Originally posted by sh76It isn't so much that I disagree, it's that one premise of his argument self-destructs, the more the conclusion is followed.
I think we can all agree that the right to vote is a key element in any democracy.
But should we really be encouraging people to vote or should we merely allow them to do so if they want to?
Stephen Dubner, in a recent Freakonomics podcast, took the position that an individual voting is invariably a waste of time and resources. He said that people vote on ...[text shortened]... something that will almost certainly have no effect on anything.
Anyone agree or disagree?
From the standpoint of a categorical imperative ("Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law." -- Wikipedia) he's dead wrong. In fact, his personal maxim ("My vote won't matter except as a waste of time and gas, so I don't vote"😉 DEFEATS itself to just the extent that it IS universalized, because the premise "My vote doesn't matter" becomes weak.
I do not take the simple opposite view. I would not universalize the simple maxim, "Vote." I would universalize "Cast INFORMED votes, but only if you want to live in a functioning democracy." Others should not vote.
Nonetheless, I would ask him to modify his maxim and then follow it, as follows: "If I am persuaded not to vote by the fact that it will cost me time and gas, I won't vote." THAT maxim could be universalized without defeating itself, and would leave the voting to people like me.
Originally posted by rwingettTrue enough, but so what? That's not a necessary outcome of democracy; it's only what the people allow.
A meaningful election requires that something meaningful be put on the ballot. Too often democracy is used to simply give an aura of popular support to the elite agenda. It makes for much smoother implementation than open tyranny.
Originally posted by YorobotObviously that moment of pleasure and satisfaction achieved through participation in the voting process may well be of some value to the individual, but should this really be the main reason for voting? Voting is means to an end, not an end in itself, it would hardly be a contribution to the quality of government if everyone was to vote solely for the purpose of "feeling good about themselves".
Well, I think making oneself feel good (about oneself) counts as a good thing. I think people should be encouraged to vote, if only for this reason.
When people feel good (about themselves) they will be more willing to do good, like, forinstance, find a bin before they litter.
The argument that the better government comes from an educated vote, rather t ...[text shortened]... like, forinstance, the decision that democratic rights should be reserved for the happy few.
Even assuming this is true, are there not other ways in which people can feel good about themselves which don't involve trivializing the electoral process? I haven't voted in an election for years, and yet I don't feel Im any less motivated to not litter the streets, your conclusion strikes me as somewhat bizarre.
Originally posted by JS357What is the original maxim you ascribe to him? Seems to me he's saying what you call his modified maxim.
It isn't so much that I disagree, it's that one premise of his argument self-destructs, the more the conclusion is followed.
From the standpoint of a categorical imperative ("Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law." -- Wikipedia) he's dead wrong. In fact, his personal maxim ("My vote wo ...[text shortened]... lized without defeating itself, and would leave the voting to people like me.
I have never voted. When I lived in Zambia (and had a right to vote), I didn't know who my local representative was (didn't even know his name), I didn't like the current president, nor the opposition president, nor had I heard of any of the smaller parties having anything interesting to say.
Voting would only have been a random choice for the local representative, and given legitimacy to someone I didn't like as president.
I think that if you are going to vote, then take the time to find out who your possible representatives are, what they are about, and what you want from them. So I think the OP has it all wrong. It is not about how much time or effort you put into voting, it is about how much time and effort you put into researching your choice.
I have an american relative and I believe he votes by tradition. His family votes for a given party, always has and always will regardless of what that party stands for and who the party president is.
I think voting serves two purposes:
1. It gives you a broad choice of government policy (usually a choice between two main parties).
2. It pressures the party (and sometimes the president) to try to impress the voters before the next election. They do this by trying to do what the people want, or what will be good for the country (in the short term).
The down sides of voting are:
1. A heavy focus on the election cycle. Long term plans never get priority.
2. Not much actual choice.
3. Too much focus on it and claims that voting=democracy.
I am more interested in the the democracy that happens between elections. This involves lobbying, opinion polls and other means whereby peoples opinion is sampled by the government. I like the fact that some parts of the US have more fine grained voting where people vote on specific issues. We don't have much of that here in Africa as far as I know.
The up side of in between democracy, is that those who care have the biggest voice. The down side is that those who get heard tend to be those with money. Though here in South Africa the labor unions have very strong lobbying power.
I am also of the opinion that democracy itself has its flaws and certain things like human rights should not be voted on and should not be the subject of democratic choice. Discrimination especially tends to thrive under democracy.
Originally posted by generalissimoFrom the OP:
Obviously that moment of pleasure and satisfaction achieved through participation in the voting process may well be of some value to the individual, but should this really be the main reason for voting? Voting is means to an end, not an end in itself, it would hardly be a contribution to the quality of government if everyone was to vote solely for the ...[text shortened]... y less motivated to not litter the streets, your conclusion strikes me as somewhat bizarre.
