Researchers Discover Cause of Voting

Researchers have discovered that people who are incompetent generally lack the knowledge that they are incompetent.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2000/01/18/MN73840.DTL

This lack of self-awareness is the glue that holds democracy together. As long as people feel capable of evaluating complex economic and geopolitical policies, they will keep voting. And as long as people vote, they will feel vested in the system and support it.

As regular readers know, voting is one of the few areas where I recognize my incompetence. That’s why I stay home on election day. In my case, voting would be irrational.

One of the ways I recognize my own political incompetence is by observing how my opinions keep changing. That shouldn’t be happening. For example, a month ago I would have said Obama was the best choice for president because he is an inspirational leader, less divisive than Clinton, and he would bring our troops home from Iraq sooner than McCain. Plus McCain is too old for the job. It all seemed so simple.

Then I read an article that explained how much Obama would tax the people in my bracket compared to McCain’s plan. Ouch. And I started thinking that over time, our all-volunteer army results in fighters who know they will end up in Iraq when they volunteer. That wasn’t the case when the war began, but it becomes that way if we stay indefinitely. Who am I to tell another citizen that he or she should not take that risk for some benefit to the country that he or she perceives?

The war is expensive, but at least McCain would take that money from the middle class majority, and being the majority, they are the ones who would need to elect McCain in the first place. Why would I want to deny the majority the option of voting to pay more taxes than they need to so that I can pay less? They should have that freedom.

If I believed that Obama would pull 100% of our troops out of Iraq, and that Al-Qaeda would surrender because of it, then McCain’s plan of perpetual occupation would look foolish. But as long as Al-Qaeda wants to kill me, no matter what my country does, I’m willing to let volunteers try to shoot them first, as long as other people are paying for the bullets.

The war is bad for Iraqi civilians, but no one knows for sure if they would be worse off without the occupation, given the likelihood of greater civil war. As important as that question is, you have to leave it out of the calculation because it is unknowable.

So I ask myself, isn’t the world better off if I just vote for McCain, buy stock in companies that profit from war, and let everyone else exercise their freedom of choice even if makes them poorer and/or dead?

See why I don’t vote?

Comments

[Bean]

If you do not vote, you support the majority. If you want to support the majority don't vote, if not then vote.

[Sanjay]

It won't matter who you or I vote for. It's not the president who makes the decisions or the laws. The president only signs. Even the pre-election speeches are written by others. I always look for signs of disbelief on the faces of presidential candidates when they make tall claims. You can read in their eyes, if you look closely, "who's going to do that, me?"

It's the staff who makes the decision and don't expect me to believe that the staff is selected on merit.

So how does it matter who is President. Scott is right. Don't vote.

[Andy Coulter]

normally i lean consevative but i hope hilary and barack and nancy and harry tax the shit out of your dumbass.

[ABTechie]

I love your blog!

And, I just bought Stick To Drawing Comics Monkey Brain!

Love it!

[Robert Wallace]

Scott,

Denying we have the capability to vote is denying that anyone can be self-interested. I suppose you can eliminate the whole free-will bit from the equation, but that would lead to the non-necessity of government in the first place since government is aimed at regulating people's exercise of free will. So assuming that the illusion of free will entitles us to look out for our own delusional interests, why not vote. You have no more free will than experts in any particular subject can muster, ergo, it would seem that you have just as much right/responsibility to vote your own personal interests (for whatever reason, accurate of fallacy) as the rest of the american public. Voting is supposed to be a selfish act, those who forget that will end up being molested by the government they put in power.

[oreo]

i think some of us are making it harder than it should be. A sure fire way to make sure your vote makes the difference we're so much trying to make, is to vote for the guy who's obviously going to win. That way not only did you do your civil duty, but you and the rest of the country should have no regrets, if the candidate-now-president, messes up. The other guy would have done worse, thats why he didnt win.

[Anarchy In Your Head]

Once again Scott, you seem to be coming dangerously close to grasping the philosophy of voluntaryism/anarchy.

[Patrick Hothersall]

I think you made a mistake. Al-Qaeda doesn't want to kill you. They want Jim Davis.

[Steve Anderson]

I'm always amazed when someone so bright and creative chooses not to participate in political society. If you think you're too dumb to make a choice, fine. But you're not. Just do what many of us -- unfortunately, not always the majority -- do and take the time to really learn about the candidates. Don't just believe the crap that gets on TV, don't be lazy about this. Read and think, then decide.

I'm voting for Obama, not because he is perfect or that I think he can, by himself, change the mess this country is in because of Bush and his enablers on both sides. This is not a perfect country or system, and it never will be. The best we can do, and what we owe our families and friends, is to do what we can to help make incremental improvements. The larger the election, and the presidency would be the biggest, the smaller the difference your individual vote will make, but that is no reason to simply give up.

[JT]

It's amazing to me that somebody who has accomplished so much in his life would say "fuck it" to anything. I get it that you are a pragmatist but your hand wringing and wishy-washiness regarding issues and voting is counterproductive. Perhaps you should just agree to disagree with yourself and save the mental mileage of your foolish uncertainty.

[kb]

My uncle once observed a Canadian election. Apparently theres an option for none of the above. If enough people choose it they have to cancel the election and find new candidates.

[TomH]

Perhaps you might feel differently if you had a Draft Age son.

[alias]

March 26, 2008 in --General Nonsense--

I agree with the category chosen.

[Mike]

The people who volunteer to get themselves killed are mostly people whose other option is a minimum wage life without benefits. You could show a little empathy towards them instead of trying to hide behind them pretending they are free to choose.

Besides, if you think that sending them to Iraq does on iota of good towards protecting you from AQ, you simply haven't been paying attention. Which is a shame.

In summary, I don't think we would be friends if I we knew each other. Not that you give a sh*t, because you seem to be very full of yourself.

[Boris]

Scott, I've meant to ask this in the past when you've discussed your reasons for not voting. I understand your stated reasons for not voting in national elections, or even state ones, but how about your local elections? Why don't you vote in those? I'm assuming, of course, that your "I don't vote" statement includes the local elections.

Your city government, Mayor, Alderman, School Board members, etc., probably have more direct impact on your daily life than your President or Congressman. Isn't it possible that you could understand local issues well enough to at least make a reasonable guess at the best candidates? Wouldn't you like to try it for one election at least?

Just asking. It's your town. Probably won't affect me unless I visit California.

[tord]

I can'y find which scotsman said it and precisely what they said but the quote goes along the lines of "democracy will last only as long as people do not realise they can get more out of it than they put in". Not voting means that the parties don't have to pander to you (most of whom I assume are average normal people) but instead parties start pandering to vocal minorities. Get out there and vote you dullards. Sure your vote may not make a crucial difference but it's far less supportive of those freedoms you appear to enjoy to ignore process all together.

If you really want to support the country you live in, volunteer for something that assists your community. Put something back into the community instead of taking all the time.

[Dylboz]

If DO vote, you can't complain. After all, you agreed to be governed by the outcome, you think that if 50% +1 person agrees, it becomes right and true and good right?. I mean, if your candidate or proposition won, you'd expect others to peacefully submit to it, right?

