Your vote is worthless

[The Muslim Agorist]

Check out these numbers from the Federal Election Commission

Candidate                   Amount spent      Votes               $/vote
Barack Obama (D)       $513,557,218       69,498,215       $7.39
John McCain (R)          $346,666,422       59,948,240       $5.78
Ralph Nader (I)           $4,187,628          738,720            $5.67
Bob Barr (L)               $1,345,202           523,713           $2.57
Chuck Baldwin (C)       $234,309             199,437            $1.17
Cynthia McKinney (G)  $238,968              161,680           $1.48

Total                        $866,229,747       131,070,005       $6.60

If you still care enough to vote, and you still think you're accomplishing something, you're better off donating $20.

To the next person who tells me I'm part of the problem because I didn't vote, I donated $200 in that election, so I did exponentially more than you did by voting.

I'll never vote again.

[davann]

An even better idea than donating cash is donate some time running a voting place after learning how to hack those machines. This sort of system works for the two big partys and the Libertarians will never stand a chance unless they start playing by the same rules.

[Andy]

Absolutely. Although I hope you won't be donating money again, that's pretty worthless too.

[The Muslim Agorist]

Absolutely. Although I hope you won't be donating money again, that's pretty worthless too.

Probably not. My justification at the time was that I was paying Ron Paul to say the things I wanted said, even though I didn't expect him to win. I think those dollars are better spent going to various podcasts and websites these days.

[sf_chris]

i enjoyed the discussion tonight.  my 2 cents: freedom is the goal.  I heard two strategies towards that goal: public awareness of the state vs strategic participation in the state; these manifested as the two tactics of a "don't vote" campaign to expose the psychological effect that voting produces (legitimizing the state), and voting to increase freedom.  Democracy is an inadequate tool to support freedom (two wolves and a sheep, deceptive media) ... but i digress ...

in an ideal world, i would try to get people who understood the legitimacy issue to vote; but those who wouldn't vote favourably or who don't understand the legitimacy issue i would lay the "don't vote" on

[Branlin]

To the next person who tells me I'm part of the problem because I didn't vote, I donated $200 in that election, so I did exponentially more than you did by voting.

I'll never vote again.

I love the way George Carlin turns that accusation on its head. Check especially at around 2:00:

[youtube]xIraCchPDhk[/youtube]

[libertylover]

I agree donating to Ron Paul to get national exposure for a political philosophy more closely related to my own view is far more valuable than voting in a national election.

However, how do you feel about local elections and local referendums?  Ian's point on the Saturday's show rings true for me.  The local politicians are not going to fold up government simply because you don't vote.   And as more Liberty voters flock to an area the odds of affecting change by voting increases.

[Diogenes The Cynic]

Part of me wants to say that thinking a vote is worthless is a composition fallacy, even if it really isn't.

[The Muslim Agorist]

Part of me wants to say that thinking a vote is worthless is a composition fallacy, even if it really isn't.

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that a vote is worth less than the cost of the gas to drive to the polling location, rather than to say it's worthless.

[Diogenes The Cynic]

Part of me wants to say that thinking a vote is worthless is a composition fallacy, even if it really isn't.

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that a vote is worth less than the cost of the gas to drive to the polling location, rather than to say it's worthless.

Funny how you quantify value. You're putting a dollar value on a vote, when voting itself is ethereal.

The concept of voting has its limitations, I will agree.

You could have a case of utilitarianism gone awry: in the Colosseum of Rome, they're feeding a Christian to the lions, and it would make many people happy to see him eaten, but one person very miserable. Does the happiness of the many outweigh the misery of the individual? What if there were a fair system to evaluate what should be done?

If the system were based on votes, it would be inherently unjust. No amount of agreement gives one group to take the life of another, even if it  would bring happiness, or any other benefit to the many. Voting only brings a veneer of justification to the process of an unjust act.

That's how I feel when voting is used as the method to steal money from the rich, and pretend to give it to the poor. Its nice to give everyone a say, but if a persons natural rights are being violated inside the system, its wrong.

Well, as far as alternatives go, there aren't many. People have lived under juntas, oligarchies, and fiefdoms, and suffered because they didn't have the ability to say "this sucks". Corporate rule isn't much better. Ask Carl Icahn how easy it is to manipulate corporate voting structure in your favor. So voting, its better than the alternatives......

[Terror Australis]

I dont vote because it is compulsory here and I consider it my duty to refuse. I have a drawer with an inch thick pile of fines the state has sent me for not doing so.

The question is would you still choose to not vote if you were penalised for doing so?

[dalebert]

The question is would you still choose to not vote if you were penalised for doing so?

Depends on the penalty.

[Terror Australis]

The question is would you still choose to not vote if you were penalised for doing so?

Depends on the penalty.

Obviously its not a massive penalty for doing it or they'd already have taken my house!

[Pizzly]

The people we vote for don't even make the major decisions, they are just the figureheads who get payed off for being charismatic.