www.JohnnyKramer.com
columnist: Johnny Kramer

Topic: Election 2008
Should You Vote?

---

Johnny Kramer's analysis of the pros and cons of voting, from a libertarian perspective.

---

by Johnny Kramer
(libertarian)

Should You Vote?

By Johnny Kramer

     Prior to the recent Wall St. "bailout," which Congress passed against the public's vehement and overwhelming (apparently at least 10-1) opposition, the best evidence that the assertion that regular citizens control the government is fiction is our farcical presidential elections, where the ruling elite field two basically interchangeable, hand-picked puppets as our "choice."

     This year is no different, and the mainstream media has been discussing the usual, trivial differences between the two major candidates ad nauseum all year, and have climaxed their coverage, as they do every four years, by informing the public that this year's event is "the most important election in our lifetime."

     As a result, millions of Americans will celebrate this quadrennial ritual again next week, trudging off to the polls under the delusion that their choice between interchangeable, socialist-fascist candidate A or B is of monumental, earth-shattering importance.

     But millions more – about 50% of the eligible voters, if past elections are any indication – won't show up to vote, for whatever reason. In an attempt to redeem the system, statists will attribute this to "apathy." While this probably is the reason for some, believers in government are probably afraid to examine the situation any closer than that, for fear that the other reasons they find might seriously undermine their justifications for the power they presume to hold over others.

     (It must also be noted that millions more – such as minors and some convicted felons – are legally barred from voting, but will still be bound by the outcome.)

President Obama

     The future is always uncertain, but Obama appears to be unstoppable; nationally, his lead is beyond the margin of error in nearly every major poll, and some polls have him with a double-digit lead. And a state-by-state analysis shows that McCain would have to win every state that appears to be a toss-up to even have a chance at winning the Electoral College. McCain has recently sounded more and more like Bob Dole in the final weeks of 1996, saying anything to try to reverse what seems like a foregone conclusion – such as hysterically telling voters of Obama's socialist plans, as though his own policies would be fundamentally different.

     I've gone back-and-forth during the past few months on which of them seems to be less bad. I've been leaning toward McCain lately, if for no other reason than that, barring something unforeseen, the Democrats will retain control of Congress.

     Anyone worried about Obama should remember that, in the grand scheme of things, the differences between him and McCain are trivial; neither is going to fundamentally alter the power elite's system; if they were, they wouldn't be the major parties' nominees in the first place.

     It's also useful to remember that, probably due to that reason, presidents rarely turn out to be as bad – or as good – as expected. Much of what Reagan said in 1980 sounded quite good; I still get goose bumps listening to his acceptance speech at the Republican convention that year. But he changed very little during his eight years: the federal budget grew by about 65%; the deficit soared; and no significant departments or agencies were even reduced, much less abolished. Clinton turned out nowhere near as bad as he seemed in 1992. Bush II turned out a lot worse than he seemed in 2000.  

Should Libertarians Vote?

     Libertarians have our own, concurrent, quadrennial ritual: debating the merits of voting.

     Some anarcho-capitalists, like Lew Rockwell and Butler Shaffer, argue that, since government is an immoral system of organized violence, one should not participate in the system by voting.

     Other prominent anarchos, like Murray Rothbard and Walter Block, argue that voting – even for the lesser of two evils – is legitimate, because the state is putting you in a coercive position where the winner's policies will be literally forced on you, regardless of whether you endorse the system.

     There are both anarchos and minarchists who have no moral opposition to voting, but believe it to be a waste of time. Harry Browne held this view for much of his life.

     Others from both groups believe voting is legitimate, but anyone who votes should vote for what they really want, not for the lesser of two evils. Even after becoming politically active again, Harry Browne continued to see merits in the argument of voting being pointless, but he argued that those who do vote should follow this course. Ron Paul also holds this view, which is evidenced by his endorsement this year of Constitution Party nominee Chuck Baldwin.

