The Objectivist voting dilemma:
Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst 12 years, 1 month ago to Politics
Recently we were asked to go to the polls and vote. Who could we vote for without violating one or more of our principles? No one; if you voted for a third party candidate that didn’t have a chance of winning you voted for the principle of non sanction of evil, but you voted against your own short term self-interest. You may be well served in the long run if a collapse occurs and lessons are learned, but that is speculation. Some would say you voted against your self-interest if you voted for Romney. This is probable, but to what degree? It is beyond dispute a vote for Obama was a vote against your self-interest as a producer since he was the biggest collectivist, statist we have seen on the ticket in a lifetime. So perhaps Romney was to a lesser degree a vote against your self-interest, but only in a short term way since it seemed possible to survive/ tolerate and perhaps moderate him. This is not the case for Obama. He has no incentive to moderate his views, especially now without further election annoyances to concern himself with. Who believes he will now become more moderate?
So to recap, the choices were limited. First, you could vote for Obama. This would be a betrayal of all that is objective. Second, you could have voted for Romney which was a vote for the lesser of two evils, not satisfying, but likely to be less harmful and recoverable. Third, you could have voted for a third party and uphold all of your principles except to jeopardize your own self-interest by not helping to dislodge the greatest offender. Fourth, you could have decided you couldn’t in clear conscience vote for anyone and by your inaction aid the worst offender. There was no good option…
So here we are now with the worst possible outcome. The takers out-voting the makers and leaving us with the same miserable paradigm have won. Can we survive and recover, or is a full blown strike the only way to open the eyes of the electorate? It doesn’t matter if a declaration of, or an organized strike occurs. Unless something significant changes the economic circumstances combined with reactions of producers are likely to create the same conditions. I will not be alone as a business owner who would have liked to expand my operation but will now be forced to subsist. The strike is on! What else can be done? We need better options, but if this is what it takes so be it! It is contrary to my nature, but I will do all I can to get by without further feeding the beast!
Respectfully,
O.A.
So to recap, the choices were limited. First, you could vote for Obama. This would be a betrayal of all that is objective. Second, you could have voted for Romney which was a vote for the lesser of two evils, not satisfying, but likely to be less harmful and recoverable. Third, you could have voted for a third party and uphold all of your principles except to jeopardize your own self-interest by not helping to dislodge the greatest offender. Fourth, you could have decided you couldn’t in clear conscience vote for anyone and by your inaction aid the worst offender. There was no good option…
So here we are now with the worst possible outcome. The takers out-voting the makers and leaving us with the same miserable paradigm have won. Can we survive and recover, or is a full blown strike the only way to open the eyes of the electorate? It doesn’t matter if a declaration of, or an organized strike occurs. Unless something significant changes the economic circumstances combined with reactions of producers are likely to create the same conditions. I will not be alone as a business owner who would have liked to expand my operation but will now be forced to subsist. The strike is on! What else can be done? We need better options, but if this is what it takes so be it! It is contrary to my nature, but I will do all I can to get by without further feeding the beast!
Respectfully,
O.A.
If we have lost the fourth estate, perhaps the now emerging (let us call it the fifth estate) power of the internet may be our hope.
Respectfully,
O.A.
It's going to require a dedicated effort by many to make it work for something like voter fraud. With all the information out their it just doesn't seem that the majority really care.
Vote for the candidate that most closely matches your idea how the country should be run, regardless of his/her real chances of winning. That's it.
Some alternative strategies are voting for the lesser of two evils (that is, candidate who isn't the best match but has a better chance of winning) or refusing to take part at all. I consider these less effective strategies, here is why:
First, accept that your vote is not going to affect the result of the election. Probability of one vote deciding an election is so small that it can be pretty safely ignored. Voting for Romney for just trying to prevent Obama from winning as a "short-term self interest" is not really even that.
So why vote at all? While your vote might not affect the result of the election, it still has other effects. Besides choosing the candidates, the elections are also a nation-wide poll on how citizens think their country should be run, where everyone can have their say. Unfortunately the offered options are limited: instead of the real policy questions you are only given a list of candidates and it is up to you to find out their opinions on policies and how well they match yours. Nevertheless it is a chance to send a message to those is power and the world in general: this is the guy who mostly matches my idea how the country should be run. And that has an effect of it's own, whether your candidate actually gets elected or not.
By voting the lesser evil that message gets distorted: there is no way of knowing whether you vote for a candidate because you consider him the best choice or simply because you consider him slightly less bad as the other one that might win. There is no "Why I voted this candidate"-option in the ballot. All they know it that this guy got this many votes and despite not winning he seems to have strong support and we'd better consider his opinions seriously. And that other guy, who may have been your actual best match, got very few votes so apparently very few people agree with him, so we can safely keep ignoring his ramblings.
That is also the reason why not voting is not very effective if you want to change things. Sure, you may have intended it as a protest against current policies, refusing to take part in a corrupt system. But again, there is no "Why I refuse to vote for any candidate"-option. Not voting can also be interpreted as "I don't really have an opinion how the country should be run and I'm quite happy to let the others to decide for me." or "I'm just too lazy to be bothered with it". (Note that there is nothing wrong with these options. If you really do not have an opinion on how the country should be run or can't be bothered to find out which candidate would be best, then by all means, stay home. Worst thing you can do is going to vote just because "it is your duty" despite having no idea about the candidates or the issues, except "that one guy looked nice on TV". Believe me, by doing that you are not doing yourself or your country any favors.)
But if you _do_ have opinions and you _do_ know that one candidate matches those better than the others, then voting for that candidate will have better effect than not voting. Because regardless of who actally wins the election you have sent a message that you considered this guy to be the closest to your opinions. If he does not win or does not really even have a chance of winning, as long as he has at least some support, his opinions and policies gain a little more credibility. Even if that support is relatively small, say 1%, the big players are forced to take notice. After all, they are also desperate for votes, and if they see that little guy getting even that 1%, it is still 1% off from their votes and maybe if they adopted at least some of those that little guys policies maybe they could get some of his votes next time, or at least prevent them from going to the other big player. So now your vote is having an effect, even if your candidate didn't actually win. But this happens only if the little guy has at least some votes. No votes-> no support -> no need to bother.
Despite all it's faults, there is one nice thing about democracy: you don't need to have an armed revolution to change things. All you need to do is to convince other people that this is the best way to do things and then vote accordingly.
But we do need to vote, or else we have no standing when others try to criticize us for not having voted.
Thank you for your comments.
A=A. Things are what they are independent of our perceptions or desires. One must recognize and accept that the electorate and our election process will not operate on objectivist principles. With this reality we are resigned to voting the lesser of two evils, and accepting the least violation of our principles, or not voting at all if we feel it is the lesser violation of our principles. It would depend upon your goals. If you believe it is in your best interest to vote for the lesser of two evils and wait it in the hope of losing one battle to fight another day and perhaps win the war that is your choice. If you feel it is no longer a viable option because you believe it is not possible to change course without a collapse, then not voting at all may hasten the collapse and further your goal of forcing the collapse so one may start anew. Which choice will initiate the rising of the Phoenix first?
Regards,
O.A.
Welcome to my world.
"What else can be done?"
At this point, there are no further options.
Sad, truly sad. There will be no "strike." There is no Gulch from which the Phoenix of productive individuals will emerge to resurrect the nation. There is only enslavement and serfdom in store, and it is the ignorant and the fools who will herald it's arrival.
Sadly your predictions ring true. If there is a collapse it will occur under its own weight. Note: This is an old post of mine that has been revived. :) Elections are fast approaching, so I hope we enjoy a more positive outcome this time, one way or another.
O.A.