably right that there are some issues about which there is no significant issue of justice or right, but just a question of how many want what. But it’s useful to actually try to think of some. I think they are surprisingly unusual. Should we have a playground or a sculpture in the town square? Is that just a matter of aggregating preferences? If you put it on the ballot you’ll almost certainly become convinced that it’s more than that. How well is that neighborhood served by playgrounds? Is there enough public art in the city? So I agree with Harry that the vast majority of issues at stake in politics are ones that include a moral dimension beyond the mere satisfaction of voter preferences.

I think Joshua (in 13) puts a good dilemma to Harry. It is indeed hard to account for any great importance of a single person voting, as Harry says. But if you say it’s not morally very important whether you vote, and precisely because it is virtually certain to make no difference, then how could it matter whether you thoughtfully or hastily? If you have a good account of why you should vote thoughtfully if you vote, I suspect it will be a good account of why you should vote.

]]> By: getaclue http://crookedtimber.org/2008/03/05/vote-if-you-want-to-and-are-willing-to-think-carefully-about-it/comment-page-1/#comment-231275 getaclue Fri, 07 Mar 2008 16:37:30 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2008/03/05/vote-if-you-want-to-and-are-willing-to-think-carefully-about-it/#comment-231275 I don't vote. It only encourages them. The system is hopelessly corrupt, rigged and if there is an election in November (I believe the economic collapse will furnish Cheney an excuse to implement Executive Order 51 (www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html - lanternbrigade.blogspot.com/2007/07/more-on-executive-order-51.html) and suspend (what remains of)constitutional law. However, assuming for the sake of argument that there is an election, the fix is in and McCain will be installed as the next puppet for the military defense/pharma/helliburton corporate agenda. I don’t vote. It only encourages them.

The system is hopelessly corrupt, rigged and if there is an election in November (I believe the economic collapse will furnish Cheney an excuse to implement Executive Order 51 (www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html – lanternbrigade.blogspot.com/2007/07/more-on-executive-order-51.html) and suspend (what remains of)constitutional law.

However, assuming for the sake of argument that there is an election, the fix is in and McCain will be installed as the next puppet for the military defense/pharma/helliburton corporate agenda.

]]> By: richard http://crookedtimber.org/2008/03/05/vote-if-you-want-to-and-are-willing-to-think-carefully-about-it/comment-page-1/#comment-231269 richard Fri, 07 Mar 2008 15:34:07 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2008/03/05/vote-if-you-want-to-and-are-willing-to-think-carefully-about-it/#comment-231269 charlie (34): have you read Borges' <i>Lottery of Babylon</i>? It seems to me that your <i>requirement of citizenship to be at least a little politically and socially educated, and to vote</i> contains a very similar attitude to society and its membership. What if people don't vote - do you have a status for them, as non-citizens? Do you imprison them, or exile them, or what? Which news papers do you require everyone to read? I realize you're putting out a straw man argument. Nonetheless, I think it's of relevance to the more <i>deliberative</i> points above. charlie (34): have you read Borges’ Lottery of Babylon?
It seems to me that your requirement of citizenship to be at least a little politically and socially educated, and to vote contains a very similar attitude to society and its membership. What if people don’t vote – do you have a status for them, as non-citizens? Do you imprison them, or exile them, or what? Which news papers do you require everyone to read?

I realize you’re putting out a straw man argument. Nonetheless, I think it’s of relevance to the more deliberative points above.

]]> By: Chris Bertram http://crookedtimber.org/2008/03/05/vote-if-you-want-to-and-are-willing-to-think-carefully-about-it/comment-page-1/#comment-231261 Chris Bertram Fri, 07 Mar 2008 12:58:08 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2008/03/05/vote-if-you-want-to-and-are-willing-to-think-carefully-about-it/#comment-231261 All excellent stuff Harry. The only thing I'd want to quibble about is self-interest. Generally you are right, I think, that deliberators should think about what justice requires and vote accordingly. But there are cases (not usually those involving the election of representatives) where the point of voting is to find out what people _want_ (rather than what they think is in the public interest). In those cases, voting so as to inform the process of what I want is perfectly OK. All excellent stuff Harry. The only thing I’d want to quibble about is self-interest.

