To vote or not to vote?
Published by Yazad Jal April 25th, 2004 in Libertarian, GovernanceMy city goes to the polls in the second phase of Lok Sabha elections tomorrow. I saw a banner today claiming that the definition of an idiot is one who does not vote. I was disgusted by the cheap tactic of insult used to goad someone to voting. There are many people for whom the citizen’s right to vote is something of a holy act. While I agree voting is an important right, in a free society, not voting too is as much of a right as voting.
I hear many arguments in favour of voting, including that it is a moral duty, etc. I’ll focus on just two.
- Fear of misuse
If you don’t vote, your vote will be misused. Somebody else will come and vote on your behalf.Those who tom-tom this fear don’t look into the reasons why people don’t vote. If I find no candidate worthy of support what difference will it make if somebody uses my vote? If I am indifferent to the result, will this misuse change anything?
This is looking at a vote as property. Your vote is your property. If you don’t use it then it might be stolen by someone else. Makes sense to me. But it also indirectly justifies politicians buying votes.
- Don’t expect any rights if you don’t vote.
How can you ask for good governance if you don’t participate in selection of the government? Citizens seem to forget their voting duties and only ask for rights.The kindest thing I can about this is that it sounds like emotional blackmail. Is voting a precondition of citizenship? Are you a citizen because you vote? Or do you vote (or choose not to) because you are a citizen?
I don’t think our rights like the right to life and liberty are in any way contigent on exercising another right — the right to vote. Just as each citizen has the right to influence the selection of government, there is an equal right not to participate in the process.
But why would someone not want to participate?
- Protest
I feel not voting is a valid form of protest. It may not be very effective, but if an individual or a community wants to send a message by not voting, let them.
- It doesn’t make a difference.
1 vote out of 1 million. Will it really change what happens? My constituency, Mumbai South is the smallest of the 6 Mumbai constituencies. Yet it has 617, 214 voters. Assuming even if only 40% vote, that still makes it a choice of 1 out of a quarter million. (Source: Maharashtra Election Commission. The page lists Assembly constituencies. Mumbai South comprises of constituencies 19-24) - Don’t see any candidate worthy of my support.
If a candidate is worthy of support, I might even vote despite the ultra low value a vote has. But if all are by and large equally worthless, then the disincentive to vote is doubly present.I don’t agree with “vote for the least-worst candidate” argument. If the best-amongst-the-worst is unworthy of my vote, then what difference does it make? It’s like saying that X poison will kill you in one second, Y poison in one hour and Z poision will take a day to kill you. So choose the least worst poison. At least you have a day to survive! (Politicians as poison? It’s not so far fetched seeing that a number of them have criminal records)
So am I going to vote or not? You’ll find out tomorrow!
30 Responses to “To vote or not to vote?”
- 1 Trackback on Apr 26th, 2004 at 3:51 am
- 2 Trackback on Apr 26th, 2004 at 12:45 pm
- 3 Trackback on Apr 27th, 2004 at 11:14 am
In Australia, I was surprised to find that if you don’t vote, you get hit with a $50 fine.
There you go; democracy whether you want it or not.
I remember the Election Commission in India planning to introduce a “none of the above” option on the ballot. I support such an option. It would give me the chance to make my view clear.
And Yazad, on Channel V, you were asking people to start their own party if they were unhappy. Would you be interested in starting the Libertarian Party of India? We could start with the cartel as members, and build it from there. :)
More info here.
There’s a list of other countries that have the same policy. Egypt is a strange inclusion. Hmmm…
Political party?… hmmm.. not a bad idea… if you ever start one, count me in!
In a ‘libertarian’ world, any citizen would have the right of speech. This is not to say that other systems do not allow freedom of speech, but i have seen libertarians immediately jump to the defense of someone who has been denied the right!
what if he is a speaker who mouths obnoxious comments utterly defaming someone?
Freedom of speech includes the right to be obnoxious.
The only exceptions to this freedom are if you are conspiring to commit violence, inciting people to commit violence (this should be very very narrowly defined) or defaming someone (meaning that you are telling lies about someone, knowing that you are telling lies and you are doing so with the intention of hurting that person. The onus of proving every one of these points should be on the accuser)
One man’s “obnoxious” is another man’s “just tellin’ the truth, man” :)
(as in “you’re one ugly muthaf***er” - Arnold in Predator)
Ravi, I agree that the burden of proof for defamation should be on the accuser. So you’ll probably find it interesting that under US law, the accuser has to prove it, while under UK law, the burden of defence is on the accused.
GK, malicious intent is also an important component of defamation cases.
Exactly, now since the onus lies on the accuser, asuming he brings forth no proof but people[his supporters] take his words at face value, they propagate it, some proof is added along the way as the news goes from mouth to mouth.
The accused by the time already feels the damage being done! Enough to scar his reputation. PEople are fickle, they like to malign a person of high moral or/and social standing. So the believe what they want to believe, a bit like belief in God. Nobody can prove he exists, atleast am yet to be convinced, but they still believe he exists.
