Jake, I was thinking of putting in a disclaimer too – it might be different if I knew something that the general public didn’t – imagine being Lawrence Harvey in “The Manchurian Candidate”, where the public didn’t have a clue what was up. In such a situation, democracy has been hijacked, and it’s a different ballgame. (This is not the same thing as an average joe like me thinking, “I don’t care what the people who support him think, they’re not as smart as me, I know he’s a scumball”).
Mind you, I’m not changing my answer, just saying that would be a tougher decision to make.
Plus, in “a”, are you saying that you have the ability to predict the future? If I could see 20 years into the future, I imagine there are a LOT of things I do that I otherwise wouldn’t.
I chose to participate in this thread because the OP posited a hypothetical. You’re asking me about Bush/Kerry '04, which I don’t feel I can thoroughly discuss here without hijacking the thread, nor do I particularly want to (flogging a dead horse.) If you can’t infer the answer to your question from my original post then I’m sorry.
I didn’t read the OP as saying you would clearly save 1000s of lives by picking the “right” guy. It talked about a war, but didn’t say what the other guy would do. I did assume you were talking about '04 in your original post, though. My bad, but:
Unless Bricker comes back and says “ah ha! I was talking about Nazi Germany in my OP, not USA 2004”, I think we can assume he meant USA 2004. I can’t think of too many situations in which a president “sponsored federal legislation that will cripple the gay rights cause” other than our very own GW Bush.
If I’m just me, and I don’t really know who the “right” guy is, because I don’t have God-like powers of prognostication, then, really, the easiest thing to do is just return the damn box to whoever it belongs to and carry on like the mere mortal that I am. Dealing with all the “what ifs” involved with making a decision of such magnitude without some definite idea of what the future holds would probably drive me nuts. It’s a no-brainer, really.
Two major differences are the level of personal risk and the guarantee of the desired results. Bricker’s OP details a situation where one could tamper anonymously with minimal risk and guarantee a result. Pro-actively tampering is much more risky and does not guarantee your desired result since the election has not been completed. You could intimidate voters, but they would be witnesses and there is no guarantee that they would be intimidated, nor that your state was crucial, nor that the race was that close.
To the OP: I would turn the votes in. The election results should reflect the will of the people and no single person’s opinion should trump that will. If one truly loses faith in this principal, then one should work to amend or revolutionize the electoral process.
Waiting until the end of election day to “lose faith in this principal” and to “amend or revolutionize” the process by throwing out a box of votes is a little late in my opinion. One should probably have been performing the nefarious deeds that John Mace mentioned regardless of the risk or results involved.
The first point, while true, could also be simply the measure of a person’s level of cowardice. The second point is often not true. For example, I think we all had a pretty good idea of where the key districts were long before election day in '04.
Only vaguely. It actually seems pretty close to the OP. Every time a recount showed the Republican guy ahead, someone in King County would find a few more votes until the Democratic lady finally won. Dunno enough about it to opine which side is “right” – just that it proves once again that our system isn’t set up to handle very close races. But there, as here, if I were a janitor in King County I’d dutifully turn over the box-o-votes to the proper people.
Another temptation I’d have is to stick in a write-in for Heywood Jablowmie. But I wouldn’t.
My examples were simply examples… that’s why I had a third “-OR” to show that I was just trying to paint pictures of politicans that fit your personal definition of disasters.
While the election debacles of 2000 and 2004 certainly contributed to the climate that gave birth to this thread, it’s not about either election. It’s about the next election, the next unknown but absolutely unpalatable (to you) candidate.
Then I’ll reiterate my position: if you are certain that one of the US presidential candidate next time around will cause 1000s of innocent people to die (needlessly) and the other one won’t, then you should be just as willing to actively disrupt the election as you would be to hold back the hypothetical ballot box. There’s is no significant difference in those actions.
The time to try to convince others of that is during the campaign. There is plenty of opportunity to make that case. But once the people have decided, it’s decided. All the individuals who are sure they’re right and the others are wrong get to cancel each other out, and those with an adequate quota of humility are left to work out compromises. That’s how democracy works, okay? Why is there even a discussion?
I can’t let this little gem pass unremarked:
Worked great in the last term, didn’t it? Bush surely always gave careful consideration to the majority’s views, and accommodated them wherever possible, huh? You canNOT be that naive, Rick.
Assuming you’re that janitor again, but this time no box is lost. but you know that if a particular box were to disappear it would influence the election your way, would you take the more active role of making it disappear?
What other crimes/morality breaches would you be willing to take?
Would you shoot the president if you thought it would make the changes you saw as necessary? I mean since you’re viewing this as a choice of two morals, where thousands of lives are more important than a missing box, clearly thousands of lives are worth more than one (arguably very evil) life.
How far would you go to effect your change (hypothetically)?
If there was truly some objective way of determining the “right” and “wrong” candidate, and the wrong candidate was winning. I would have absolutely no moral qualm burning the ballot box. None whatsoever. It’s not like I’m overwhelmingly overturning the will of the people. It wasn’t a land slide. It was a coin flip. I happen to be in a position to decide the outcome of the coin flip.
With the two candidates that ran this past election, I’d turn it in. While for me Bush was clearly the wrong candidate, I’m not so certain Kerry is the right one, either. I wouldn’t have a strong enough moral and ethical conviction to overcome my guilty conscience.
Put it this way, if it’s Fred Phelps or Jerry Falwell running against, say, Barack Obama and I got the power to swing the election to Obama, you betcha I’m taking advantage of it.
Remember, though, I am from Chicago, so taking liberties with elections is in my blood.
But how unpalatable is absolutely unpalatable? In reality, not in hyperbole or figuratively or in exaggeration for effect.
I’m in WA right now. I don’t want the current loser as governor. I think there are many better choices, I think that he would be bad for the state. But so awful that I would commit election fraud? No. The process is more important.
But I’m wondering about Malodorous’ post (and the potential Godwinizing in there). I have to wonder if there is a candidate that is so thoroughly evil that it would justify my committing election fraud - and I don’t think I’ve ever been there.
The right guy could get us out of Iraq at the expense of turning the country into anarchy. The right guy might protect the environment while destroying the economy.