Generally you are right, I think, that deliberators should think about what justice requires and vote accordingly. But there are cases (not usually those involving the election of representatives) where the point of voting is to find out what people want (rather than what they think is in the public interest). In those cases, voting so as to inform the process of what I want is perfectly OK.

]]> By: harry b http://crookedtimber.org/2008/03/05/vote-if-you-want-to-and-are-willing-to-think-carefully-about-it/comment-page-1/#comment-231260 harry b Fri, 07 Mar 2008 12:56:10 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2008/03/05/vote-if-you-want-to-and-are-willing-to-think-carefully-about-it/#comment-231260 tom -- the problem is this. Voter registration drive by non-profits are almost entirely driven by a concern with getting some particular party/candidate elected. But, of course, in order to stay within the terms of being a non-profit, the people doing the registration cannot say that - they cannot (legally) argue for a position or positions, or debate the people they approach. Its not the fault of the non-profits, it is the fault of the law - which should (in my opinion) define politics much more broadly and simply deny non-profit status to organisations that engage in politics broadly conceived. Like NOW, Heritage, Cato, NARAL, etc. GOTV is just as bad. tom—the problem is this. Voter registration drive by non-profits are almost entirely driven by a concern with getting some particular party/candidate elected. But, of course, in order to stay within the terms of being a non-profit, the people doing the registration cannot say that – they cannot (legally) argue for a position or positions, or debate the people they approach. Its not the fault of the non-profits, it is the fault of the law – which should (in my opinion) define politics much more broadly and simply deny non-profit status to organisations that engage in politics broadly conceived. Like NOW, Heritage, Cato, NARAL, etc.
GOTV is just as bad.

]]> By: Tom Doyle http://crookedtimber.org/2008/03/05/vote-if-you-want-to-and-are-willing-to-think-carefully-about-it/comment-page-1/#comment-231240 Tom Doyle Fri, 07 Mar 2008 03:47:25 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2008/03/05/vote-if-you-want-to-and-are-willing-to-think-carefully-about-it/#comment-231240 <i> “I am mortified by the .... way that voter registration drives by non-profits corrupt the culture of democratic debate (so that everything is about getting people to vote, rather than inducing them to deliberate).”</i> Harry: How do voter registration drives by <b>non-profits</b> corrupt the culture of democratic debate? All the best, Tom Doyle “I am mortified by the …. way that voter registration drives by non-profits corrupt the culture of democratic debate (so that everything is about getting people to vote, rather than inducing them to deliberate).”

Harry:

How do voter registration drives by non-profits corrupt the culture of democratic debate?

All the best,

Tom Doyle

]]> By: vivian http://crookedtimber.org/2008/03/05/vote-if-you-want-to-and-are-willing-to-think-carefully-about-it/comment-page-1/#comment-231235 vivian Fri, 07 Mar 2008 01:58:13 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2008/03/05/vote-if-you-want-to-and-are-willing-to-think-carefully-about-it/#comment-231235 Harry, not only would revising and extending your argument not violate netiquette, it's part of why we all come here. Making us wait several months, if you have it ready sooner, would be remarkably disappointing. But then, if you can correctly balance autonomy and unsought obligations, in a general political theory, while ruling out all common abuses of such a system, well, that is worth waiting for. Harry, not only would revising and extending your argument not violate netiquette, it’s part of why we all come here. Making us wait several months, if you have it ready sooner, would be remarkably disappointing. But then, if you can correctly balance autonomy and unsought obligations, in a general political theory, while ruling out all common abuses of such a system, well, that is worth waiting for.

