# Referendum of Death **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [April 4, 2019, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/referendum-of-death/832034 "2019-04-04T14:13:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2019, 9:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/referendum-of-death/832034/41 "2019-04-05T09:22:43Z")
> [@I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](#): > > There almost instantly would be vigilante groups of No voters hunting down Yes voters. Basically, the very fact this law came up for a vote would cause civil war. Where does this vigilante idea come from? Vigilantes will vote yes and have the opportunity to fulfill their psychotic Batman fantasies on no voters. ---
**Author:** ![Covfefe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ee7513/32.png) [@Covfefe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Covfefe)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2019, 10:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/referendum-of-death/832034/42 "2019-04-05T10:17:16Z")
I guess those who voted no who would become vigilantes would be motivated by survival, both for themselves and their compatriots with shared values and/or preservation of the state. If they only cared about their own survival, they would flee elsewhere. It doesn’t make sense unless outside nations were assisting them or if their side happened to have most of the engineers and technicians that maintained the power grid, communications, water supply, etc. ---
**Author:** ![cuauhtemoc](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecb155/32.png) [@cuauhtemoc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cuauhtemoc)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2019, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/referendum-of-death/832034/43 "2019-04-05T13:25:55Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > No, it should pass with 100% “yes” vote. Then nobody can get killed. As I said, there is a massive, coordinated disinformation campaign to confuse people about what they’re voting for. All data indicates that millions will vote no for that reason. For the measure to fail, they must be joined by people who think this is a bad law and should not be passed. > [@Oredigger77](#): > > If you’re too dumb to explicitly save yourself, I’m not risking my life to save you. I understand your position. However, this means giving up on the people most vulnerable to manipulation: the least privileged, the uneducated, the gullible, the mentally unwell, etc. You’d also be consenting to a law that punishes people for taking a principled stand against murder. This will leave you with a society where all the people willing to take principled stands on things like murder are dead. > [@guestchaz](#): > > I’d camouflage myself with a yes vote and a calm quiet nonconfrontational demeanor. Then I’d set myself to work killing as many yes voters as unobtrusively and quietly as possible, instead of no voters, until I was inevitably caught and executed in turn. You’d be killing a lot of people who only voted yes because they were terrified. They’re already victims of coercion, and you’ll be victimizing them again. > [@begbert2](#): > > There’s a third option, where abstainers are neither allowed to kill nor are targeted for killing. (It may be worth noting that that would be the literal interpretation of the ballot as described in the OP.) If you want to close the loophole, assume that the language refers to “anyone who does not vote ‘yes’ on this question” rather than “anyone who votes ‘no’ on this question.” ---
**Author:** ![Jasmine](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jasmine/32/2964_2.png) [@Jasmine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jasmine)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2019, 1:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/referendum-of-death/832034/44 "2019-04-05T13:31:01Z")
Since murder itself is against the law, it would be unconstitutional for the state to mandate it as an acceptable course of action no matter what the reason. This is my problem with “thought experiments” like this. Unless the “thought experiment” is based on reality, the conclusions drawn mean nothing. To answer the question, however, I would vote “no” and then appeal the state’s mandate in court. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2019, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/referendum-of-death/832034/45 "2019-04-05T13:37:10Z")
> [@cuauhtemoc](#): > > As I said, there is a massive, coordinated disinformation campaign to confuse people about what they’re voting for. All data indicates that millions will vote no for that reason. For the measure to fail, they must be joined by people who think this is a bad law and should not be passed. But there is no downside to voting “Yes”. Most issues have pros and cons. For this hypothetical, there is no downside for each individual to vote “Yes” Plus this would be the one case where people may be punished for their own misinformed vote. How many people would go and murder someone just because it was legal anyway? ---
**Author:** ![cuauhtemoc](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecb155/32.png) [@cuauhtemoc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cuauhtemoc)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2019, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/referendum-of-death/832034/46 "2019-04-05T13:47:20Z")
> [@Jasmine](#): > > Since murder itself is against the law, it would be unconstitutional for the state to mandate it as an acceptable course of action no matter what the reason. > > This is my problem with “thought experiments” like this. Unless the “thought experiment” is based on reality, the conclusions drawn mean nothing. > > To answer the question, however, I would vote “no” and then appeal the state’s mandate in court. To clarify, from the OP: > [@cuauhtemoc](#): > > Imagine you live in a pure, direct democratic state where everything comes up for a vote and majority rule is the only constitutional principle. In this “thought experiment,” you’re not in a country where you’re protected from this kind of thing by a constitution. I understand that you think it’s a waste of time because it’s not “based on reality,” and you’re entitled to that opinion. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2019, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/referendum-of-death/832034/47 "2019-04-05T14:31:01Z")
