Star One Smart Blog's

Does the right to vote mean you have to vote? Should one ever stay home if the polls are open?

We've always options for November. Should we Conservatives stay home? Should we, as Ann Coulter has (tongue in cheek, I hope) espoused, vote for the really, really bad choice offered by the Leftists? Or, should we go to our designated polling place, stand there in our becurtained booth and, while majorly holding nose, vote for a choice that is only marginally acceptable?

For Republicans, this angry internal battle rages.

After the 2006 election, Democrats took the House and the Senate, on the strength of their hatred of George W. Bush and the Iraqi war. Bush Derangement Syndrome continues unabated to this day; even with George Bush retiring to Texas we have his presence driving the hateful Democrats to swing wide left with their choice of Obama, or return to Clinassty Dynasty with Hillary. Neither of those two candidates would be good for America. I'm convinced there are no Leftist candidates that would be good for America.

Now, looking at the Republicans...

I don't see Republicans winning this election, even (especially?) if Jesus Christ were on the ticket. There's a pendulum that's swung far, for better or worse, and the time is here to see it swing the other way.

So, do we Conservatives simply sit this one out? Stay home?

HELL, NO!

There's reasoning to get out and Vote...

Civics. Lessons hopefully learned from school days. Our country has a history of good people dying so that we can exercise the right to cast ballot. This is basic stuff. Lesson plan 101, listen up kids, you have to demonstrate at least this much...

• Knows the fundamental principles of American democracy (e.g., the people are sovereign; the power of government is limited by law; people exercise their authority directly through voting; people exercise their authority indirectly through elected representatives)
• Knows how the values and principles of American democracy can be promoted through participating in government (e.g., voting, keeping informed about public issues, writing to legislators, serving on juries)
• Knows how people can participate in their state and local government (e.g., being informed, taking part in discussing issues, voting, volunteering their time, and understands why it is important that people participate in their state and local government (e.g., improve the quality of life in their community, gain personal satisfaction, prevent officials from abusing power)
• Understands why it is important for citizens to monitor their local, state, and national governments; and knows ways people can monitor the decisions and actions of their government such as reading about public issues, watching television news programs, discussing public issues)
  

Your Right, your Voice. It's the most fundamental State Right you have as an American, to vote (besides, of course, the Federally-protected right to self-defense, thank you 2nd Amendment). You pay taxes; what do you get in return? Look at it this way...your tax money as money can be viewed as money spent to buy a ticket to vote. You'll find that those thousands of dollars mean a bit more if you consider having that ticket--and not using it. From an angry leftist site...

"Your vote is your voice. Politicians and elected officials know who votes – which determines what issues they address, and how they craft policy. And of course voting helps determine who’s in office in the first place! Here in Oregon, we also vote on ballot measures, where you say yes or no to equal marriage rights, land use policy, education funding… and much more. Make your voice heard! Even if you don’t want to vote in every single race – casting your ballot is a vital act as a citizen of a healthy democracy. Plus it’s way cooler than apathy.

"Apathy is the mind-killer.
Apathy is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my apathy.
I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the apathy has gone there will be nothing.
Only I will remain."

(Ummm, sorry Frank Herbert, but if you think about it fear and apathy do share some commonalities; they both can result in one burying one's head in the sand or shitting one's pants...)

We could have compulsory voting, much like Australia...

"As an Australian citizen, I voted in the recent federal election there. So did about 95 percent of registered Australian voters. That figure contrasts markedly with elections in the United States, where the turnout in the 2004 presidential election barely exceeded 60 percent. In Congressional elections that fall in the middle of a president's term, usually fewer than 40 percent of eligible Americans bother to vote.

There is a reason why so many Australians vote. In the 1920s, when voter turnout fell below 60 percent, parliament made voting compulsory. Since then, despite governments of varying political complexions, there has been no serious attempt to repeal the law, which polls show is supported by about 70 percent of the population.

Australians who don't vote receive a letter asking why. Those without an acceptable excuse, like illness or travel abroad, must pay a small fine, but the number fined is less than 1 percent of eligible voters.

That seems nearly a good idea. Maybe we should consider that. Perhaps a vote on the subject...

If we don't want a small minority to determine our government, we will favor a high turnout. Yet since our own vote makes such a tiny contribution to the outcome, each of us still faces the temptation to get a free ride, not bothering to vote while hoping that enough other people will vote to keep democracy robust and to elect a government that is responsive to the views of a majority of citizens.

But there are many possible reasons for voting. Some people vote because they enjoy it, and would have nothing better to do with the time saved if they did not. Others are motivated by a sense of civic duty that does not assess the rationality of voting in terms of the possible impact of one's own ballot.

Still others might vote not because they imagine that they will determine the outcome of the election, but because, like football fans, they want to cheer their team on. They may vote because if they don't, they will be in no position to complain if they don't like the government that is elected. Or they may calculate that while the chances of their determining the outcome are only one in several million, the result is of such importance that even that tiny chance is enough to outweigh the minor inconveniences of voting.

If these considerations fail to get people to the polls, however, compulsory voting is one way of overcoming the free-rider problem.

Sort of makes sense. We are compelled to do certain thing; pay taxes, wear seat belts, be of age to drink; why not compulsory voting?

Well, let's finish this thing.

One post I found while researching this one is an excellent bit of work by an economist, Russell Roberts.

"We should vote because it's the right thing to do, like tipping in a restaurant that you will never visit again and giving blood. These are not "rational" in the narrow sense of providing net benefits. And such activities require cultural norms of various kinds to succeed. But if you have a conscience, such activities do become rational."

From his comments, a link to an economic "Schematic Cost-Benefit Analysis" of voting...

U = p*B - C, where

U = the relative utility of going and casting a vote
p = probability that, by voting, you will change the election outcome
B = the benefit you would feel from your candidate winning (compared to the other candidate winning)
C = the net cost of voting

The trouble is, if p is 1 in 10 million, then for any reasonable value of B, the product p*B is essentially zero (for example, even if B is as high as $10000, p*B is 1/10 of one cent), and this gives no reason to vote.

Thanks, guys, now don't you have some budget data to review, maybe audit from where Hillary Clinton is getting all of this campaign money she's finding? Cattle futures, anyone?

I'd like to leave this post a bit better than I started it, with some nice Kant.

"Everything has either a price or a dignity. Whatever has a price can be replaced by something else as its equivalent; on the other hand, whatever is above all price, and therefore admits of no equivalent, has a dignity. But that which constitutes the condition under which alone something can be an end in itself does not have mere relative worth, i.e., price, but an intrinsic worth, i.e., a dignity."

So, there, even if your cost-benefit analysis of voting far outweighed by the bother, won't you feel better to keep your dignity?

Now, get out there in November and Vote!

---

(This post inspired by Lost my Cookies' PW Pub piece, and comments therein)

---