I reject the whole system, because Democracy is dictatorship, a "tyranny of the majority," just like De tocqueville said. Hitler was elected overwhelmingly, the Bolsheviks were ushered in by a popular revolution and Castro had the vast majority of Cuban's support. Chavez just barely lost his "President for Life" election. Democracy gives evil men the aura of legitimacy. Did you see what Cheney said when confronted with the popular rejection of his policies? He said "so?" Because the people get their say (between two Council on Foreign Relations, Skull and Bones, corporate tools) every 4 years, so if they vote for Bush, they vote in advance for everything he does, regardless of the fact that they cannot know what that will be, or how it will effect them or millions of innocent Iraqis or Iranians.

Democracy is not freedom, it's just a mob. Morality cannot be defined by a vote. No one has a right to rule over you, or threaten you with violence, no matter how many people they have on their side. Peace and freedom will only come with the end of the state, yet no one will vote for that, because people all want a cut of the loot, stolen from their neighbors by the government. The national motto for this sorry country should read "there oughta be a law," since that seems to be the reaction to every problem. Of course, people don't realize that means more cops, more guns (yes you liberals, if you want to legislate everything, it means you are asking for MORE guns, pointed at more people) and more jails.

So, hear hear, Mr. Adams. I wish everyone would stop voting, and then the Emperor could no longer claim he was clothed in anything but blood. Consent of the governed? Just try withdrawing that consent...

[Laure Chipman]

"As long as people feel capable of evaluating complex economic and geopolitical policies, they will keep voting."
should read:
"As long as people feel capable of evaluating complex economic and geopolitical policies, they will keep RUNNING FOR OFFICE."

[charlie]

Here's why I don't vote:
1)The purpose of voting is to get the person you want elected president
2)Whoever gets the most votes becomes president (with some electoral college shenanigans thrown in too of course). There's no "runner up" prize for being a close second.
3)Lots and lots of people vote
4)Because of 2 and 3, the odds are very low that my vote will have any effect on the election.
5)I don't have a really huge preference for own candidate over another
6)Therefore, the positive outcome of voting for me is a small positive (my candidate gets elected) times a very small chance, which is very close to 0. The negative outcome is that I waste half an hour or so. Therefore my overall expectation value is negative- basically I lose half an hour.

Although, all that aside, I ended up voting for Obama in the primary because I was trying to get one of his more fanatical supporters to go out with me.

[Ben]

About one American per week dies from the Iraq war IN AMERICA and did not volunteer.

No one wants to put a dollar value on life, but you can't ignore (what I call) the "life value of a dollar": money represents the toil of human labor. People sometimes die at work. Do the math:
GDP $13.3 trillion divided by ~5700 workplace deaths per year (I forget where I looked these figures up, but they're recent) = about $2.3 billion per corpse, which is close to what we're spending each week on the war.

[ammd]

Democracy is not about choosing a visionary leader

Democracy is about having a method of:
1> Preventing the thug at the top from staying there long enough to become so entrenched in his power that he can do anything he wants (i.e. 2 terms and then he's out)

2> Having a way of forcing the thug at the top to screw the general population in a way which they enjoy, instead of a way they dislike (else they'll vote him out)

3> Forcing the thug at the top to pretend to act (and even believe) in accordance with certain ethical standards which are acceptable to the general population, by appointing a another bunch of thugs (the opposition party) to whatch him and raise the alarm if and when he does not do so. (obviously the watchdog - thugs do this because they want to get into the top position, which they do from time to time, in which case the roles of top-thug and watchdog gets reversed)

AND ALL THIS HAPPENS WITHOUT TOO MUCH BLOODSHED - WOW!!!

I think it's an incredible system - it sounds a bit cynical when you break it into it's effective components (above), but it works like absolutely no other system has ever worked!

Of course, the most important role is played, not by the thug at the top, but by the watchdog-thugs.
I.e. - democracy can only work if there is a real possibility of the top-thug losing his position if he screws too many people in a way they don't enjoy

Therefore, the only responsible way to vote, is in such a way as to keep the balance of power as finely balanced as possible (in my view, one should always vote for the strongest political party that is not actually in power)

Posted by: Frans van Zyl

Best damned definition of democracy ever Frans. Thanks!

Not sure which thug I'm voting for yet, but you can bet I'll be out there.

[Dylboz]

If DO vote, you can't complain. After all, you agreed to be governed by the outcome, you think that if 50% +1 person agrees, it becomes right and true and good right?. I mean, if your candidate or proposition won, you'd expect others to peacefully submit to it, right?

I reject the whole system, because Democracy is dictatorship, a "tyranny of the majority," just like De tocqueville said. Hitler was elected overwhelmingly, the Bolsheviks were ushered in by a popular revolution and Castro had the vast majority of Cuban's support. Chavez just barely lost his "President for Life" election. Democracy gives evil men the aura of legitimacy. Did you see what Cheney said when confronted with the popular rejection of his policies? He said "so?" Because the people get their say (between two Council on Foreign Relations, Skull and Bones, corporate tools) every 4 years, so if they vote for Bush, they vote in advance for everything he does, regardless of the fact that they cannot know what that will be, or how it will effect them or millions of innocent Iraqis or Iranians.

Democracy is not freedom, it's just a mob. Morality cannot be defined by a vote. No one has a right to rule over you, or threaten you with violence, no matter how many people they have on their side. Peace and freedom will only come with the end of the state, yet no one will vote for that, because people all want a cut of the loot, stolen from their neighbors by the government. The national motto for this sorry country should read "there oughta be a law," since that seems to be the reaction to every problem. Of course, people don't realize that means more cops, more guns (yes you liberals, if you want to legislate everything, it means you are asking for MORE guns, pointed at more people) and more jails.

So, hear hear, Mr. Adams. I wish everyone would stop voting, and then the Emperor could no longer claim he was clothed in anything but blood. Consent of the governed? Just try withdrawing that consent...

[Aardwizz]

So let me get this straight:

You know that other people are irrational when they cast their ballot.

You also know that you, yourself are irrational, and therefore aren't QUALIFIED to offset other people's flavor of irrationality with your own brand? So that we get a true representative nincompoop, instead of one that leans one way or the other?

What am I missing here?

©¿©¬

[Blaze]

Everyone in America seems to focus on these national political issues with the belief that the next President of the United States of America, gets some sort of magic "do what he wants" wand. The fact is that it is the US Congress and a bunch quasi-governmental powers that make the decisions that affect us every day.

In fact, it is likely that if you live in the US your local school levy proposal will affect you more in your daily life than the US occupation/liberation (I am not picky or taking sides) of Iraq.

All POTUS can do is appoint a few candidates to various posts, pardon people and order the military about. But POTUS can do none of THOSE things with out congress' funding or approval. The vote, therefore, that matters most in national politics is the one for your state's congresspersons and senators. Just as the ones in your state's congress.

Furthermore the obligation to do MORE than vote is also present. Voting someone in or out of office is and should be a last resort. To encourage policies you like, and discourage ones you dislike, every citizen should be writing, emailing or calling their representatives.

And think what we could all do.

Want five weeks of paid vacation every year? Contact your congresspersons and let them know.

Want a balanced budget every year, with a plan to pay off the debt? Same.

Want the war in Iraq to endor to continue? Same

I know that our representatives do listen to us, almost all the time. But we have to be much noisier between elections than we are. And because, like us, they tend to act out of self-interest (but only as they see it) they will change their tunes to the voice of the people.

