General

Re: Voting in Small Elections

Justin Spahr-Summers — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 05:53:13 GMT

Snowflake:
I just thought back to how people critisize ron paul for trying to change the system within the system. It seems like they can actually make real change though, and not voting seems to just allow rights to be steamrolled...

The issue is not effectiveness (although that's certainly a valid secondary concern), but rather legitimacy. Voting grants legitimacy to government, because you're basically saying that you're willing to play by its rules in reducing and eliminating it.

Re: Voting in Small Elections

E. R. Olovetto — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 05:04:36 GMT

I still can't think of a justification for voting, but I had been thinking about the same type of thing. My dad mentioned to me that a local town's election was won 87-85, which seemed low since they ought to have about 2K people living there. The data I found showed a hair over 1,300... but the low turnout kind of made me smile.

Maybe if I could say that I perceived my vote had a larger sway percentage-wise and I had what amounts to a personal assurance from the candidate that they will take radical anti-government steps, I may vote. Otherwise, I can't say that I would feel anything close to real representation via the process, to tempt me into participating in coercive politics.

Voting in Small Elections

Sieben — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 04:27:17 GMT

I was talking with a couple of ron-paul style libertarians today. They were talking about voting in some local government elections that would support lower tax rates. They said they were voting because there was a decent chance they could make a difference since only like a few thousand people wind up voting in this election.

I didn't confront them. I just thought back to how people critisize ron paul for trying to change the system within the system. It seems like they can actually make real change though, and not voting seems to just allow rights to be steamrolled...

thoughts?