I feel like any answer I would have is cowardly. I wouldn’t really mind voting no if I felt confident that if I were killed it would be quick and painless. OTOH, if it was mandatory a non-vote had to go one way or the other, I would probably have to face what I’d conclude that I was living in a horribly sick society and decide on principle to vote no, to not contribute more sickness.
In either case, how would it affect your chances of voting yes or no?
Suppose that, in the event of a yes-voter attack, you may defend yourself to the extent that it does not harm the individual exercising his/her legal right to murder you. Would that make you more likely to vote yes?
Or alternatively, suppose that yes-voters attack no-voters at their own risk, and as long as the yes-voter started it, the no-voter is off the hook. Would that make you more likely to vote no?
I think I’ve made it hard enough for you, and you’ve answered the question with no weaseling, respect.
I voted yes. I’ll be fine whichever way the vote turns out.
Vigilantes would be yes voters. Nothing will happen to yes voters. No voters have to count on people acting rationally with altruistic benevolence in order to win this vote. Good luck with that.
I don’t know how you figure this. If the law passes, it means over 50% of the votes were yesses. You suppose that more than half the voting population will be taken out by vigilantes? With the entire apparatus of the state against them? And wouldn’t that immediately turn yes-voters into the hunted, persecuted ones, making it easier to gather support for eradicating the no-ist minority? I seriously don’t know how you can argue that the yessers would be at a disadvantage here.
At any rate, the question was about how you’d decide how to vote, not what would happen if the law passed.
This is the answer. I don’t know why anyone would vote ‘no’.
“I’m going to vote in a way that, if my side loses, makes it legal to kill me” just doesn’t seem like something anybody would do.
“I’m going to vote so that, if I get my way, millions will be stripped of their human rights, then possibly hunted down and murdered in the streets.”
I understand the yes voters to be saying that protecting the rights of the minority is not worth the personal risk to yourselves that you’d take by voting no.
But remember, there will only be a problem if it passes. If it fails, everyone’s safe, and nobody gets killed. Suppose you have reason to believe it will fail, but only if enough conscientious people take the risk and vote no. Does this factor into your consideration at all? If it does, I’d assume that the likelihood of your voting no depends upon your confidence that the measure will fail.
Of course, if your moral calculations depend exclusively on yourself and your own well-being, then none of that makes any difference to you and you’d vote yes no matter what. Would anyone like to take that stand explicitly?
No, it should pass with 100% “yes” vote. Then nobody can get killed.
I take the stand that if everyone votes yes, those who want to murder people lose. They’re the ones I want to lose, so they’re the ones to beat - by voting yes.
Of course this only works if literally everybody does it. I wonder what kind of information campaign it would take to point out that quite literally voting yes is beating the assholes at their own game with the loophole they made themselves.
I´d go with abstention, however that counts. If it´s a “yes”, as I think it should be (qui tacet consentire videtur) I believe it will be close to 100%, as I can’t imagine a lot of people actively going to the ballot box to say “No thank you, I don’t want to enjoy police protection any more”. If, however, it counts as a “no”, then I feel that this is an attempt to get rid of people somehow unable or unwilling to vote, and we should all unite with them to show our solidarity.
I would never vote for any law that allows people to kill a specified segment of the population who has not committed any offense deserving of death, whether that be people of a designated race, or religion, or sexual orientation, or “no” voters. I’m not the bravest person, and in the case of an immediate threat, I am almost certain to panic and behave irrationally, but given a calm, reasoned choice in a voting booth, I am not going to support unjustified murder, even if that creates a risk to my personal safety.
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 this is the case then abstaining is again the best approach, being both principled and safe.
The one case where abstaining would be bad would be if a bait and switch was employed - the vote was determined counting only participants but then everyone who failed to vote “yes” was targeted. In that case alone is refraining from the vote is imprudent both personally and societally.
If I vote no and see a yes-voter moving to kill me, I will do my best to prevent my murder. The law only says that yes voters are not legally liable for killing me, it does not speak to my previously existing right of self-defense. It does not require me to allow a yes-voter to kill me. Hence, any yes-voter who approaches me is seen by me as a de facto threat, and I really can kill them in self-defense at the slightest provocation.
Which is to say that I cannot support a measure that would escalate violence in the streets and must vote no.
Sure, I’ll take the bate. I’m voting yes no matter what. The only way I’d vote no is if my vote was the only one that counted and every other vote was just determining what side people fall on.
If you’re too dumb to explicitly save yourself, I’m not risking my life to save you. Remember this isn’t a vote of “vote yes to lynch black people vote no to be lynched along with black people” where your sacrifice could save people who don’thave a choice. Each person gets a choice vote to save yourself or vote to sacrifice yourself there isn’t even a rule where its vote to kill someone vs vote to be killed where there is value in not taking a life.
I move to Canada.
Just who put this measure on the ballot? And can we have an initiative on the next ballot asking whether we should be allowed to kill (or maybe imprison or ostracize) that one specific individual?
Anyway, bad law is bad. The solution to a proposed bad law is to vote against it. Voting for a bad law doesn’t defeat it. The only way to defeat this law by voting “yes” is if literally everyone votes yes, which isn’t going to happen. But to defeat it by voting “no”, we need only have over half.
I love this hypothetical dilemma. Kudos to its creator.
I would vote yes while encouraging others to vote no. My singular vote almost certainly won’t matter to the overall result, so I’d do what’s necessary to ensure my safety after the votes are counted.
That said, the most important thing to note is that I would have no interest in living in a country/society where a poll like this has any legitimacy. Regardless of which way I voted, and regardless of the final result of the vote, I would do everything I could to find a new place to live.
That’s true, but the messages are “Vote yes for a 100% chance of not being legally murdered” and “Vote no if you want a chance of being legally murdered”
You’d pick “Sure, I’ll take a chance of being legally murdered”?
Given that he is the last Aztec emperor I would expect nothing less than a means to mass murder.
This election has finally done it. It has finally snapped that one thin thread of humanity I have left.
Assuming a public record ballot, since this is the only way it would work, 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.
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.