     In my view, there isn't one, correct libertarian position on voting; all of these views have merit.

     So, for anyone who's unsure about what to do next week – and beyond, let's examine, from a libertarian perspective, the arguments for and against voting. (There will be some redundancy between points, because the logic of some carries over into others. And, while I'll probably think of more points later, and I have no agenda in favor of any one view since I view them all as legitimate and I haven't even resolved this question for myself, you will notice that the "against" list is significantly longer than the "for" list.)

AGAINST

Your Vote Doesn't Matter.

     This is the strongest point because it's mathematically undeniable, and it applies to all voters, even the most hardcore statists who think government is the cure for all of the world's ills. If 100 million people vote next week, your vote comprises 1/100,000th of 1% of the total. Even if you worked hard all year and convinced 1,000 other people to also vote for your candidate, your efforts would still be statistically meaningless. (I'm not arguing against anyone being politically active if they want, but such people should be consciously aware of these points, and should be active only if they get some kind of consumption value – such as enjoyment – in the present from their efforts.)

     In 2000, when the race between Bush and Gore came down to a few hundred votes in Florida, Dan Rather said it was proof that people who say their one vote doesn't count are wrong. First, that would only be true if the winner – who turned out to be Bush – had won by only one vote, which he didn't. Second, that would also only be true if one accepts the premise that there was any significant difference between the two candidates.

     To think otherwise is to fall into what Harry Browne called The Group Trap; as he wrote in his classic self-help book, How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World, "The popular answer to such reasoning is, ‘Yes, but what if everyone thought that way?' But he isn't everyone; he's only himself. He isn't deciding for everyone; he's merely evaluating the significance of his own actions – and when he works in a group, his actions don't contribute much."

     Exactly. If the major party candidate you see as the lesser of two evils wins, it won't be by your one vote. And the third party candidate you vote for won't win at all, with or without your vote.

     The assertion that voting makes a better country or a better world, even if it were true, is also meaningless, unless believing that gives you some kind of consumption value – such as a feeling of happiness or satisfaction – in the present, because the population of the U.S. is about 300 million, so your share of the "better country" will be, by definition, 1/300 millionth; your share of a "better world" will be 1/6 billionth. Is that a worthwhile return on your investment?

Voting Doesn't Change Anything.

     This is an extension of the previous point. As Lew Rockwell commented recently, the federal government is now so large and entrenched that Congress and the presidency could vanish tomorrow, and the system would continue without interruption. Neither candidate who has a chance of winning is going to make any fundamental changes to the system; it will continue essentially the same way, regardless of who wins.

Voting Endorses a Corrupt System.

     This is Butler Shaffer's view, which he has articulated so well in many columns over the years. The essence of this view is that the state is a system of institutionalized coercion, and if you view things like murder and theft as morally wrong, and you wouldn't do them yourself, then it's equally wrong to enlist the state to do such things on your behalf.

Not voting sends a message.

     This was the argument Lew Rockwell made recently, that not voting robs the state, albeit in a small way, of its claim of having a mandate.

     This is debatable, as opponents of this view will point out that about half of eligible voters don't vote, but the politicos explain away this phenomenon as "apathy," rather than a wholesale repudiation of the system.

     The validity of this view depends on the message you want to send. If you're an anarcho who wants to repudiate the entire system, don't vote. If you're a minarchist who wants only to repudiate the present course, vote for the third party candidate who best represents your views.

     The system will really start to break down when a large portion of the public becomes ungovernable, when they not only withhold their votes, but also their obedience to the state's laws and regulations. And, as Harry Browne explained in his 1974 book, You Can Profit from a Monetary Crisis, such a situation – not the military – is the source of real "national defense."

Voting against a candidate also sends a message – but the wrong one.

     This is an extension of the previous point, although it's also as much an argument for voting third party as for not voting. As Harry Browne used to say frequently, if you vote for the lesser of two evils only to keep the greater evil out of office, and the lesser evil wins, he will point to the votes he received as evidence of a mandate, not as a repudiation of the other candidate.