> [@Covfefe](#): > > I guess those who voted no who would become vigilantes would be motivated by survival, both for themselves and their compatriots with shared values and/or preservation of the state. If they only cared about their own survival, they would flee elsewhere. It doesn’t make sense unless outside nations were assisting them or if their side happened to have most of the engineers and technicians that maintained the power grid, communications, water supply, etc. People motivated by survival voted yes in the first place. There is something wrong with someone who thinks morality is a suicide pact. Grow up and vote yes. ---
**Author:** ![Oredigger77](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/oredigger77/32/3181_2.png) [@Oredigger77](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oredigger77)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2019, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/referendum-of-death/832034/48 "2019-04-05T14:47:18Z")
> [@cuauhtemoc](#): > > I understand your position. However, this means giving up on the people most vulnerable to manipulation: the least privileged, the uneducated, the gullible, the mentally unwell, etc. > > You’d also be consenting to a law that punishes people for taking a principled stand against murder. This will leave you with a society where all the people willing to take principled stands on things like murder are dead. No, I’d be consenting to a law that allowed idiots to volunteer to sacrifice themselves. > [@Slash1972](#): > > How many people would go and murder someone just because it was legal anyway? Just because it is legal doesn’t mean people are going to do it. So, I can take a principled stand against murder and not murder people and also tell people they can’t murder me. ---
**Author:** ![Two\_Many\_Cats](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8dc957/32.png) [@Two\_Many\_Cats](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Two_Many_Cats)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2019, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/referendum-of-death/832034/49 "2019-04-05T15:09:54Z")
This is easy. Just make it a secret vote. ---
**Author:** ![cuauhtemoc](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecb155/32.png) [@cuauhtemoc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cuauhtemoc)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2019, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/referendum-of-death/832034/50 "2019-04-05T15:29:03Z")
> [@Oredigger77](#): > > No, I’d be consenting to a law that allowed idiots to volunteer to sacrifice themselves. Once again, a no vote is not a vote to give up your rights. It’s a vote against stripping a number of your fellow citizens of theirs. And, once again, a yes vote is not a vote to protect your rights. It’s a vote in favor of stripping your fellow citizens of theirs. Suppose the tide of public opinion turned, and a poll came out the day before the election predicting an outcome of 95% no, 5% yes. Would that make any difference to you at all? Keep in mind that, the day after the ballot, 19 out of every 20 people would know that you voted to allow them to be killed. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2019, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/referendum-of-death/832034/51 "2019-04-05T15:29:06Z")
I voted No. I’m an absolute pacifist and I don’t see how voting “yes” would jibe with that. Plus, you know, the history of my country - I’m no stranger to being a legally-mandated 2nd-class citizen, and some of my cultural antecedents were legally able to be killed. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2019, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/referendum-of-death/832034/52 "2019-04-05T15:32:37Z")
> [@cuauhtemoc](#): > > And, once again, a yes vote is not a vote to protect your rights. Sure it is. It protects my right not to be legally murdered. ---
**Author:** ![cuauhtemoc](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecb155/32.png) [@cuauhtemoc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cuauhtemoc)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2019, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/referendum-of-death/832034/53 "2019-04-05T15:52:24Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > Sure it is. It protects my right not to be legally murdered. Do you need to read it again? It’s the second paragraph of the first post in this thread. ---
**Author:** ![Tired\_and\_Cranky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a87d85/32.png) [@Tired\_and\_Cranky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tired_and_Cranky)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2019, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/referendum-of-death/832034/54 "2019-04-05T15:55:19Z")
Interesting OP. If I must vote, I’d vote no. This is obviously bad policy and it shouldn’t become law. Malevolent yes voters should beware, however, because I’m not going down without a fight and I have nothing more to lose. > [@Slash1972](#): > > How many people would go and murder someone just because it was legal anyway? How many psychos are there? But another group of murderers would include people with a few axes to grind and the fortuitous outcome that their desired target(s) voted no. Penalties against murder must discourage at least a few such crimes every year. > [@Telemark](#): > > Doesn’t matter, all the Yes voters would still end up dead… And those people would be killed off by vigilantes fairly quickly in organized or disorganized self-defense. You’d have to hope the minority of no voters would kill the majority of yes voters. That seems…optimistic. Of course, there’s no need to kill off all the yes voters - only the violent ones. You can safely ignore the probably much larger group of “defensive yesses” who only voted yes so they wouldn’t be attacked. > [@Telemark](#): > > Human nature being what it is, it’s better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6. And no jury of No voters would ever convict. If no voters are in the minority, are known publicly, and prosecutors get peremptory strikes (as they do in our world), most juries are going to be