Democracy, it works if you work it. Keep coming back.

[John Coletti]

We are a republic, not a democracy. We are a nation governed by laws, not of men, or the masses, as would be a democracy.

Push for the FairTax. That'll resolve your concerns about taxes.

[Derek]

Great Blog!
http://www.mygametab.com/playscape/

[Tom Foster]

Adams '08

[Robby]

They had to do research to discover that? What a waste of time and money. I could have told them that. Obviously these researchers are idiots, which is another category of people who don't know what they are.

[ortelius]

Sondra: "Democracy is great in idea, but bullshit in practice - which is just like Communism."

Disagree. Communism is NOT a great idea. Communism is an evil idea form the root itself. (Or, what is great on: "take all from everybody, eliminate all who disagree and then drop out a share from stolen property to all who bent their backbone?")

[Gary]

I think you're missing one of the most important factors here, in fact you may be missing the most important thing here, which is that voting is essential to preserving democracy. Ultimatley it doesnt matter who you vote for because the effective difference between the candidates is usually pretty minor. in most elections you dont get the choice between the Dalai Lama and Stalin, usually its a choice between two fairly similar characters (who by definition have to be pretty similar because they are competing for the same votes)

southpark did a really good episode on this with an election between a douche and a turd sandwhich - you should check it out.

the most significant effect of voting is to preserve the democratic model. if we dont preserve and protect democracy, then we inevitably slide back towards, dictatorship, facism, theocracy, monarchy and the inevitable injustices and oppression that goes with all those systems.
Vote for McCain if you like, or Obama/Clinton, or (like I do) vote for a candidate that you know wont win, but vote for someone so that your vote gets counted, 'cos that means that the mainstream candidates will be out there next time campaigning for your vote which means that they have to stay mainstream
If reasonably open minded people (like you ?) dont vote, then election candidates will stop campaigning to you, they'll campaign to the people that do vote, that leaves the democratic process at the mercy of organised special interest groups and in a few presedintial terms you end up with an extreme religious right whitehouse and you end up moving to Canada (where its cold)

so are you going to vote now ?

[rita mae]

ANDY COULTER said: [I don't know about voting but it explains a lot of the hubris demonstrated in this blog.]

All I can say in reply is:

"You seem to have a little hubris there yourself, mister, just by the fact that you arrogantly presume that you can decide what Scott, his post, or his readers can say or think."

Take that!!

Rita (the "not arrogant or presumptious") Mae

[Ed]

Why would any one vote for someone who uses the threat of murder to acquire their funding?

[Steve]

Some people think that if you don't vote you can't complain. They have it backwards. George Carlin explains it best:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=0u6lCBnRoHQ

It turns out that the only people who can't complain are the ones who did vote and got who they voted for. Everyone else can complain because they are not responsible for the idiot who is now in office.

[Manual]

Holy crap!!

The whole premise ought to be wrong.... but dammit if I don't see perfectly good logic to your arguments. It sounds so ..."reasonable" =)

[Frans van Zyl]

Democracy is not about choosing a visionary leader

Democracy is about having a method of:
1> Preventing the thug at the top from staying there long enough to become so entrenched in his power that he can do anything he wants (i.e. 2 terms and then he's out)

2> Having a way of forcing the thug at the top to screw the general population in a way which they enjoy, instead of a way they dislike (else they'll vote him out)

3> Forcing the thug at the top to pretend to act (and even believe) in accordance with certain ethical standards which are acceptable to the general population, by appointing a another bunch of thugs (the opposition party) to whatch him and raise the alarm if and when he does not do so. (obviously the watchdog - thugs do this because they want to get into the top position, which they do from time to time, in which case the roles of top-thug and watchdog gets reversed)

AND ALL THIS HAPPENS WITHOUT TOO MUCH BLOODSHED - WOW!!!

I think it's an incredible system - it sounds a bit cynical when you break it into it's effective components (above), but it works like absolutely no other system has ever worked!

Of course, the most important role is played, not by the thug at the top, but by the watchdog-thugs.
I.e. - democracy can only work if there is a real possibility of the top-thug losing his position if he screws too many people in a way they don't enjoy

Therefore, the only responsible way to vote, is in such a way as to keep the balance of power as finely balanced as possible (in my view, one should always vote for the strongest political party that is not actually in power)

[Sondra]

Wouldn't it be cool if absolutely nobody voted? It'd be Hell trying to rig an election when there were no votes to miscount.

[adora]

Democracy is great in idea, but bullshit in practice - which is just like Communism.

[Rufus T Firefly]

Case in point: George W Bush.

Incompetence with condescencion.

[michael]

i would vote for "whynotme"'s platform
count me in

[Lazy Boy]

The dancing monkey crowd gets bigger and bigger...

You've got a fresh batch, I suggest you get back to the free will lure and throw a sprinkle of alien evolution in the mix just for us old readers.

Thanks
Lazy Boy

[Scott D]

Wow, a lot of self-righteous ranting in the comments above. And I love how Australia's slave system is exhorted as an ideal. Vote or else! There is one overriding reason that I won't be voting this November:

It is an act of aggression. By casting my vote for one candidate or another, I give my stamp of approval for the use of federal powers to manipulate the market, wage war, and dismantle the liberties explicitly protected by the Constitution. We have two entrenched parties with candidates who promise to expand our already bloated government. Taxes will increase. Regulations will increase. The richest will get richer and everyone else will get poorer. Liberty will wither still further.

Go ahead and cast your vote this November. I refuse to put my confidence in the annointed ringleader for one gang of thugs or the other. But I hope you remember this moment. This time next year, take a look around yourself and ask if things are any better. Hopefully you will still have a job and a place to live.

[maximusjack]

Eric wrote :
"I wish we had the option of a negative vote. Pick which one you like the least, and subtract a vote from that person."

That is a really cool idea. I wonder if any game theorists have tested it to see how it would work. Do you vote for the candidate that you are somewhat in favor of or do you vote against the candidate you hate? Imagine the pundits trying to get there heads around what was going on. "22% of voters say they will vote for candidate A and 16% say they will vote against candidate A, while 20% of voters say they will vote for candidate B and 14% say that will vote against candidate B, so .........we have no idea what will happen."

I think more people would vote if their vote could indicate how much they hated a candidate.

[Eric M]

Obviously you should vote for the person who will save you the most money. That is standard selfish voting and it makes the world turn.

[tounge in Cheek]

[Simon James Pettitt]

I just need to know
Are you against democracy, or do you think we should have democracy, but that you just don’t have enough information choose the right candidate?
If you do not support democracy, or think that it is so flawed, that we should start to look for another solution, then by all means stay home.
But if you do support democracy vote, but vote blank.
Not knowing who you should vote on is not an excuse to stay home.
Because voting is not just only choosing a leader, it is also to show that you support democracy.

[Bryan]

[As long as people feel capable of evaluating complex economic and geopolitical policies, they will keep voting. And as long as people vote, they will feel vested in the system and support it.]

Scott, you're thinking too big. You don't vote for the members of the State Department and the economic advisors who deal with these complex issues.
Just be selfish and vote for the people that most closely reflect your opinions, and expect them to delegate work to those lower departments with the same wisdom that you would if you had the time to do it. That's representative democracy.

