Your vote does not count. You are one of hundreds of millions of people in the United States, and there is no way that your single vote actually makes a difference. Don’t vote. It’s a waste of time. There’s not that much difference between the two parties anyway.
A few months ago, as my libertarian leanings sputtered to a halt and I found myself comfortable in the more concrete world of mainstream conservatism, I read an article in The Freeman that really got on my nerves, because it advanced the idea above, and I couldn’t figure out what was wrong with it, but I knew intuitively that it wasn’t quite right.
Think of voting as sort of like the lottery, except that the ticket price is your time spent, and if your ticket is the winner (i.e. your vote is a tiebreaker), your grand prize isn’t a brand new car or a bazillion dollars. (By entering this contest, each entrant releases and discharges the State and any other party associated with the development or administration of this contest from any and all liability whatsoever in connection with said
No. Instead you get a lousy politician who is (if you’re lucky) marginally less bad than the alternative. Congratulations. Break out the bubbly, hire a stripper, and pretend that what happens in Vegas won’t follow you home like a cheap vodka hangover, a bad tattoo, and a raging case of the clap (actually, I don’t think that a metaphor is necessarily necessary here, so take that as literally as you like).
Don’t bother. Don’t do it. Don’t vote.
“Voting sucks” is a pretty common meme in the protracted adolescence that permeates movement libertarianism and other ideologies that stand apart from the political mainstream. Here’s another example from the anachronistically named Reason Magazine. And another from The Freeman. For fun, I’m including an extra-crazy crispy flavored piece from Ron Paul’s friend, renowned scholar, Confederate apologist, and loon Thomas J. DiLorenzo: Enjoy.
P.J. O’Rourke’s latest book, Don't Vote It Just Encourages the Bastards, (which I have not read) has a title that suggests the same but is probably being ironic, based on his other books. (By the way, here’s an article from November showing that he doesn’t really mean it.)
Um, is there a point to this essay, or does it just ramble for thousands of words?
Yes, actually. Thanks for asking. I’ll get to it. Eventually. (I amuse myself, if no one else. Bear with me if you feel like it.)
Your vote is the most important decision in the WORLD
You should spend hours...No. You should spend days. No, MONTHS deciding whom you’ll support in the next cycle. Agonize over it! Declare with utmost sincerity and defiance the individual who has your support! You count! You’re an army of one, and you’re. You...I’m getting tired of this paragraph, so I’m done with it. You get the drift.
The opposite extreme from that of lazy libertarianism is, of course, the strident opinion-holder who matters! by gum. And who will not vote for that scoundrel NO! MATTER! WHAT!!! (but doesn’t really get involved in elections outside of showing up in early November).
While one can certainly respect such passion, it is worth noting that in the end, the lever-pull to which it leads will do no more to elect an individual than the dispassionate, quiet sociology professor who has secretly, sheepishly been voting Republican since Ford but can’t bear to break it to his colleagues and wears his Obama button along with the other department members.
Xenu’s Paradox
Xenu’s Paradox is that he coined the term, “Resistance is futile,” millions of generations ago, but he can’t sue Gene Roddenberry’s heirs or Paramount every time a Borg drone says it, because he can’t establish standing in an American courtroom. He tried possessing Tom Cruise, but the giddy host kept jumping up and down on furniture inexplicably, and no one would take him seriously.
This isn’t really a paradox as much as it is a really frustrating existential issue, though. (Attn Qaddafi, Ahmadinejad, et al: It’s not worth it. Even being the supreme dictator of the Galactic Confederacy is a raw deal in the end.)
Zeno’s Paradox, on the other hand...
Germane to the effect of not voting is Zeno’s Paradox of Achilles and the Tortoise, which is an actual paradox and not made up by me. You may remember it from a math or philosophy class, or perhaps not.
It goes like this: Achilles runs twice as fast as a tortoise, and the two are racing. We give the tortoise a headstart by placing him halfway to the finish line, and we start the race. When Achilles reaches the halfway mark, the tortoise is at the 3/4 mark. When Achilles reaches the 3/4 mark, the tortoise has gotten to the 7/8 mark. When Achilles reaches 7/8, the tortoise is at the 15/16 mark. Ad infinitum. Literally.
