Over at The Daily Caller, I tally up the arguments for and against voting. This year, the minuses outweighed the plusses — at least for me. But different people will come to different conclusions, and that’s fine. Consider this a list of arguments to consider, and an invitation to think for yourself.
I’m rather sick of moralizing do-gooders preaching that voting is your civic duty. “If you forfeit your right to vote, you forfeit your right to complain,” they say. Hogwash. Tell that to blacks before the 15th Amendment and women before the 19th Amendment and see where that gets you.
My main points:
-The mathematics come out against voting. Average turnout in my Congressional district is about 200,000 voters. I have one vote.
-Expressive voting, however, is perfectly legitimate. People place a high value participating in democracy. They value having their say. Exercising their rights. Those are wonderful reasons in favor of taking the time to vote.
-But voting takes time. The time I spend voting is time I can’t spend on activities that have more impact, such as writing articles for publication. I do, after all, make a living expressing my opinions on policy issues.
-To vote or not is a personal decision with no right or wrong answer. Think it through. Do what’s right for you. And don’t look down on people who decide differently than you do.
Posted in Elections, Political Animals, Publications, The Partisan Mind
Tagged 2010 election, election 2010, expressive voting, jim moran, math, midterm election, patrick murray, voting
-The federal government has a Children’s Health Protection Advisory Committee. I also had one when I was a kid – my parents.
-In Fire Island, New York, it is illegal to eat cookies on the beach.
-Not sure how to drink water? The National Drinking Water Advisory Council can help.
-In North Dakota, it is against the law to sleep with your shoes on.
-Does your company make blood-based products? Consult the federal government’s Blood Products Advisory Committee.
-The government is starting an Advisory Committee on Breast Cancer in Young Women. Those resources could have been used for research.
-If you have ever been in a duel, you are ineligible to vote in Mississippi.
Posted in regulation
Tagged advisory committee on breast cancer in young women, blood products advisory committee, children's health protection advisory committee, cookies, duel, fire island, mississippi, national drinking water advisory council, north dakota, obscure regulations, regulation, silly regulations, voting
The lede to this Denver Post article says it all:
RIDGWAY — Residents of this Old West- meets-New Age town can be fined if their fences are too high, they have too many chickens, their dogs aren’t on leashes or their weeds are out of control.
Tom Hennessy would like to add not voting to that list.
There are three things wrong with Mr. Hennessy’s proposed regulation. One is that mandatory voting is a violation of personal freedom. To vote or not is an important choice that people make for themselves. It is not Mr. Hennessy’s place to make that decision for others. Many countries have tried mandatory voting over the years, most notably the Soviet Union.
The second thing wrong with mandatory voting is that it violates freedom of speech. Mr. Hennessy is aware that compelled speech is just as unconstitutional as censored speech. That’s why he proposes a “none of the above” option on ballots. But some people are sending a deliberate message when they choose not to vote. Mr. Hennessy would fine them for sending that message.
The third point is that, maybe, some people shouldn’t vote. If I step into a voting booth not knowing a thing about the candidates or the issues, I am essentially choosing at random. And choosing wrong means voting against everything I stand for.
Even worse, human beings have built-in cognitive biases that affect their voting habits. Economist Bryan Caplan’s book The Myth of the Rational Voter identifies anti-foreign bias, anti-market bias, make-work bias, and pessimistic bias, for starters.
Even relatively informed voters fall prey to these biases. They vote accordingly. The difference of opinion between economists and the general public on economic issues is startling. Nobody argues relativity with a physicist thinking they’ll win. But voters from both parties argue against the laws of economics every election, often in error but never in doubt.
Despite its flaws, democracy has worked tolerably well in this country for a long time. Perhaps the best part of our particular democracy is that people are free to choose their level of engagement with it. That should be your choice. Not Tom Hennessy’s.
(Full disclosure: CEI takes no stance on whether to vote, or for whom. Neither do I. I personally have not voted since 2002, but seriously consider it every year.)
Posted in Economics, Elections, Political Animals, Public Choice, Regulation of the Day
Tagged bryan caplan, co, colorado, compelled speech, Elections, first amendment, Free Speech, freedom of speech, hennessy, mandatory voting, not voting, politics, regulation, Regulation of the Day, ridgway, tom hennessy, voting