[Michael]

Genrally that would be the case but when it comes to Bush I would disagree :)

[Jon]

Scott -

Voters in a democracy are not being asked to solve complex geopolitical and economic problems. They're being asked to select a person to solve these problems for them.

While most voters are incompetent to judge these complex issues, they are collectively significantly more competent than any other known selection method at picking people of relatively good character and competence, who have their interests somewhat close to heart.

That's why most candidates prefer to convince voters that they have a similar world view to them, rather than convincing them of their particular policies. The argument is, "I understand these issues, and I have the same policies that you would have if you understood these issues because we have similar world views."

So don't sweat the issues - look at character, competence, and world view!

[Johno]

You say that voting is irrational. In the US system perhaps it is. Let me point out why it is rational elsewhere.

1) In Australia it is illegal not to vote. $50 fine. It costs me less to get off my fat butt and vote randomly, so even if I cared little one way or another, it would still be worth my while to vote. As a result, we have practically 100% voter turnout (there are usually a few people in comas or whose alzheimers' disease makes them incapable of understanding a preference; Some journalists choose not to vote for ethical reasons, which must be the only time they give their ethics any kind of airing; and a few people protest various causes by donating their $50 fine to a random government).

2) You may not know for certain that you are the most qualified to make some of these decisions. But if you know without a shadow of a doubt that *everyone* less qualified than you to make the decision will be doing so (100% turnout, remember), it is vitally important that everyone with the slightest shred of a clue MUST vote, if only to restore the balance! :)

3) The electoral system in the USA is haphazard to say the least, and because of the fluctuating voter turnout, you can never be certain how much your vote will matter. In Australia, elections are run by a politically independent body call the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC), which is largly uncorruptible and well organised. As a result, all elections at all levels are run in standard formats; so even the people with the least clue can always be certain they'll be able to handle the mechanics of it. More importantly, the AEC controls the boundaries of electoral divisions, which are allocated according to the local population. This means that regardless of the population increase or decrease of your area, your vote always carries roughly the same value.

4) Whilst some divisions are "safe" Labor or Liberal divisions, many divisions (including my own) have a margin that is under 0.5%; these margins mean that in elections a single vote often carries the election. You have a good chance of your personal vote meaning something.

5) Because everyone votes, electoral fraud is very limited in value (you really need a lot of fraudulent votes to make a difference, and the more fakes there are, the easier they are to spot). As far as I can tell, in the USA every election I have observed [from afar, of course] appears to have had some controversy over fraud of some nature. Fraud still exists, but it is largely confined to producing fake campaign literature to discredit opposing parties.

So in Australia, rationality is on the side of the voter.

Your system needs an overhaul . . :)

[Carl Boyd]

hey man just wanted to point out the basic flaw in your latest entry. to claim that "you have to leave it out of the calculation because it is unknowable." when asking your self what would have happned had not the army invaded Iraq is just straigt out stupid man, if the claim is to work it must as im shure u know work both ways ergo: if you cant wonder what would have happend if you never invaded that means that Before you guy`s decided to invade the country you can not have bein able/aloud to consider the alternetiv of not doing so.

and one more thing, I just like you realy love living and just like u id rather it not be me how get shot but DUDE! to claim you dont MINDE some one ells going to war for your safty is just cowardly, im against warfair and any other activity that getts people killd for what they are TOLD is the Rigth thing.. there are many in my life id take a bullet for .. but none id kill for

[online calculator]

why nt third party

[mint]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3628860.ece

not related to the thread, but its an interesting story

[Paul]

Dude,

Occupational wars in the middle east are the reason for radicalisation and new generations of terrorists, not the cure for them.

I thought it was only US politicians that didn't get that blindingly obvious fact.

[Peter Huesken]

Figure out what you´re voting for:
A better country/world (and indirect, a better situation for you), or what´s short term is best for you.
Once you´ve decided this, pick your candidate; it should be easy.

[Tormod]

I don't think you have thought this one through.

First of all, you refer to the war as something that the US should do as long as it does not run out of war funding or volunteers.
It's a war, goddammit, not a party where people want to stay up late.

Yes, Al-Quaida will always want to destroy the US. It's a part of the identity. But the Al-Quaida isn't an static group of people. It's not an ethnic race.

The point is not to have Al-Quaida starting to like the US, but having the organization shrink considerably and to berave them of how their rhetorics sit with the general public.

There is plenty of reason to dislike the US. What you shouldn't be doing, is to both give further reasons to dislike the USA AND give the impression that the "other side" is called Al-Quaida.
"I don't like USA, so I am probably Al-Quaida."

[Surabaya Stew]

Hello Scott,

There is a term used to call people who think like you claim to do.

It's called being an total Ass!

Now, I know you sometimes like making a point for the hell of it, so I won't hold this post against you. But when you wonder why Libertarians, Atheists, and Objectivists don't hold more influence in our society, I would bet that it's selfish thinking like this that turns others off.

Come on Scott, think with your heart more often!

[Patrick]

I have a grudging admiration for your logic. But I think that after the wack-job Bush and Co. did with their 8 years of power, the Republican Party doesn't deserve another victory for at least a generation. Therefore, I'll be voting for whichever candidate the Democrats end up putting up (I think they'd both make excellent presidents, by the way).

[Kevin Kunreuther]

Not voting is a right, which some numbskulls seem to forget. They feel if you don't vote, you're unpatriotic. Not voting is as patriotic and responsible as voting. It is the lazy man's way of voting for "none of the above". Not voting also absolves you from the blame for whoever gets elected. The other people who did vote are responsible for electing the leaders who got us into the mess. You, the non-voter, had no confidence in all of the candidates, and without the option of choosing someone else who you felt most qualified, opted to vote for nobody.

[Kyle]

so now thaat they've found the cause, about how much longer until we find the cure for voting?

[Lake]

Personally I think that anyone who wants to run for president should be automatically disallowed from the office. Think about what kinds of awful things one woud have to do and/or promise to do to raise the kinds of money that these people must raise.

Ancient Greek democracy allowed for many positions to be decided by lot (of course there was a healthy dose of monarchy in the big jobs, but still). I would be hard pressed to find a real reason against it. Anyone can be president. Even you. Does time spent debating in the Senate make you any better at making decisions than anyone else? Really?

We can trot out any number of bad leaders who got voted in. Better to just pick one and hope for the best.

Good on you for not voting! Save yourself the angst and the time and just realize that not only does your vote not matter, it actually is a waste of your effort.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/06/magazine/06freak.html

[Binil Thomas]

The original paper can be found at www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf

[Arby]

I feel really sad for all the American men and women who died protecting the right for a citizen not to vote.

[Annie]

Your theory really only makes sense if you saw yourself as LESS QUALIFIED TO VOTE THAN THE AVERAGE CITIZEN OF AMERICA. If you may vote may be somewhat uniformed, that does not make its value neutral.
Maybe in an ideal world only well informed people would vote. But as this is clearly not going to happen anytime soon (and your boycotting of the process is not going to change that) use you status as BETTER INFORMED THAN THE MAJORITY to vote.
You fool.