You don't know that a candidate will keep his promises, and you have no recourse if he doesn't.

     This is also undeniable. For example, FDR ran in 1932 as an old-style Democrat, decrying Hoover's interventionist policies and promising to slash the budget by 25%. And, as we already discussed, Reagan promised to get government off our backs, then did the opposite. The same could probably be said for every president from at least the past several generations.

     If your candidate doesn't keep his promises, your only recourse is to vote for his opponent next time – if your former candidate runs again. But you may not like his opponent's promises – and, even if you do, you have no assurances that he will keep his promises either. And, if he doesn't, you have no recourse but to vote against him next time, and so on, in a never-ending cycle of futility.

FOR

You're being coerced.

     As Walter Block explained on LRC last year, this was Lysander Spooner's position, which was endorsed by Murray Rothbard, that the state is a coercive institution that will force itself on you, whether you endorse it or not. You can't choose not to be affected by government at all, the way you can choose not to shop at Wal-Mart or not to eat at Taco Bell. So, even if you don't vote for a major party candidate – or don't vote at all, even if it's on principle – it'd be virtually impossible not to at least have a preference if you believe there's any difference whatsoever between the two major candidates, because the winner's policies will forcibly affect your life for at least the next four years.

Voting for the lesser evil helps keep the greater evil out of office.

     This is an extension of the previous point, and is a rebuttal of the arguments against voting for the lesser of two evils. Realistically, barring some miracle that elects a third party candidate, you're going to be stuck with one of the two major party's candidates, who will then be able to force his policies on you. In 1992, Murray Rothbard endorsed Buchanan over Bush in the GOP primaries; when Bush won the nomination, he endorsed Perot over Bush and Clinton; when Perot dropped out, he endorsed Bush over Clinton.

Voting for a candidate you like (not one you dislike less) sends a message.

     This is the opposite of the view that not voting sends a message; again, the correct view for you hinges on whether you want to repudiate just the present course, or the entire system of institutionalized coercion.

     At least in the short run, if enough people voted for a third party candidate, it would send a much clearer message than not voting, because not voting can be explained away. But we're back to the "What if everyone thought that way?" argument, because, while this point is true, it's not necessarily what you should do, because your vote's contribution to the message will be statistically irrelevant, whether you place the vote or not.

Voting gives you some other intangible benefit(s).

     If you're a minarchist who still sees legitimacy in the system, and voting makes you feel positive emotions like happiness or pride, or not voting would make you feel negative emotions like shame or guilt, then accept it and do what you feel you have to do.

     I see a lot of merit in arguments against voting, but I'm still proud of having voted for Harry Browne in 1996 and 2000.

CONCLUSION

     To reiterate, there isn't one, correct libertarian position on voting. I haven't resolved this issue for myself, and I see merit in all of the views. I suppose one could even make a libertarian argument for voting for the most statist candidate, such as if one believes that the candidate's increase of government in the short-term will help cause the entire system to collapse in the long-term.

     In short, do whatever you think is right. Be open to new ideas, but if you remain unconvinced, don't let proponents of differing views make you feel guilty for following your convictions.

Johnny Kramer [send him mail] holds a BA in journalism from Wichita State University. He is one of the authors and editors of the first-ever biography of Ron Paul, Ron Paul: a Life of Ideas. For more information on his work, or to hire him as a writer, editor, or to speak at your next event, please visit his website.

Did you like this article?
If you did, Thumb It!
1 thumb so far

2008 Johnny Kramer, all rights reserved.
Published: Thursday, October 30, 2008
Last modified: Thursday, October 30, 2008

The views expressed in this article are those of Johnny Kramer only and do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Johnny Kramer is solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.

Report violation by Johnny Kramer of Nolan Chart LLC's terms of use policy.