I wish a big-time polling service would conduct the following survey, but until that day I’ll try it out on the SDMB.
There is a lot of rabid partisanship in the American electorate these days which has got me thinking about our so-called love of democracy. When my candidate loses I step back and take genuine solice in the fact that, hey, the majority won – which (presuming no fraud or mistakes) is the way it’s supposed to work. It’s actually a good thing my guy/gal lost because the majority of voters do not endorse him. But how many people really feel this way? So, let’s take a poll…
Let’s say the day before an election (any election) an all-powerful being appears to you with a magic ballot box and says, “If you vote with this ballot box right now there will be no election tomorrow and all your candidates will simply assume office as if they had won the normal way. Because I have the power of mind-control I will make everyone think that nothing is unusual with this process. There will be no protests or rioting; everyone will simply accept the results. Furthermore no one will know how the new-term officeholders were chosen, so your life will be unaffected in every way – no one will blame you or sue you or accuse you of subverting the will of the people, nor will they thank you. But mind you, other people’s true opinions about the various candidates will not be changed by your actions, they will just not be given an opportunity to express those opinions by voting. You can, of course, tell me to go away right now and let tomorrow’s election proceed as usual with all its normal uncertainties, imperfections and perhaps even illegalities. I promise that I will not offer this deal to anyone else. By the way, here are the latest election forecasts from CNN if that will help you decide.”
So, do you cast your votes in the magic ballot box or let the election proceed? Be honest, people! Brief explanations to support your actions are welcome. And can we try to keep this out of Great Debates? I’m not really interested in the biiiig social implications here; I want to know how people would deal with this choice on a very personal level.
What we have in Canada (and apparently in America) isn’t a ‘democracy’ I’m satisfied with, since, with one exception ahem miller for mayor ahem nobody I have ever supported has gone anywhere near the office they ran for. Every vote I have made (with the above exception) has been utterly wasted. Sometimes I am forced to hold my nose and vote not for someone I support (McGuinty), but against someone I can’t stand (Eves).
So basically, as I think about the offer, I will be thinking about how my opinion has been utterly irrelevant in every election, save one, that I have ever been involved in. Making lots of other people’s opinions irrelevant so that I can have one chance to have leaders I don’t hate would be a very tempting offer.
My actual decision would depend on the circumstances: who is forecast to win if the election proceeds? Bush: yes, I would accept the offer; Jack Layton: no.
Also, why am I supporting who I am supporting? Will they pass a law that will benefit me personally at the expense of others; or will they pass social and environmental laws that (I believe) would benefit everyone?
It is worth noting, however, that The Will Of The People is not an entirely coherent idea. Aggregating the preferences of a group of people is a sketchy proposition, with all sorts of paradoxes, irrationalities, and downright screwey outcomes quite possibly obtaining. This is especially true with the method of voting used in the States. Consider this: Without Nader, Gore may well have won. A majority preferred Gore to Bush, but Nader arguably reversed the ranking of the only two viable candidates. That’s akin to you preferring wine to beer when they are the only two options, but then switching to a preference for beer over wine when there are three options: wine, beer, and tiolet water. Clearly, the entry of drinking out of the toilet bowl into your set of beverage options shouldn’t change your preference of beer vs. wine!
You all might enjoy Alex Tabarrok’s section of this presentation. Please note that this is a transcript of a spoken presentation, and it has been corrected to smooth out spoken mannerisms.
Haha, no, really. I’d use it in a second. Of course, I’d call a time out and do my homework, if that was allowed. AND furthermore, I’d RATHER have one, responsible, reasonably intelligent person decide an election for me than let the current idiots of the country loose on the voting booths. IMHO, half the people who presently vote should be locked up in November. But, yeah, I’m a megalomaniac.
I’m an independent and I would let the election proceed. My candidate has lost many, many times but I still vote in every election. Just because your candidate losses does not make your vote meaningless. Things can change incrementally based on past election results. And it’s not as if we’re stuck with the results forever. We get to vote the bastards out every 4yrs (for pres at least, and yes I am a 'merican). So when they get all goofy and think they have some sort or mandate and all they did was get lucky (sound familiar?) we can toss them out before they do irreparable damage. My only problem with this method is the number of x-pres retirement salaries we have to pay.
Feel free to discount my opinion though because I also think the electoral college is a “good thing” and I frequently vote Libertarian if my state is going overwhelming for one of the major candidates (I want them to get funding and be a true third party).
I’d let the election go on uninterrupted, at least partly because of a mean, cynical streak I have that says people deserve no better than what they ask for.
What I’d really prefer would be a magic mind-control box that caused everyone to want to go out and vote as they pleased.
I would use the magic box, but I would make sure the results(especially for Congress), are quite off-beat. Though it would be biased towards my preferences - hawkish libertarian would describe me best. Throw in a bunch of Libertarians, some very conservative Republicans, some of the more colorful Democrats, a random assortment of minor parties(the weirder, the better) and finally - does anyone know if the USA has a branch of the Monster Raving Loony Party??
As much fun as that would be, I couldn’t live with myself if I did it because I’d be no better than a dictator. If this country is stupid enough to vote for Kerry in November, then the country deserves him. Thus I would not meddle and magically make Bush President again.
I am a Republican and I would let the election proceed.
I love democracy and think that the country would be better if we had more choices and more people cared enough to pay attention and vote.
I haven’t been happy with the choices on a national level since I started voting. Only in local elections have I ever found candidates that I felt could properly represent me.
Wow. I’m impressed with the number of people who would just let the election proceed. I’m one of the biggest supporters of the democratic process and have even written papers on the problem of voter apathy, but given the choice as stated in the OP, I’d go with the magic box. I believe that everyone has the right to vote for his or her favorite candidate, and that that’s the only way that a country can be effectively and fairly governed, but that doesn’t mean that I believe that everyone else’s choices are going to be right. I vote for the candidates I choose because I sincerely believe that life will be better for everyone if they are elected. Or, as I have been known to say, if I were Queen, the country would be a much better place. So I’d have to exercise my benevolent dictatorship and let the best candidates win.
You wouldn’t happen to have a magic box for U.S. Supreme Court decisions, would you?
I was going to answer with a definite maybe, but after I’d typed my answer I realised that I had a really big moral problem with that. After all, I wouldn’t want someone screwing up my choice on who I want for president so I suppose although I’d be tempted I’d only use the power of the magic ballot box agaist zombie-hitler or something.
It would be pretty pointless in Australian politics anyway, since the candidates are almost identical in their policies. Next election we’re going to have to decide if we want a tall person or a short person running the country. Grr…
I was going to answer with a definite maybe, but after I’d typed my answer I realised that I had a really big moral problem with that. After all, I wouldn’t want someone screwing up my choice on who I want for president so I suppose although I’d be tempted I’d only use the power of the magic ballot box agaist zombie-hitler or something.
It would be pretty pointless in Australian politics anyway, since the candidates are almost identical in their policies. Next election we’re going to have to decide if we want a tall person or a short person running the country. Grr…
I was going to answer with a definite maybe, but after I’d typed my answer I realised that I had a really big moral problem with that. After all, I wouldn’t want someone screwing up my choice on who I want for president so I suppose although I’d be tempted I’d only use the power of the magic ballot box agaist zombie-hitler or something.
It would be pretty pointless in Australian politics anyway, since the candidates are almost identical in their policies. Next election we’re going to have to decide if we want a tall person or a short person running the country. Grr…