[ParanoidIndividual]

I still wish more people would vote. Because then they would have the right to complain when they wind up with a lousy president. Currently, everyone moans about what a terrible president they have, when they didn't vote for someone else. That's like complaining that your electrician never fixes the wiring properly and costs too much, but you're too lazy to pick up the phone book to try and find a better one.

[Andy Coulter]

I don't know about voting but it explains a lot of the hubris demonstrated in this blog.

[Bill]

Who are you trying to kid. Look at these statistics from the IRS and tell me you are not the one who will pay for the war. You are probably in the top 5%.

The top 1% account for 19% of the income and 37% of the taxes

Top 5% - 33% of income, 57% of the taxes

Top 10% - 45% of the income and 68% of the taxes

Top 25% - 66% of the income and 85% of the taxes

The bottom 50% account for 13% of the income and only 3% of the taxes.

[Dio]

The dems won't really end wars. in the 20th century they were active with wars. Both parties, such liars...

[Pyramid Head]

Awesome post, Scott. I mean it!!

My only complaint, and its a nitpick, really, is that the "discovery" you're talking about is actually quite old: http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf

As you can see, its a 1999 paper, so the finding is almost ten years old :)

[Keith Wooly]

You have convinced me to keep on voting every chance I get.
(as you probably intended)

[Taxi guy]

All the candidates have excellent reasons not to vote for each other anyway. So what's your problem?

[squigs]

Stop misrepresenting Democracy!

Granted - everyone else does as well. You're looking at it the wrong way. It's a way of managing purely subjective opinions. Nor a job interview. We can assume that the winner will hire people who have expertise in the areas of economics and geopolitics. (Also you're just justifying a decision you've already made not to vote, as you well know).

What do you prefer? Apples or bananas? You can make that decision without any expertise in nutrition. You pick the one you prefer. Now, let's suppose that there are 300 million people, and you can only choose one type of fruit for all of them. If you're fair, you'll ask their opinion and go for the majority vote. If not you'll decide what you like and set up a fruit dictatorship. No expertise needed.

That's just how democracy works.

Now what about choosing a president. Some candidates believe that taxes should be low. Others believe that the government should spend lots of money on making the lives of the citizens better. You can't have both. Neither is inherently better. Some people prefer one and others prefer the other. Do you prefer having a war in Iraq or having the money spent on something useful? Again it's a matter of opinion. Some people like sending hundreds of soldiers to die. Others don't. some feel more strongly about this than how much they pay in tax, others don't.

So we hold an election. This finds a vague representation of the prevailing opinion and we end up with a president who vaguely has the same opinions on subjective matters as the population.

Except it all gets screwed up by people choosing the guy with the best hair, or the one they think is most honest, or believing that dozens of political experts would actually back someone based on principles that will ruin the nation's economy.

[ChrisH]

Actually voting for someone that will raise taxes indicates that you believe that the government knows how to manage money better than you do. Aside from the military private citizens can choose how and where to spend their money to accomplish many of the same things that the government does. You can donate to many schools if you believe that education is a problem in this country. If you believe that science research is necessary there are several organizations that support research. Hospitals accept donations if you believe healthcare is lacking, as do organizations that provide medical services such as the Red Cross. If you want to improve the economy go out and buy products, preferably US made ones, or invest your money in US stocks. If you are worried about job cuts go out and hire someone to work for you in some capacity. Personally I believe that the US government is extremely wasteful with my tax money and that except for the military there is a better alternative available to perform the same acts as the government.

[John W. Kennedy]

Scott, old tin of fruit, the famous Kruger-Dunning report, "Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments" was published almost ten years ago, and so was that "Gate" article. It's available at http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf

[Will]

Scott wrote: "Researchers have discovered that people who are incompetent generally lack the knowledge that they are incompetent.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2000/01/18/MN73840.DTL
"

Dude, this story is EIGHT years old (it was published in 2000).

Anyway, here's the original paper (from 1999), if anyone cares:
http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf

[Peter Huesken]

Figure out what you´re voting for:
A better country/world (and indirect, a better situation for you), or what´s short term is best for you.
Once you´ve decided this, pick your candidate; it should be easy.

[AngryAtTheWorld!]

"Why would I want to deny the majority the option of voting to pay more taxes than they need to so that I can pay less?"

SEE!!! This is why I hate rich people. They get all the breaks and exploit everyone else in the process. I work my butt off six days a week to barely cover my bills and refuse to vote because no one gives a crap about us hardworking honest citizens. Hopefully there's a hell and all the rich are sent to it.

[MogaDishu]

Take it easy on Hillary, she took fire on her trip years ago....what's that...oh, now that she's been caught in a lie, she claims to have "misspoken"
Obama won't make the same mistake because to date he has managed to open his mouth without saying anything.

[quantum_flux]

Oh wait, your post is the top one, switcheroo once again. I agree with what GLK said though!

[quantum_flux]

Sorry I said that Scott. I was joking, no, I think you've enlightened me here. Why didn't you promote Ron Paul at all Scott?

[quantum_flux]

""Researchers have discovered that people who are incompetent generally lack the knowledge that they are incompetent.""

Scott, this is exactly what we've always been trying to tell you!

[Malek]

I seem to recall from history books Ben Franklin laughing at the concept of vote morality (or was that an episode of Dilbert?).

My stand is that voting in national elections is useless. If you want to get someone elected then have yourself and your buddies appointed as an electoral representative. 2000 showed us that it isn't a majority or plurality of votes that matters.

The funnest thing to do on election day is to find some die-hard voter, you know the one - spouting about how his/her vote REALLY matters... then vote for the other candidate. It completely nullifies their vote and really just pisses them off. No, there is no such thing as a viable 3rd party candidate so that doesn't help.

Just my thoughts though.

[Drone74B]

As George Burns said, "Too bad the only people who know how to run the country are busy driving cabs and cutting hair."

I'm not the most intelligent person on the planet, but perhaps knowing that makes me more intelligent than I think. Based on your logic, I'm more inclined to think that way. I used to vote, but over time learned more and more about the system. The more I learned, the less I realized I knew.

Education can be a double-edged sword. I used to be a happy, positive yet ignorant Christian. Now, I'm a cynical, overly-critical atheist who sees little hope for humanity. I wish I could find a middle ground...

[Dan]

Apparently the folks at the San Francisco Chronicle are a bit behind the times or it was a slow news day. The original research is from a paper published in the "Journal of Personality and Social Psychology" in 1999 - http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf Perhaps these people are unskilled also.

[JoniB]

Well, my philosophy is that if you don't vote, you can't complain.

[Shashwat]

"The war is expensive, but at least McCain would take that money from the middle class majority, and being the majority, they are the ones who would need to elect McCain in the first place. Why would I want to deny the majority the option of voting to pay more taxes than they need to so that I can pay less? They should have that freedom."

"So I ask myself, isn’t the world better off if I just vote for McCain, buy stock in companies that profit from war, and let everyone else exercise their freedom of choice even if makes them poorer and/or dead?"

I love sarcasm!

I have a extremely competent friend who has a inflated ego, keeps thinking he is really smart and everybody else is stupid. He is only slightly better than me in school(He works 4 hours a day, compared with a average of 1.5 with me). It seems that the extremely competent have large egos and downgrade their expected scores to appear humble. I do that that all the time, and I have a pretty big ego too. It seems my friend expresses his overconfidence while I pretend to be less competent and constantly downgrade any achievements I have reached to further myself in the eyes of others. My hypothesis is that the best frequently downgrade their expectations consciously to appear humble and unconsciously to give oneself some buffer if the score is lower than what you think. Smart people have large egos but delibrately downgrade their expectations to seem humble.

