QandO
Questions and Observations| « Our Friend OPEC | Main | Separation of Church-like paraphernalia and State » |
|
February 10, 2004 Quandary I live in Virginia, where we are having a Democratic primary today. I'm aware that I could go cast a vote for somebody like Sharpton just to screw with their results, but I don't think it's particularly ethical to fringe-vote like that. But here's my question: Is it unethical to cast a vote in a Democratic primary for the Democratic candidate I find least objectionable, to influence them in positive direction? Should I abstain, since I'm not a Democrat....or should I vote since I have an opinion? And if so....for whom? (leaning towards Edwards) |
You should vote if you are allowed, and have an opinion.
Vote in the directionn you feel serves the country best no matter who that vote is for.
Posted by: shark at February 10, 2004 01:22 PM
I'm a big opponent of open primaries.
If you're not a Democrat, you should stay out of it. Let the Democrats determine for themselves who should run.
As much fun as it would be to see Edwards take a couple more states and really mess with the nomination process, I don't think it's right for non-party members to determine a party's nominee.
Posted by: Steverino at February 10, 2004 01:24 PM
How on earth is your "opinion" necessarily connected to voting?
Look: you can express your "opinion" every bloody day of the year right here on the blog, which is a hell of a lot more than you can vote.
Honest to Christ: I am never going to understand some peoples' thinking when it comes to voting. "Express your voice!" and all that rotten horseshit. It's all rubbish. I don't need to vote in order to do that, nor does anyone else.
Stay out of it, Jon. It's a filthy thing to do, fit only for creeps and other rotters.
Posted by: Billy Beck at February 10, 2004 02:24 PM
Oh, I'm not trying to "be heard". Just do what little I could to prod the Democratic Party towards sanity. A tiny, tiny nudge, to be sure....but I'm pretty sure not voting wouldn't be more productive.
At this point, I really don't think respect for individual rights is even possible. I consider "voting" nothing more than applying my hand to the brake. For whatever good it may do.....
Posted by: Jon Henke at February 10, 2004 02:35 PM
Hey, Virginia has an open primary, so there is absolutely no reason (legal or ethical) you shouldn't go vote if you feel the least bit inclined to.
Posted by: bob at February 10, 2004 03:15 PM
Heinlein sez a citizen should always vote, where ever and when ever the law allows. There is always at least somebody to vote against.
It's amusing to me that the media -- which had nearly annoited Dean merely a month ago based on his fund raising success -- has now flip flopped so suddenly to annoint Kerry. Like the rest of the primaries don't matter at all.
So, a vote against Kerry is a vote against
pundit-ocracy and media elitism. Support Edwards, Clark, or Dean, whatever you like. But
take the process back to the poll booth and away from the Zogby pollsters.
Posted by: Pouncer at February 10, 2004 04:13 PM
Good show - citing Heinlein. As I see it, there are two major ways a citizen can actually participate in government, outside of running for office: voting and jury duty.
Open primaries are a bit strange: we vote for the guy we think will win; they vote for the guy they think can't possibly beat their candidate.
But as long as it's open, I say, vote away.
The vote that counts almost most is the vote for Congressmen, Senators and Governors.
The rest of the primaries, and in fact the convention, are pretty much redundant now. Does anybody doubt that Kerry will be the first - and last - candidate put forward at the Democratic Convention?
I remember the Old Days - great TV days - when conventions were real happenings, and there would be dozens of votes, each time getting closer and closer to a winner. There was suspense. Nowadays, there are exit polls.
Posted by: Mike at February 10, 2004 06:12 PM
".......but I'm pretty sure not voting wouldn't be more productive."
I find it hard to believe that a grown man can't think of something better to do with his time. You could email your mother.
Posted by: John T. Kennedy at February 11, 2004 12:10 AM
Colby Cosh just did a review of a new, old, novel by Heinlein, in which the man displayed an infatuation with the kooky "Social Credit" doctrine.
The point: anybody can take what they want from Heinlein or any other authority. The Professor in "Harsh Mistress" is largely modeled after Robert LeFevre, who is the man who convinced me of the immorality of voting. I could cite my authorities, too.
Jon: nobody knows better than me that it's a deep philosophical question; whether to vote. The first question that I might ask you would be whether you believe there is any point in connecting philosophy to *actions*, at this point in American history.
If you believe there is, then I submit that the matter doesn't deserve so trivial a consideration.
It really is a big deal.
Posted by: Billy Beck at February 11, 2004 12:19 AM
"whether you believe there is any point in connecting philosophy to *actions*, at this point in American history."
- - -Yes, and the answer would probably remain the same at any point in history...though the actions might differ.
Hey, I've got one life. In my opinion, I'd rather die having registered my opinion than otherwise. Especially if it is a big deal.
Inactivity seems a strange way to address a "big deal". And besides...the transaction cost of "doing something" is very small to me.
Posted by: Jon Henke at February 12, 2004 06:15 AM