Point is, how can you claim freedom of speech guarantees you only sane, valid arguments against a good state? Anybody can spread false news, even though if he settles a million dollar case later, the damage has already been done!! How do the libertarians view this particular problem??
Yazad is in Idiot
He may find the term insulting but is it fact. The term idiot is derived from Greek word idiotes which is a person who does not cast his vote. Of course Yazad might have though that people are calling him an idiot in the modern context where it means:
ass, blockhead, boob, booby, cretin, dimwit, donkey, dork, dumb ox, dumbbell, dunce, dunderhead, fool, halfwit, ignoramus, imbecile, jackass, jerk, kook, meathead, mental defective, moron, nincompoop, ninny, nitwit, pinhead, pointy head, simpleton, stupid, tomfool, twit, yo-yo
I am sure, nay I know that Yazad is none of things but from the point of view of voting and elections he is an idiot. Of course Yazad might have a refreshing new point of view but I don’t really see him competing philosophy-wise with the like of Plato, Aristotle and Socrates whose wisdom has been with us for millenia and who would also all have called Yazad an idiot I mean all they spoke was Greek right what else could they have claled up after reading his rant.
Hey, been ages since I came across Ck’s regurgitations. :)
Agree some, disagree a lot
1. Fear of misuse
If your knife is your property, and you don’t use it to kill someone, does it mean you will not mind the least bit if it is used by someone else to commit a murder? Like a knife, the misuse of a vote can be harmful. Another example is that of a car. If you have a rickety car and you dont give a damn if it is stolen. So you never lock it. A 12 year old goes joyriding in it and bangs into a pedestrian. Won’t it bother you?
2. Don’t expect any rights if you don’t vote.
Agree with what you say about this one.
“Protest” and “It doesnt make a difference” can’t go hand in hand. If a single vote doesnt make a difference, then a single protest won’t make one either.
“Don’t see any candidate worthy of my support.” again I agree with. Valid reason to not vote.
However, at least for a Lok Sabha election, it should be easy to identify the “least worst” candidate. This is because you are voting in people who will shape government policy.
So personally speaking, I would make sure that I would vote for someone who is not from the left……and as likely to be part of a pro-reforms government as possible.
Madman, Anand, there is a Liberal Party of India.
GK, free speech and libel / slander forms a new post. Look out for it!
CK, funny, but wherever I looked, the definition and etymology of the word idiot did not mention the voting part. Here’s what the American Heritage Dictionary says:
Time to remove the foot from your mouth?
BTW, I did vote. Why is a separate post.
Time to remove the other foot from your mouth as well?
You might just make sense if you keep your feet out of your mouth ;-)
Gaurav, sharp points as usual!
Your first point confirms my “vote-as-property” thesis. A question: should’nt I then legally be allowed to sell my vote?
Regarding misuse of knives/cars, one is generally not responsible of the acts committed with one’s property if that property is stolen. The analogy fits better with booth capturing. ;-)
I did say protest voting is not really effective. And my points are stand-alones. They may contradict. I don;t think any person would have ALL the reasons I quoted not to vote.
Gaurav, I agree in principle with your “vote for those who are non-left” point. But the party which seems most econ reform minded currently (BJP) has candidates like Ram Naik who scuttled petroleum sector reforms. So if you were a voter in Mumbai North what would you do?
Ck,
I’m sorry to contradict you, but according to this link, Idiotes does not mean what you say it means.
Though Yazad, you and me are Idiotes nonetheless.
Yes Gautam, such are the ironies of life. CK too is an idiotes by the definition provided by you. Aisa bhi hota hai!
Well free speech is only part of the problem. Libertarians view a free market as the ultimate goal in an economy.
In a free market ‘cartels‘ are an eventuality, by it’s very definition cartels are formed to fix prices of a particular product among its members. This in itself puts the end consumer at a disadvantage.
Aslo, People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.
Adam Smith …
And i would like to use an analogy, that of a compny, an epitome of capitalism against your libertarian ideas, but that would come later ..
A comment I posted over at Ravikiran’s blog, on his reply to this post.
If you have some understanding of Ancient Greek, you woud know that it is a higly contextual language. Look up Idiot on Wikipedia.com and you will find a little more context there (besides the word we are talking about is Idiotes not Idiot which is the modern derivation).
The word idiot comes from the Greek word ιδιωτης, idiôtês, “a private citizen, individual”, from ιδιος, idios, “private”. In ancient Athens, an idiot was a person who declined to take part in public life, such as democratic city government. Since such activities were honorable and could directly affect all citizens, idiot was a term of derision.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiot
Since you did vote I guess we cannot call you an idiot in the Greek sense but only in the modern sense for trying to look up a the meaning and context of an Ancient Greek word in an American Dictionary of English.