[Jeremy Miles]

You might not know who to vote for. That's OK. But you can't not vote. Because if you don't vote you (effectively) spread your vote amongst EVERY candidate. Even the mad ones.

That might be OK in some elections, because there aren't too many mad options (e.g. US presidential elections) but in local elections, it means that a very small number of voters have an influence, and if that very small number vote for the British National Party (main issue: send members of ethnic minorities to what we consider to be their ancestral home), the British National Party gets elected.

You might not know which is the *best* person for the job. But you do know that some of them are the worst. So, throw out the ones that you can, and then make a random selection from the others.

If you don't vote, you give more power to me. And I'm even worse at deciding than you are.*

*Actually, I'm not, 'cos I live in the US, and I'm not a citizen, so I can't vote. But that spoils the argument.

[Dave]

I’m going to have to agree with the economy posters here and say Scott's issues are becoming more trivial by the day. Last week’s Government Accountability Office report shows that the annual deficit is now at 3% of GDP? Wholly crap!!!! Older folks like Scott are lucky cause they’ll be dead when all that borrowing needs to be paid back. Us younger folks can’t afford to keep paying for your tax cuts.

What the U.S. needs are REAL Republicans who can run actual balanced budgets. In the absence of any real Republicans (at least with any fiscal-testicular fortitude), we should rely on the Democrats who, for some God-unknown reason, seem to be better managers of public funds.

[TallDave]

The war is bad for Iraqi civilians,

Absolutely untrue. An average of 7,000 people a month died under Saddam. No month of the occupation is even close to that average. Iraq's GDP has doubled, as has overall electric production (largely because Iraqis now have the freedom to buy private generators). Access to clean water and sewer systems has greatly increased.

That's before little things like greatly expanded freedom to elect leaders, have free press, express political opinions, form political groups, and own things like computers, cell phones (100x more than prewar), cars (2-5 times than prewar), etc.

And in polling, large majaroties of Shia and Kurdish Iraqis believe the decision to invade was right.

[Susan]

I love this study so much. I think it actually explains more about who runs for office than about voting practices.

On the Iraq question - isn't the right of Iraqis not to have your volunteer army inflicted on them rather more important than your right/lack of right to tell volunteer soldiers what to do?

[Splint Chesthair]

I've come to the conclusion that I'm too stupid to follow politics or news.

I like to read comic books and hike. So that's what I do and que sera sera.

[Patrick Burt]

This blog's comment section is definitely a refreshing change from Digg's userbase.

[Morbo]

Scott said:
But as long as Al-Qaeda wants to kill me, no matter what my country does, I’m willing to let volunteers try to shoot them first, as long as other people are paying for the bullets.
>>

But those volunteers aren't shooting at Al-Qaeda in Iraq. You want to stop Al-Qaeda from wanting to kill you? Get out of Iraq. Every second American soldiers occupy a piece of land in the middle east, another pissed off young muslim man gets angrier.

[Joshua Ungerleider]

A couple things, testing for humor seems pretty useless, though it would explain why studios think Epic Movie or Date Movie were funny.

Of course, its definately possible that this study was done by incompetent people, and can't be trusted.

So people think they're smarter than they are because everybody's too polite to tell them they are stupid. What's the ripple? Most people think they're smarter than their boss? Is some idiot who thinks he's a genius getting promoted because he's sure he is the next Einstein, I sure hope not.

I don't see the use of this study. "People Aren't aware of their Shortcomings", did that need research?

[brian]

You really should vote even though as you say its illogical. if you based everything on being certain of the outcome you would never have become a professional cartoonist. as the most logical course of action would have been to keep your safe job.
Those are the candidates its your job to pick one. you don't like either? you have to pick one.

To quote 'Full metal jacket', 'Its a big shit sandwich and we've all gotta take a bite'

you not voting is form of smugness where you can feel smart about not voting and then rail against the incompetency of the person voted in.

*removes tail and dancing shoes*

[ken]

Dance Dance Monkey Revolution!

[reasom]

and another thing, why are you so scared your incompotent?
its always disturbing to know that someone has so little faith in themselves it paralyzes them

[bcammack]

It is difficult not to weep with despair reading political comments to your post. It is indeed further proof that, left to itself, the human condition will NEVER improve...

[Catbert]

Not voting, huh? That's actually a great idea. Now if I could get everybody else but me to follow suit, then we would have a great election where the best person won.

[reason]

the world wouldn't nessarily be better off but you apparently would. If thats what decides how you don't do anything have at it. If your not going to vote don't bother me with you ranting. if you actually gave a shit, i would understand and sympathize with your dilema but you don't so i won't.

[dalas v]

I can smell the dancing monkey bait on this one.

[Elizabeth]

GLK's commentary rocks my world. however- it is not about multiple issues. look at the essentials. look at the roots. they are all coming from the same issue. and, ja, I am very tired..

[Marc]

Hey, aren't we supposed to be writing in Dogbert for President?

That's what I thought, anyway...

[RV]

I agree with your point that most of us do not have as much information or knowledge as we would like when we are casting a vote. In fact, I think that the more educated you get the more you realise how ignorant you really are (at least that's true for me:-)). But, democracy is the best working model of governance we have in the world today(the virtues or lack thereof of 'Democracy' and 'Government" is a whole different discussion). There is always the problem of ill-informed people not understanding the issue and casting votes randomly. How can the system get better? Have some kind of filter? What if only the smartest/most knowledgable are allowed to vote? Would that ensure the best governance overall? Will it be a fair system? Will it lead to discrimination, suppression, oligarchy? Possibly the best way forward is to educate everybody to make informed choices. But if all the relatively "competent" folks decide not to participate in the electoral system it is as good as having a nation full of incompetent people who will unsurprisingly elect incompetent leaders (eventually I guess this will evolve to the point where the current system doesn't work and another, hopefully better one, will take it's place. This may happen anyway, but this way is the path of least resistance and will take the longest).
The biggest problem in choosing a candidate is the fact that there are so many different issues on vastly different levels associated with one candidate. There may be different things that one likes/dislikes about all the candidates. In the end a choice has to be made. Doesn't have to be irrational. The decision is based on your best judgement with the information you have at that time and of course the relative importance of the issues in your mind(most ppl may really only care about 1 or 2 issues). Didn't you once say that the happiest/most efficient ppl are ones who try to do the best that they can with the information they have? Something about being satisfied with doing the job with 80% efficiency rather than pushing for 100%? :-)
I think that the people who do not vote are the ones who are (or think they are) the least impacted by the change in government. I mean, sure, Obama may raise your taxes(even this impact is not immediate and is buffered by all the bureaucracy before it reaches you), and you may grumble about it, but is it really going to change your lifestyle? What if you knew that the next president may in some direct/indirect way make a huge impact on you as an individual. Would you still not go out and vote? Would you still care about all the other vital issues or just the one that is palpably impacting you?
Incidentally, do you not vote only in the presidential election or in all state sponsored elections?

