I believe in voting against candidates who will misuse their power (which includes almost every politician), and for the best viable candidate (if one is better than the incumbent). But is this a good idea if one believes the state shouldn’t exist? Should one judge candidates based on their platforms and/or record? According to my philosophy, one should have voted for Bush in 2000 because he claimed to be more libertarian than both the incumbent and his only viable opponent. Bush’s presidency was worse than Clinton’s and may have been worse than Gore’s. Is there a better strategy? Should one vote at all?
While I hate voting, the concept of voting, and voting for any mojor politician, sometimes voting is almost neccasary. I can’t think of any election in modern times where a major pres canidate was worth voting for. That being said if I own a business and the govt is trying to pass some g@@ damn regulation, law or tax hike that is going to effect me I have to vote, I am unwillingly dragged into politics, it is just a matter of self defense.
As far as voting for a major Democrat or Republican politician I really see little or no difference in the amount of evil either can accomplish, so if I am stuck voting on an issue that day I may just do a right in canidate for “Turd Furgenson” to make me giggle.
Just to clarify, I do not believe in ever voting for someone who is worse than the incumbent, even if he is the best viable candidate. If the incumbent is the best viable candidate, one shouldn’t vote for him unless he was better than his predecessor. But are there factors other than a candidate’s platform and record that should be considered?
I always vote for the candidate whose platform is closest to mine which means I do not vote Republican or Democrat. You should always consider your own motives when it comes to voting. What are you trying to get out of the vote?
I know someone who voted for Obama because he is black, and because he thought Obama would turn the lights out in New York City to use a phrase from Ayn Rand.
I do not vote if I am voting for the less of two evils because for me there is no reason to vote for two people on different points on the same spectrum.
I used to careful screen candidates’ platform. Pretty much like Dondoolee I was dragged kicking and screaming on the scene. Then the inevitable happened: the candidates I supported did a 180° turn, went against their platform and against my interests they had promised to defend in written form. Not once but at least thrice.Needless to say I was so piqued I swore never to vote again. And I haven’t voted in many, many years despite sirens trying to lure me back in. I realized my vote doesn’t make the least difference so I stopped wasting my time. To be honest with you I found that taking to street works much better than any election and I am sticking to that for the moment: a hundred persons with flags and slogans are worth much more than a million voters.
If you don’t know anything about the candidate, then who would you be voting into power?
If you don’t believe the government should exist, it might be wise to vote for the candidate that you think will push it closer to it’s destruction.
Not voting acheives nothing.
Yes, either do not vote or always vote for yourself. I myself will never ever again vote for evil.
Voting achieves nothing.
As a general rule of thumb, you should vote for the candidate that will piss off the greatest number of politicians. Ron Paul is a good candidate.
The RP campaign says otherwise.
And who exactly is in the White House right now?
If anything, the Ron Paul campaign demonstrates that voting is utterly pointless.
You have to understand what voting is and what its purpose is in the structure of power. Voting is a way for the ruling class to get legitimacy for its rule. They rig the vote so as to get the result they want, that they are reconducted to power. If you vote for people like Ron Paul that is defying their will. It does not affect their power, but it sure annoys them.
The trick to democracy is always to rig the vote in such a way as to get the result that you want. (So is public opinion polling.) Anything that goes against this result undermines the power of the ruling class.
Well, low voter turnout does delegitimize democracy. Politicians can’t claim to have “a mandate from the people” when voter turnout is low. For example, in the last Canadian election voter turnout was the lowest ever, and I didn’t hear anyone talking about a mandate. Although it was funny to hear the idiots whining about how “we have to do better”.
Also, don’t forget the opportunity cost of voting. And telling people you’ve never voted is a great conversation starter.
I wrote an article about voting here.
What is an interesting transition wonderment, for I haven’t thought about this too much before, is at what point is low voter turn out a mandate against the government? Not talking quantitatively. Just something curious I wondered about.
Not voting Delegitimizes the state…
How’s that working out for you so far?
It’s really difficult to measure the effect of one person voting or not voting, so I’m not sure how to answer this question.
But like I said, in the last Canadian election voter turnout was the lowest ever, and no politicians were claiming any mandate. In the last U.S. election, however, voter turnout was the highest in 40 years, and everyone is squealing about Obamania and their revitalized faith in democracy. Which government do you think is going to be more tyrannical?
Maybe some quotes will clarify my position:
Joseph Sobran: “Winners of presidential elections like to claim a “mandate” when they defeat their opponents decisively — that is, with 55 per cent or so of the votes cast. But when half the eligible voters abstain, it suggests a quiet but decisive mandate against the whole political system.
Lew Rockwell: “But what effect does voting have? It gives [politicians] what they need most: a mandate. Nonparticipation helps deny that to them. It makes them, just on the margin, a bit more fearful that they are ruling us without our consent. This is all to the good. The government should fear the people. Not voting is a good beginning toward instilling that fear.”
If the candidate isn’t viable - and, of course, one could try his best prior to the election to make him viable - you would accomplish more by voting for the best viable candidate.