]]> By: Charlie http://crookedtimber.org/2008/03/05/vote-if-you-want-to-and-are-willing-to-think-carefully-about-it/comment-page-1/#comment-231224 Charlie Fri, 07 Mar 2008 00:13:57 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2008/03/05/vote-if-you-want-to-and-are-willing-to-think-carefully-about-it/#comment-231224 How are we to tell that persons have deliberated with sufficient perspicacity prior to casting their votes? We could always institute an education qualification. Citizens may cast one vote for each GCSE they have, 3 for an A level, 10 for a bachelor’s degree, fifteen for a master’s, etc . . . Professors of Philosophy will be permitted to vote as early and as often as they wish . . . posted by nick · march 6th, 2008 at 8:48 am I have often felt that the answer to this (very real) problem would be quite simple. You have to pass a current events test in order to vote. Passing it, you get to vote, and you get a cash prize. Failing it, you are not permitted to vote, and you are fined. Failing to vote at all triggers an even larger fine. Or possible enslavement, I haven't decided =) You juggle the monetary amounts of reward and punishment to provide whatever revenue stream seems appropriate. So to sum up, it becomes a requirement of citizenship to be at least a little politically and socially educated, and to vote. Hell, do it right and you might finally end up with an actual democracy! How are we to tell that persons have deliberated with sufficient perspicacity prior to casting their votes? We could always institute an education qualification. Citizens may cast one vote for each GCSE they have, 3 for an A level, 10 for a bachelor’s degree, fifteen for a master’s, etc . . . Professors of Philosophy will be permitted to vote as early and as often as they wish . . .

posted by nick · march 6th, 2008 at 8:48 am

I have often felt that the answer to this (very real) problem would be quite simple. You have to pass a current events test in order to vote. Passing it, you get to vote, and you get a cash prize. Failing it, you are not permitted to vote, and you are fined. Failing to vote at all triggers an even larger fine. Or possible enslavement, I haven’t decided =)

You juggle the monetary amounts of reward and punishment to provide whatever revenue stream seems appropriate.

So to sum up, it becomes a requirement of citizenship to be at least a little politically and socially educated, and to vote. Hell, do it right and you might finally end up with an actual democracy!

]]> By: leederick http://crookedtimber.org/2008/03/05/vote-if-you-want-to-and-are-willing-to-think-carefully-about-it/comment-page-1/#comment-231206 leederick Thu, 06 Mar 2008 22:04:04 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2008/03/05/vote-if-you-want-to-and-are-willing-to-think-carefully-about-it/#comment-231206 "<i>In the Russian Roulette example, if your consent legitimates the outcomes it does so because we presume you have a range of games available to you... But in politics voting is the only game in town – and it is not the case that by not playing it you escape responsibility for its effects.</i>" I don't think this is true. Three main features of modern government are (1) elections, (2) terms of office, (3) no binding mandates. All of these could be done away with, we could use lot for selection, be able to recall representatives in mid-term, and issue binding instructions to them. We have one of many possible democratic systems, and there are other games we could play. “In the Russian Roulette example, if your consent legitimates the outcomes it does so because we presume you have a range of games available to you… But in politics voting is the only game in town – and it is not the case that by not playing it you escape responsibility for its effects.”

I don’t think this is true. Three main features of modern government are (1) elections, (2) terms of office, (3) no binding mandates. All of these could be done away with, we could use lot for selection, be able to recall representatives in mid-term, and issue binding instructions to them. We have one of many possible democratic systems, and there are other games we could play.

]]> By: richard http://crookedtimber.org/2008/03/05/vote-if-you-want-to-and-are-willing-to-think-carefully-about-it/comment-page-1/#comment-231202 richard Thu, 06 Mar 2008 21:41:03 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2008/03/05/vote-if-you-want-to-and-are-willing-to-think-carefully-about-it/#comment-231202 <i>@19: go sit somewhere else?</i> Do you mean emigrate? It seems a bit drastic, when all you wanted to do was not vote. Apparently that might be the necessary solution in Australia or Brazil. @19: go sit somewhere else?

Do you mean emigrate? It seems a bit drastic, when all you wanted to do was not vote. Apparently that might be the necessary solution in Australia or Brazil.