Zeno goes on to demonstrate that Achilles can never catch the tortoise and win the race.
Seriously, though, is this essay going anywhere?
Yes, I’m finally saying something substantive (I think). The voting problem posed by the article in The Freeman is similar to Zeno’s paradox. Both take a statement that is true for a particular observation or a single data point and, by universalizing it, create a paradox, because we know that the whole, comprised of a sum of these parts, does not make sense.
The place where both fall apart is that the whole pictures (an election, a footrace) are not the sum of millions (or, in Zeno’s case, an infinite number) of individual units that can each be discounted. They are real-world events that measure the cumulative effect of trends. In Zeno’s case, it’s a function of differential equations, physics, and the cumulative effect of separate rates of speed applied to different things in real time (In other words, yes, a fast car can pass a slow one, which many potheads have learned the blue-lit hard way).
More importantly (for us, at least, unless we’re chasing a turtle), every vote counts, because the electoral process has already winnowed out the vast majority of contenders, and their supporters can grow the size of their caucus by persuading others to join their side. This is especially true when only half (or so) of eligible voters actually exercise their franchise.
You only have one vote. It’s a piece of sand on a beach. If you can get four others to vote (who wouldn’t have otherwise) for your guy, then your preference gets counted five times. You get to vote the same way five times, in other words. Persuade 99 others, and your vote counts 100 times. Multiply this enough times, and you have a nice little sand castle pretty soon, one that will make a measurable difference, especially in a close election.
Substance! Finally! (for real this time)
What this means, I think, is that being an activist (or even a politically active individual) means considerably more than preferring one candidate over another. It means, if you’re able, working in your precinct. That’s not the only way (or even the best way, depending on your circumstances and abilities) for you to make a contribution, though. (I am the new Republican chairman for NC precinct 123, by the way.)
Money is another way that you can get involved. If you feel strongly about a candidate, then donate money to his campaign. Help to fill the coffers by sending in your $20 and asking others to do so. Just like voting, if you can get $80 from other people who wouldn’t have been active, then your $20 is worth $100. A lot of people are cynical about money in politics, but it is important to remember that money is a proxy for support (if it comes from donors, especially small-dollar ones) and is used for get-out-the-vote efforts, advertising, direct mail, etc.
Making phone calls is another. If you think that a candidate is the absolute best, then offer to sign up with an autodialer to call people. The goal is to get out the base and motivate people who won’t vote to do so for your candidate. Walking a precinct is another. If you are a good writer, write. Try to mobilize the like-minded and inspire the apathetic. (There are many other ways, but you get my drift.)
Duplicate, replicate, donate. Organize, organize, organize. It’s all about making your vote count by turning it into multiple votes.
Oh, and please don’t nominate that guy
I look forward to the next eighteen months of wrangling and arguing over who the best Presidential candidate is. When you make your calculations, I would argue that rather than going for an individual who seems viable to the rest of the country, do the following:
Weed out the crazies and the unelectable (for example, a certain House member from the great state of Texas whom I’ve already mentioned once). Then look at the candidate who seems most likely to bring out people like you and who will be able to win otherwise apathetic people you know. (To use another example, it seems unlikely to me that a certain Arkansas preacher who turns off wide swaths of the GOP is likely to inspire the apathetic, even if his extremely charismatic general election opponent were to turn out the Republican base by being on the ballot.)
Forget the pollsters and the media. Get passionate, and get involved. Look at the candidate that is most likely to rev up the base, be viable enough to win the truly undecided who actually vote (I don’t think that this group is very large, because most unaffiliated voters lean toward a party), and be interesting or inspiring enough to get those “non-political” people you know to the polls.
Get out the base, win true undecideds, convince and inspire apolitical apathetics. This is how to win. Now go out and make your votes count.
Update
A few months after writing this piece, I changed my party affiliation to unaffiliated (which is what it has been for most of my adult life). While I prefer the GOP's economic policies, I have so many other hang-ups with the party that I am more comfortable simply being an observer.
No comments:
Post a Comment