P.S - I am not a US citizen and hence cannot vote. Discussing the issues and candidates for me is a purely academic exercise :-)

[shrimpx]

Do you have an accurate understanding of what happens to the money you pay in taxes? If not, why do you pay taxes? When you make a decision about something that's not fully within your intellectual capacity, is it always in reaction to an external force?

Sounds like a poopy way to live life.

[Dave]

DMD!

[Jamie]

I sensed the sarcasm in your post, Scott. The entire GOP platform, at least in its recent incarnation, is to completely screw everyone else to your own benefit; that's how they think.

Two parties sucks no matter how you slice it, we should have a parliamentary government in this country.

Who's up for a revolution?

[trickykid]

People are stupid when it comes to politics and voting. They don't pay attention probably due to the fact that their world ends at their property line. It's like religion, they usually go with what their parents taught them.

My father for example, he's a Republican because his dad was. His dad was the biggest tightwad on earth. My dad is now the biggest tightwad on earth. He votes straight ticket for Republicans cause he thinks they're going to save him a buck or two by lowering taxes, that's his only reason he'll go vote and vote strictly for Republicans, not realizing that the person he votes for might ruin the economy, just costing him actually more in the long run.

This is the type of people who vote. They vote on the most important issue to them and with the candidate that backs up that issue. They don't think of the impact longterm and as a whole. I know people who vote strictly Republican because they think Democrats are only out to take "The right to bear arms" away from them.

And quite frankly, those who don't vote, don't deserve the right to bitch or talk about politics either. Go vote knowing the issues and who you actually agree with MOST or don't vote at all, cause you're just taking away from those that actually do care who's in office.

And of course, don't vote based on religion, race, age and sex, it plays no part in their qualifications and if they use such things while in office, we should fire (impeach) them. The Presidency is a salaried job that just so happens goes through a very long interview process with every American citizen. If people treated the Presidency like it truly is, Bush and company would have been fired the day after 9/11 for allowing it to happen.

[mostcurious]

Why do people bother to argue with you?

[rpk]

I follow the adage 'If you don't vote, don't complain...'.

I like to complain, and I think you do also, Scott.

This does not mean that I always make good choices...my first vote for president was for Jimmy Carter. (My next vote for president was to get rid of the same Jimmy Carter.)

But I have never missed an election, whether for president or town council. And I've complained about the current president and I will complain about the next one, all with a clear conscience, because I voted.

[WhyNotMe]

McCain wants to tax the middle class??? Where do you get your (bad) information? You are incompetent... at least you are aware of it.

Obama will fire up more entitlement programs... we can't afford SS and Medicare now, and he wants to give health insurance to EVERYONE...

Noble ideal, but the devil is in the details, like HOW DO YOU PAY FOR IT???

The rich have good lawyers and accountants. It won't be them paying for it, it will be the middle class (those who already have health care because they have a job good enough that they get it). The extra strain on the middle class will narrow the gap between the "poor" and the middle class, and widen it between the middle class and the "rich".

There is just FAR TOO MUCH ENTITLEMENT.

Hows this for a political platform?

1) Get out of Iraq. Offer military training and low tech weapons to Iraq in exchange for oil. If they don't want it, they can fend for themselves. If they do, we get cheap oil. It will cost less than the $5000 per SECOND we spend now in Iraq.

2) Remove the cap on SS tax. People at that income level won't even notice that small amount, and business will complain, but maybe they should spread out their salary a little more evenly so they don't have to pay too many people the extra. Reform SS so that the benefits are phased out based on net worth and income. If you are rich, you have personal financial security, you don't need government social security.

3) Impose a new tax on foreign goods that come from countries that have sub-standard working conditions. The tax will be phased out as people in their country make wages that afford them a standard of living comparable to what we have in the US. Penalties for bad saftey will be added on... (So anything from China becomes expensive, and Wal-Mart has to consider other countries to get stuff from.).

3A) I know the response will be "But this makes things more expensive for Americans..." Yes it does. But what kind of a-hole american thinks they deserve to buy cheap stuff at walmart at the expence of another countries child labor? Other countries should be able to compete on a level playing field due to lower cost of raw materials, innovation and hard work, not on taking advantage of a developing workforce. Wall Street won't like this... how many stocks of "good" companies depend on cheap foreign crap to get their executives rich? LOTS! SO it isn't just Joe Six pack who takes a hit when they go to walmart, it's Joe Millionaire when they log into their Charles Schwab account. The winners? Foreign labor that is currently abused. See, now we are making friends over seas. Maybe not with Governments, but with the people...

4) Immigration: Set up 6 million 1-time-only green cards for workers who want to come into the US. Select those from impoverished countries (where they are exploited labor now) and let them come earn minimum wage (where that will STILL improve their standard of living. Enforce the law with employers and make the fines 10 times what they are now... let the ILLEGAL immigrants loose their jobs to the legal ones. Make a requiremnt for permanent citizenship that you (a) learn english and (b) LOVE AMERICA! THis new workforce would be diverse, as there are exploited workers all over the world. In 2 generations you won't be able to identify who is a new immigrant and who has been here since we stole america from the "indians"...

5) Education: No longer a right, it's a priviledge. Stop wasting money on kids who are happy to play video games and get fat, and whose parents shirk the responsibility of leading their young horses to water and holding their head under until they drink enough that they can breath again...

You get 3 strikes and you're out of school.

6) Crime: 3 Strikes and you're in... (the military). Small crimes get you sentence to free or low wage service in the military that can transition into a career. Big crimes get you in a Military Brig with hard labor, no TV. The military uses the free criminal labor for dangerous overseas building (or rebuilding) of things like schools and hospitals to help make freinds around the globe. We could also make try and help domestic victims... for the cost of a month in Iraq (with free labor) we can build a house for 10,000 families.

7) Housing: We help people who have homes they can't afford by helping them pack. Don't buy shit you can't afford. Don't expect people who lived within their means to sit by and watch those who were irrisponsible get special treatment with frozen teaser rates financed or backed by the taxpayer. NO WAY! Simple fix. Each loan that is originated has the people involved forced to book profits against each loan. Anytime a loan goes into default, the Government collects that profit. You can only make money on loans that are paid off. Credit gets tight, and americans get back to SAVING SOME MONEY rather then spending like drunken sailors. (Something they learned from Uncle Sam)

8) Budget: Required to balance Budget and pay off deficit in 30 years. That means big cuts to a lot of stuff. No more earmarks. Line Item veto is allowed on ALL budgets.

9) Energy: Corporate Tax that is exponential. As you reach Exxon type profits, the only way to avoid KILLER taxes is with investment in alternative energy. The investment is in a type of fund, and people who are smarter than us allocate that fund to promising technologies.

10) Health Care: Create Tax Incentives for both business and individuals to get health care (for their employees or themselves). Then provide Health Care Providers with incentive to provide it cheaper (Like a tax that slowly disapears as the percentage of people who are insured goes up).

I would VERY MUCH APPRECIATE a simple "Yes" or "No" on whether or not you'd support a candidate with this platform. I know you are busy, but hey, i'm blowing off work to write this...

:)

[Some Guy]

Did U really just link to an eight year old article? Jeez, welcome to the internetz, grandpa. ;-)

Anyway, U should check out _The Myth of the Rational Voter_ by Bryan Caplan. It's actually current. :-P It says a similar thing: democracy doesn't really work because people are ignorant and irrational.