]]> By: abb1 http://crookedtimber.org/2008/03/05/vote-if-you-want-to-and-are-willing-to-think-carefully-about-it/comment-page-1/#comment-231186 abb1 Thu, 06 Mar 2008 19:58:18 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2008/03/05/vote-if-you-want-to-and-are-willing-to-think-carefully-about-it/#comment-231186 <i>...require empirical evidence and the knowledge/expertise ... unable to answer questions of just distribution</i> I don't know what country you live in - maybe somewhere in Denmark or Norway or even Germany one does indeed need expertise and a bunch of charts to evaluate these things. In most places, though, it's so obvious that all you need is a bit of common sense. …require empirical evidence and the knowledge/expertise … unable to answer questions of just distribution

I don’t know what country you live in – maybe somewhere in Denmark or Norway or even Germany one does indeed need expertise and a bunch of charts to evaluate these things. In most places, though, it’s so obvious that all you need is a bit of common sense.

]]> By: harry b http://crookedtimber.org/2008/03/05/vote-if-you-want-to-and-are-willing-to-think-carefully-about-it/comment-page-1/#comment-231184 harry b Thu, 06 Mar 2008 19:51:54 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2008/03/05/vote-if-you-want-to-and-are-willing-to-think-carefully-about-it/#comment-231184 russell -- no, I completely agree with what you say in 21 -- oops, sorry, 22 -- and appreciate the way you say it. I don't think my arguments are at fault, but certainly my presentation is -- but as with matt's and witt's comments, yours can help me to improve, and add texture to, the presentation! (Still not responding to your comment in 6 because still thinking about it...) russell—no, I completely agree with what you say in 21—oops, sorry, 22—and appreciate the way you say it. I don’t think my arguments are at fault, but certainly my presentation is—but as with matt’s and witt’s comments, yours can help me to improve, and add texture to, the presentation! (Still not responding to your comment in 6 because still thinking about it…)

]]> By: c.l. ball http://crookedtimber.org/2008/03/05/vote-if-you-want-to-and-are-willing-to-think-carefully-about-it/comment-page-1/#comment-231178 c.l. ball Thu, 06 Mar 2008 19:08:54 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2008/03/05/vote-if-you-want-to-and-are-willing-to-think-carefully-about-it/#comment-231178 I don't believe one is obligated to vote, like any other right, you can exercise it or not. I never found the "rational voter" argument all the persuasive; I don't <i>expect</i> my vote to be decisive in <i>any</i> contest. (How many mayoral elections in a town of 100 voters are decided 51-49?) I do, however, <i>fear</i> that my vote <i>might</i> be decisive, and if I had failed to vote, I would be kicking myself. And, my vote might increase the margin of the candidate that I support, and thereby give greater legitimacy to his or her policies. I did not vote in 1996 because I did not support either candidate (I voted for Clinton in 1992), knew Clinton would win NY anyway, and I had no opinion in other races. If one really believes that the act of voting is an obligation, there should be a box: "None of the above." By the way, based on 2006 opensecrets.org data on net worth, at least 6 and probably more senators are not millionaires. Richer people whine about taxes, as do poorer people, all the time, especially as they get richer and the effective tax rate gets higher. True, not by much on aggregate, but their frame of reference is the amount they got last year, not in all of history. Someone has to make over $174k to be in <a href="http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032007/hhinc/new05_000.htm" rel="nofollow">top 5% of income earners</a> now in the US. And in some years, people in the 5th-10th percentile pay a higher effective rate than those in the upper 5th. Consider this type of whine: "It sucks. My bonus was $50k this year, so we cannot afford the $40k kitchen remodel." What, you think, 50-40 is 10, so they could afford it. But annual bonuses are heavily taxed -- 28% federal <i>income</i> withholding, FICA (7.65%), and state and local, if there is any. So, if you have a 5% state income tax, that $50K bonus nets out at $29.7k. Not bad, but still over $10k less than $40k. Harry's whiners are better off than 90% of Americans, but their frame of reference is their neighbor who just leased A6, added on new master bedroom suite, and is sending their kid to Stanford. Why not me, Lord? Won't anyone think of the insufficiently privileged wealthy? I don’t believe one is obligated to vote, like any other right, you can exercise it or not. I never found the “rational voter” argument all the persuasive; I don’t expect my vote to be decisive in any contest. (How many mayoral elections in a town of 100 voters are decided 51-49?) I do, however, fear that my vote might be decisive, and if I had failed to vote, I would be kicking myself. And, my vote might increase the margin of the candidate that I support, and thereby give greater legitimacy to his or her policies.