overwhelmingly or entirely yes voters, in the same way that juries today are disproportionately white people who have never been arrested. And even the defensive yes jurors are going to want to protect themselves from the predations of disgruntled, vigilante no voters. Avoiding being murdered was why they voted yes to begin with. > [@Slash1972](#): > > No, it should pass with 100% “yes” vote. Then nobody can get killed. No ballot is so simple that someone can’t screw it up. Your suggestion just dooms people who make a simple voting error to extrajudicial death. And the fewer of them there are, the bigger the targets they become. > [@TriPolar](#): > > Where does this vigilante idea come from? Vigilantes will vote yes and have the opportunity to fulfill their psychotic Batman fantasies on no voters. There would be an interesting dichotomy in yes voters. Yes voters are an uneasy coalition between psychos seeking chaos and violence (or trolls pretending to be so) and the defensive yesses. Defensive yesses are just regular people who lack the courage to accept the personal risk of voting against the law. I don’t know how the split would work out, but I suspect, based on my oftentimes misguided faith in humanity, that defensive yesses will vastly outnumber psychotic yesses. I think no voters would be more homogeneous. They would be mostly normal people who understand that the world is a better place when it officially discourages arbitrary killing by its citizens. They are “centrists” in a sense, though I infer that they would be more courageous than average. Some would be committed pacificists. Most would be normal people who recognize a need for violence when the time comes but don’t believe that the world is a better place when self-selecting people can exercise violence at will against a disadvantaged group. All would have the courage to accept the risk of targeted murder should the bill be unwisely passed. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2019, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/referendum-of-death/832034/55 "2019-04-05T16:15:16Z")
> [@cuauhtemoc](#): > > Do you need to read it again? It’s the second paragraph of the first post in this thread. I see what you wrote, but I disagree. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2019, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/referendum-of-death/832034/56 "2019-04-05T16:17:00Z")
No voters aren’t switching the track so the train hits a different group, they aren’t leaving the switch alone so the train will hit the group it was heading toward already, they are switching the train to a track that they are standing on. Do you no voters think you are going to encourage your friends and loved ones to join you in your suicide pact? The only moral decision is to do everything you can to get everyone to vote yes and end the problem. The point of morality is not protect your own selfish ego at the expense of others. ---
**Author:** ![Oredigger77](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/oredigger77/32/3181_2.png) [@Oredigger77](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oredigger77)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2019, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/referendum-of-death/832034/57 "2019-04-05T16:23:43Z")
> [@cuauhtemoc](#): > > Once again, a no vote is not a vote to give up your rights. It’s a vote against stripping a number of your fellow citizens of theirs. > > And, once again, a yes vote is not a vote to protect your rights. It’s a vote in favor of stripping your fellow citizens of theirs. > > Suppose the tide of public opinion turned, and a poll came out the day before the election predicting an outcome of 95% no, 5% yes. Would that make any difference to you at all? Keep in mind that, the day after the ballot, 19 out of every 20 people would know that you voted to allow them to be killed. Nope, you’re wrong a yes vote preserves my rights not to be killed. A no vote is a vote to have your rights stripped from you. The no votes are volunteering to give up their rights and hoping that enough people will give up their rights to not be killed that they wont be killed. I’m ok with people know I voted to keep my rights not to be killed. If polling showed 99% voting no I’d still vote yes. ---
**Author:** ![cuauhtemoc](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecb155/32.png) [@cuauhtemoc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cuauhtemoc)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2019, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/referendum-of-death/832034/58 "2019-04-05T16:34:43Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > No voters aren’t switching the track so the train hits a different group, they aren’t leaving the switch alone so the train will hit the group it was heading toward already, they are switching the train to a track that they are standing on. You’re acting as if it’s a foregone conclusion that the law will pass! Do you really think it would be impossible to keep the yes votes under 50%? For an objectively terrible law that should never have come up for a vote in the first place? > [@TriPolar](#): > > Do you no voters think you are going to encourage your friends and loved ones to join you in your suicide pact? As of this post, it’s no at 61.54%, with yes at 38.46%. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2019, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/referendum-of-death/832034/59 "2019-04-05T16:39:09Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > The point of morality is not protect your own selfish ego at the expense of others. What, pray tell, is “the point” of morality? ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2019, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/referendum-of-death/832034/60 "2019-04-05T16:46:00Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > What, pray tell, is “the point” of morality? Poor wording. It doesn’t sound like many of the moral reasons stated for voting no align with any moral code I know of. You claimed to be a complete pacifist. Not something I understand but at least it’s some actual principle you are willing to die for. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/referendum-of-death/832034.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/referendum-of-death/832034.md?page=4)