Personally, I think we'd be better off with an oligarchy. Fifty or so minarchists running the country (one for each State). At least until we can automate defense and infrastructure (which are the only two things government should really be involved in).

[Jonathan]

....arrrgh!

[GLK]

I suffer from the same malady. I find it difficult to take a stand, or endorse people who do, because a steady stream of information makes most of today's issues as mercurial as Hillary's temperament.

Take the Iraq war. After Sept 11th I was ready for the USA to kick some serious mid-east ass. Before the war started a friend who travels regularly to India said, "Look, Iraqis are no different from most people living in the world. They just want to be left in peace to raise a family." "What about Saddam?" I asked. He replied that the majority of Iraqis don't feel one way or the other about Saddam because in their day-to-day lives they simply don't think about him anymore than an American spends time thinking about their President. His opinion was that Saddam was so far removed from the daily lives of most Iraqis they just didn't give a crap as long as they had neighborhoods with electricity, running water, and a hospital nearby. All of which they knew would get destroyed the minute America started bombing. A dreaded disruption in the lives of people who, for the most part, had nothing to do with provoking anyone.

Basically, I thought my friend was full of it and figured we should kick Saddam's ass anyway. But in the back of my mind there was always this nagging question of WHY we were kicking Saddam's ass? All the initial "reasons" given by U.S. intelligence, of course, evaporated in time.

Then I read this. A statement by Congressman Ron Paul given before the US House of Representatives in 2006.

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2006/cr021506.htm

The revealing excerpts are below (italics mine):

...Realizing the world was embarking on something new and mind boggling, elite money managers, with especially strong support from U.S. authorities, struck an agreement with OPEC to price oil in U.S. dollars exclusively for all worldwide transactions. This gave the dollar a special place among world currencies and in essence “backed” the dollar with oil. In return, the U.S. promised to protect the various oil-rich kingdoms in the Persian Gulf against threat of invasion or domestic coup. This arrangement helped ignite the radical Islamic movement among those who resented our influence in the region. The arrangement gave the dollar artificial strength, with tremendous financial benefits for the United States. It allowed us to export our monetary inflation by buying oil and other goods at a great discount as dollar influence flourished.

"In November 2000 Saddam Hussein demanded Euros for his oil. His arrogance was a threat to the dollar; his lack of any military might was never a threat. At the first cabinet meeting with the new administration in 2001, as reported by Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill, the major topic was how we would get rid of Saddam Hussein-- though there was no evidence whatsoever he posed a threat to us. This deep concern for Saddam Hussein surprised and shocked O’Neill.

In 2001, Venezuela’s ambassador to Russia spoke of Venezuela switching to the Euro for all their oil sales. Within a year there was a coup attempt against Chavez, reportedly with assistance from our CIA.

Our whole economic system depends on continuing the current monetary arrangement, which means recycling the dollar is crucial. Currently, we borrow over $700 billion every year from our gracious benefactors, who work hard and take our paper for their goods. Then we borrow all the money we need to secure the empire (DOD budget $450 billion) plus more. The military might we enjoy becomes the “backing” of our currency. There are no other countries that can challenge our military superiority, and therefore they have little choice but to accept the dollars we declare are today’s “gold.” This is why countries that challenge the system-- like Iraq, Iran and Venezuela-- become targets of our plans for regime change.

Ironically, dollar superiority depends on our strong military, and our strong military depends on the dollar. As long as foreign recipients take our dollars for real goods and are willing to finance our extravagant consumption and militarism, the status quo will continue regardless of how huge our foreign debt and current account deficit become."

So there you have it a mind-boggling stream of information. And that's just on one issue. ONE issue! And I'm supposed to vote based on multiple issues.

Tired yet? I am.

[Slap D. Monkey]

Let me get this straight. You want to:
1. Not get shafted by huge income taxes.
2. Protect the rights of volunteer soldiers to bear arms in the defense of this great nation.
3. Support the US attempt to spread the blessings of freedom to war-torn Iraq.

Welcome to the Republican party!!

PS - With these types of beliefs, you might reconsider living in northern California. You might end up with tree-hugging demonstrators outside your house. In fact, there is a nice house here in Georgia that is for sale. I can't afford it, but it might be right up your alley.

http://www.ajc.com/search/content/business/stories/2008/03/19/mansion_0320.html

www.humphreyestate.com

[tup]

Hurting others hurts us. That's why.

Long answer:
Killing other people or causing them distress through not giving them food, for instance, causes stress for us because we know that we might be in that situation.

Hurting others hurts us directly. Which is why capital punishment should not be legal and why we should not torture. If it can happen to others then it can happen to us. What a horrible thing to live with. Wouldn't the world be so much more pleasant if there were customs and laws against capital punishment and torture? I'm really glad there are customs and laws agains cannibalism. Imagine if your state said it was O.K. to cannibalize people. I would be pissed off and probably vote for a war mongerer. I think it would be best for everyone if we don't do that to ourselves.

[F]

Good thing, too. This post reveals you to be ill-informed, selfish, and deficient in basic logic. I think we come out ahead on this one.

[Said the fellow who thinks he is competent. -- Scott]

[Adam]

I call shenanigans! This sounds like a DMD post to me.

[Elizabeth]

I have been patiently awaiting a blog post from you concerning the decline of the dollar and a monetary system backed by nothing(as opposed to the gold standard). Come on Mr. Economics- stop with the voting blah blah. Go deeper.

[oreo]

I totally agree. thank God for the ability to choose to pay more taxes by voting for the guy who's going to keep our sons and daughters fighting a war that we didnt want to have in the first place. And thank God for the freedom to be completely confused when it comes to talking about issues like the war and the government, let those two figure themselves out, and when they are ready, they can tell me their final descision. I also agree that somebody needs to pay taxes, but who knows who that is? it should be the rich, but then again why not the middle class, how about the poor, i bet they can afford some taxes too, if they only budget their poor people income properly. Vote for the guy you think is going to better keep things exactly the way they are, because thats your freedom of religion, or something like that.

[Tony]

Is is not rational for people more informed then, to try to offset dumb choiced by less informed? After 8 years of dumb choices the U.S. is 8 trillion dollars in debt, which I am sure all demograhphic and their children will feel the crunch. Unless you are planning to jet to Switzerland.

[marmot]

So, your argument is that you're incompetent, but at least you know it?

[conuvial]

I decided never to vote again when I realized I have been getting most of my political information from cartoonists.

[JoNa]

I also don't vote because I acknowledge my incompetence to make those kinds of choices. An added benefit is that I don't have to end up feeling guilty when the person I've voted for turns out to have the IQ of a philodendron.

[Bruce Harrison]

As you know, and as I have said before, very few things on Earth make me happier than knowing you don't vote. Thank you, Lord. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

Please don't ever change this one thing about you, Scott. It is one of your most endearing qualities. It would be a crime against humanity and an absolute dissolution of your most inner core beliefs if you were to vote. Stay true to yourself, Scott. If you ever feel yourself start to weaken and begin to think how nice it would be if you'd just make one little vote, send me an e-mail immediately.

Consider me your 12-step anti-voting sponsor. I'm here for you, day or night, 24/7. Don't give in. Ever. Thanks.