I did not vote in 1996 because I did not support either candidate (I voted for Clinton in 1992), knew Clinton would win NY anyway, and I had no opinion in other races.

If one really believes that the act of voting is an obligation, there should be a box: “None of the above.”

By the way, based on 2006 opensecrets.org data on net worth, at least 6 and probably more senators are not millionaires.

Richer people whine about taxes, as do poorer people, all the time, especially as they get richer and the effective tax rate gets higher. True, not by much on aggregate, but their frame of reference is the amount they got last year, not in all of history. Someone has to make over $174k to be in top 5% of income earners now in the US. And in some years, people in the 5th-10th percentile pay a higher effective rate than those in the upper 5th.

Consider this type of whine: “It sucks. My bonus was $50k this year, so we cannot afford the $40k kitchen remodel.” What, you think, 50-40 is 10, so they could afford it. But annual bonuses are heavily taxed—28% federal income withholding, FICA (7.65%), and state and local, if there is any. So, if you have a 5% state income tax, that $50K bonus nets out at $29.7k. Not bad, but still over $10k less than $40k. Harry’s whiners are better off than 90% of Americans, but their frame of reference is their neighbor who just leased A6, added on new master bedroom suite, and is sending their kid to Stanford. Why not me, Lord? Won’t anyone think of the insufficiently privileged wealthy?

]]> By: MZ http://crookedtimber.org/2008/03/05/vote-if-you-want-to-and-are-willing-to-think-carefully-about-it/comment-page-1/#comment-231171 MZ Thu, 06 Mar 2008 17:47:53 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2008/03/05/vote-if-you-want-to-and-are-willing-to-think-carefully-about-it/#comment-231171 I agree with the argument that voting should be motivated out of some concern for justice. However, questions of what is a just distribution seems to me require empirical evidence and the knowledge/expertise to understand, interpret, and deliberate on the empirical evidence. Given, however, that many laws being made today are highly technical in nature, but which nonetheless affect the citizenry as a whole, I don't see how even a reasonable, deliberative person can meet this requirement. I often find myself unable to answer questions of just distribution when it comes to things like economic, health, or energy policies, for example. I am just wondering how you would respond to this line of thinking? I agree with the argument that voting should be motivated out of some concern for justice. However, questions of what is a just distribution seems to me require empirical evidence and the knowledge/expertise to understand, interpret, and deliberate on the empirical evidence. Given, however, that many laws being made today are highly technical in nature, but which nonetheless affect the citizenry as a whole, I don’t see how even a reasonable, deliberative person can meet this requirement. I often find myself unable to answer questions of just distribution when it comes to things like economic, health, or energy policies, for example. I am just wondering how you would respond to this line of thinking?

]]> By: ajay http://crookedtimber.org/2008/03/05/vote-if-you-want-to-and-are-willing-to-think-carefully-about-it/comment-page-1/#comment-231161 ajay Thu, 06 Mar 2008 16:59:18 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2008/03/05/vote-if-you-want-to-and-are-willing-to-think-carefully-about-it/#comment-231161 The problem with making the argument that voting is irrational (compared with working 30 minutes and giving the money to charity) is that, if widely promulgated, it will reduce the voting population to those too irrational or stupid to follow the argument, who will go right ahead and keep voting. The problem with making the argument that voting is irrational (compared with working 30 minutes and giving the money to charity) is that, if widely promulgated, it will reduce the voting population to those too irrational or stupid to follow the argument, who will go right ahead and keep voting.

]]>