Is it OK to be an [Athenian] idiot?

[Maggie_the_Ocelot]

Thank you!

It seems I was wrong, back in the day. Of course, that was pre-internet, and I was 17, so I didn’t have the ease of research that today’s youth possess…

[Stoneburg]

@begbert2

I don’t think I know a single person in my area who tries to find information, thinks, or discusses or weighs alternatives - the ones that vote do it by color. Red red red, for generally poorly-thought-out reasons, usually involving single issues and collections thereof.

I presume they’re equally idiotic? Or is there something less idiotic about voting idiotically?

If they make important decisions without even attempting to get information, or do any thinking, yes they’re idiots. In every meaning of the word.

Whether it is less idiotic to vote idiotically or not vote at all… not sure. I guess just getting off the couch and doing something at least gives you a moral edge over someone who’s equally idiotic but doesn’t do anything. Unless the guy not voting has taken himself out of the decision making process precisely because he think he is too stupid. But since stupid people usually think they’re not, that’s very unlikely.

[begbert2]

@Stoneburg

If they make important decisions without even attempting to get information, or do any thinking, yes they’re idiots. In every meaning of the word.

Whether it is less idiotic to vote idiotically or not vote at all… not sure. I guess just getting off the couch and doing something at least gives you a moral edge over someone who’s equally idiotic but doesn’t do anything.

Based on what? That’s my question - what’s the moral of value of merely moving your asinity off the couch and pumping it into our electoral system?

@Stoneburg

Unless the guy not voting has taken himself out of the decision making process precisely because he think he is too stupid. But since stupid people usually think they’re not, that’s very unlikely.

A person who doesn’t vote doesn’t take himself out of the decision making process, though. He is voting to - get this - not prefer one over the other.

Of course, this may or may not be a precisely accurate reflection of his views - the person may actually have an opinion but feel that none of the candidates reflect it, or they may feel that the vote is very likely to be enough against them that they are reasonably certain that casting the vote they want to cast couldn’t impact the outcome, and thus would be no different from not voting. Similarly someone can feel that the election is a sure thing in their favor, in which case their vote would again make no difference. (If the vote is actually close this can backfire, but if the state is red as fire or blue as ice, then it is not an invalid assessment.)

These sort of situation effect dedicated voters too - they too can find themselves casting a vote that only vaguely reflects their views. Ever heard of voting for the ‘least worst’ choice? Or ‘throwing your vote away’ on the third-party candidate you actually want, since there’s no way the least-worst primary candidate will win anyway?

So. Voters are often faced with the situation where their views cannot accurately be reflected more or less due to any vote they might make. They may even find that neither candidate is any better than the other - it may be truly the same to them either way (or appear that way at the time of the election). In these cases the mathematically correct approach may be not to vote - or at least it may be no worse than any of their voting options would be.

Despite this fact, though, there is still an irrational stigma against those who do not vote. Personally I blame indoctrination, but I’m willing to be persuaded that there is an actual sensible reason for it. Something better than “not sure”, anyway?