Come now Yazad, surely 5+ years hanging around Bombay U have given you better research skills than that. What next? You define libertarinim by its dictionary definition. Did a quick look up using the Word dictionary - a synonym for libertarian is apparently democratic and egalitarian. It is also defined as catholic - from your rants I would imagine that egalitarian and catholic are very far from your though processes ;)
‘catholic’ with a small ‘c’, means ‘universal’. Ancient Greek is not the only language that is highly contextual, English is too. When used in the context of politics and religion it implies the belief in universal principles, which are free from specific provincial or local prejudices.
Maybe Yazad is more catholic than anyone imagines, when you consider the fact that voter turnout in general elections has been decreasing consistently since independence, maybe people do believe that voting is not worth their while, for whatever reasons. Low voter turnouts are also a phenomenon in almost all countries that don’t bully their voters into voting like Australia.
I can just imagine the logic behind the Australian legislation - “It is for their own good, we have to stop the people from making idiotes of themselves. They’d be idiots not to vote if we fine them 50 bucks.”
CK, once again, I fail to see the word “vote” — unless you see a one-to-one equivalence between public life and voting.
I do take part in public life in Mumbai and India. The vote according to me is a small (maybe not so significant) section of that.
CK, you of all people know about AYBI, CCS and Praja, so the definitions you provide do not apply to me, even if I didn’t vote.
In a free market ‘cartels’ are an eventuality
On the contrary. If some companies get together, form a cartel and raise prices, what stops another company from entering the market and selling the same product for a lower price? The new entrant would make a huge profit and force the cartel to lower prices.
Another question. What stops a member of the cartel from cheating? Selling at slightly lower price than that which is fixed?
Cartels can survive only with govt. backing, generally in the form of some law that prohibits new entrants to the industry or puts a “minimum” price, etc. These do not exist in a free market.
The history of OPEC, an international oil cartel is interesting reading in this context. OPEC has failed to set high prices for crude oil except for a brief period in the 70’s — today it is rather insignificant with major oil producing countries like Russia, China, Canada, US and UK not part of OPEC.
Non OPEC Fact Sheet
Yazad, am not talking from the legal point of view. Am talking from a personal….maybe moral.. point of view. Sure, no one can and no one should punish you if a kid steals your knife or car and kills someone. But won’t you yourself do the best you can to avoid such a thing from happening?
To complete your analogy gaurav, we will have to assume the following things
1) Even if you do safeguard your knife, it won’t stop one or the other person getting killed
2) The only way to prevent your knife being misused is to randomly plunge it into someone’s chest.
Now what choices do you have?
Ravikiran, Madman : This is why i asked about liberal speech!
Madman: There is also a swatantra party, The liberal party of India supports the party.
Yazad: Cartels can survive only with govt. backing, generally in the form of some law that prohibits new entrants to the industry or puts a “minimum” price, etc.
Not necessarily though OPEC does point to otherwise. In an already saturated market, a cartel makes perfect sense to all the producers. While Interntional cartels might not have been successful, there are several instances where cartels are successful. For eg: the sudden increase in the rise of onions even though the government had imported tonnes of them sometime during the time we exploded a nuclear device!
Another example would be rate of raw material(metals). I would like to point out in this case, that the rate/Kg more or less fluctuates on a weekly basis but the price is decided(verbally) by the the biggest dealers before it percolates down to the end consumers(manufacturers).
Though it can be argued that the temptation for not following the collective is omnipresent, the members themselves desist on a general understanding that in the longer run the current arrangement works better! Ofcourse this is only ina case where there are very few players or many have already consolidated!
Offtopic: Can you provide RSS feeds for your comments??
ps: am ofcourse looking forward to your post/s on libertarian idealogy, here I am, waiting to be convinced!! :)
GK, I don’t know how to RSSify my comments. I know Rajesh Jain of Emergic has done so. If you show me, I’ll be glad to do it.
The onion crisis was not due to a cartel but due to import and export restrictions by the govt. of India.
I don’t know much about the metals market that you talk about. Maybe you can post on it and I’ll comment!
This link should help about syndication of comments!
About the onions, i still remember the photos in newspapers then about onions rotting in godowns after being imported!! I meant the local market(sabzi mandi) where just about everyone had raised the prices by a non formal contract(verbal again i assume) amongst themselves.
About the metals market, my knowledge is limited again to conversations held with a metal trader(small time i.e. limited to about Rs 70 Lakh business in a financial year)!! I was he who told me how it was done among the wholesellers!!
Offtopic (My apologies Yazad)
Hey all you resident bloggers, I’m trying to set up a content management website ). I’ve used PHPNuke for it and am interested in adding some of the above mentioned RSS functionality.
I’m setting this site up as a demo for some of my clients but feel free to post (submit news) after registering. This is not really intended as a blog but it does have some of the same functionality. I would appreciate all of your experienced comments. I can basically only test it out if I have a sufficient number of people registered
www.jedick.com
Thanks all and my apologies to Yazad for this plug.