Stephen Dubner, in a recent Freakonomics podcast, took the position that an individual voting is invariably a waste of time and resources. He said that people vote only because they feel good doing so, but that, of course, the odds of their vote mattering are virtually nil.
[...]
He wryly suggests that if we want to encourage people to help society to feel good about themselves, we should encourage people to pick up one piece of trash on election day, which will likely have a greater impact on society than voting will and consumes far fewer resources.
[end quote]
The first part of my post was a bit disingenuous. Tongue-in-cheek response to a cynical stance on why/how people should be motivated to make their two-bit contribution for the good of the society. "He wryly suggests...", and I should have known better there.
Originally posted by sh76I would generally agree. I would offer a slight correction however. He suggests "only the more commited and more knowledgeable people end up caring enough to vote"....I would say the more caring, NOT always the more knowledgeable.
I think we can all agree that the right to vote is a key element in any democracy.
But should we really be encouraging people to vote or should we merely allow them to do so if they want to?
Stephen Dubner, in a recent Freakonomics podcast, took the position that an individual voting is invariably a waste of time and resources. He said that people vote on ...[text shortened]... something that will almost certainly have no effect on anything.
Anyone agree or disagree?
Originally posted by PalynkaNow you are asking a relevant question so my reply can be relevant.
Irrelevant. What maxim were you modifying?
Quote:
He also says that he hasn't voted in decades because, as an economist, he cannot justify spending the time and gasoline necessary to do something that will almost certainly have no effect on anything.
Unquote
From this one can infer the economist's maxim would universalize to: If your vote doesn't matter and it costs you in time and gas, don't vote.
This maxim self-destructs if universalized, because your vote will matter more and more, as fewer and fewer people vote for that reason. If you don't get it, check out the categorical imperative or Kant on Wikipedia or somewhere else of your choice. I don't care if you "buy" the use of Kant's dictum on the economist's position, but if you do, that's the outcome.
1 edit
Originally posted by JS357You don't seem to understand what he is saying. The moment very few people vote then the same argument says it starts being worth voting again. Of course, this will not happen (he continues) because of the warm glow some people get from voting.
Now you are asking a relevant question so my reply can be relevant.
Quote:
He also says that he hasn't voted in decades because, as an economist, he cannot justify spending the time and gasoline necessary to do something that will almost certainly have no effect on anything.
Unquote
From this one can infer the economist's maxim would universalize to: use of Kant's dictum on the economist's position, but if you do, that's the outcome.
Originally posted by PalynkaI understand that. I'm not arguing with that. I am merely applying a well known moral principle or method of evaluation, to see how it would apply to his reasoning about his own personal decision not to vote on the basis that voting doesn't matter other than being a waste of time and gas. Universalizing the maxim is the way the categorical imperative works. I am sure there are other ways to evaluate his own personal decision. Have you another one?
You don't seem to understand what he is saying. The moment very few people vote then the same argument says it starts being worth voting again. Of course, this will not happen (he continues) because of the warm glow some people get from voting.
2 edits
Originally posted by JS357The "maxim" can be made universal because it's not as caricature you make of it. It's a trade-off argument which is robust to changes in the conditions. If nobody (or few people) votes, the argument leads to a recommendation of voting. If a lot of people vote, the argument leads to a recommendation of not voting. You want to paint it as a caricature that recommends not voting but that's not the argument being made.
I understand that. I'm not arguing with that. I am merely applying a well known moral principle or method of evaluation, to see how it would apply to his reasoning about his own personal decision not to vote on the basis that voting doesn't matter other than being a waste of time and gas. Universalizing the maxim is the way the categorical imperative works. I am sure there are other ways to evaluate his own personal decision. Have you another one?
And did you just learn about Kant's categorical imperatives? You seem to be insisting on it a lot.
Originally posted by PalynkaI don't see the two-way street approach in the economist's statements, but it could be inferred that he would say, 'I'm not going to waste my time and gas doing something that won't matter, but your mileage may vary."
The "maxim" can be made universal because it's not as caricature you make of it. It's a trade-off argument which is robust to changes in the conditions. If nobody (or few people) votes, the argument leads to a recommendation of voting. If a lot of people vote, the argument leads to a recommendation of not voting. You want to paint it as a caricature that rec ...[text shortened]... you just learn about Kant's categorical imperatives? You seem to be insisting on it a lot.
Nonetheless, I wondered, what element of the post could be evaluated from an ethical perspective, and from what ethical perspective? I didn't expect to be accused of wanting to paint it as a caricature.
There is another part of this that is even more interesting to me. That is, should we encourage people to vote?