The blue team began with three contenders: the charming black guy…
…, the nagging woman…
… and some white guy who pandered to poor people. More democrats wanted a first black president than a first female president so Obama won the nomination. The red team had Rudy ‘9/11′ Giuliani, the boring Law & Order actor, a religious guy that Chuck Norris liked, a libertarian that talked about the federal reserve and other topics no-one cares about, a mormon and the angry, old guy. It rained McCain.
All the candidates talked about change a lot…
… they never mean it. Obama started a cult that attracts more celebrities than scientology and brainwashes children…
… while McCain still doesn’t get that people are so over war right now.
McCain chose Tina Fey as vice presidential nominee…
… he now wishes it had been Joe the Unlicensed Plumber. No-one cares who Obama chose.
That covers all a rationally ignorant person needs to know about the election. But in-case you’re actually thinking about wasting your time at a voting booth this Tuesday, reason.tv has teamed up with some Hollywood actors to make an important public service choice announcement:
Neko desu said,
November 2, 2008 at 11:56
Nice summary Robbie,
A little concerned about the last one, its like encourage people not to vote so they can complain in two months time (with the inauguration) “I didnt vote for this idiot”. It makes you wonder, “who did you vote for?” Oh thats right, you sat at home thinking it was a collossal waste of time voting was, playing your xbox or whatever (actually probably WoW statistically) and now you’re complaining. If you didnt vote, you shouldnt complain about the result, because you didnt exercise your opportunity to participate freely in the democratic process. If your in Australia, then you can complain, because we complain about everything, but if you’re an American who doesnt believe he/she needs to exercise what “god given rights” you have (voting is from god eh?) then seriously, go back to Azeroth.
/rant
Robbie Clarken said,
November 3, 2008 at 14:39
Hi Neko,
I agree that people shouldn’t be apathetic about politics but I’m not sure that just casting a vote every four years is the solution. For one thing, you are more likely to win the lottery than change the outcome of the presidential election through voting.
You might be better off trying to change how large numbers of people vote but I’m not sure how successful you could be at this. Most people are very reluctant to change their political views, even when presented with overwhelming evidence that they are wrong. Also, restrictive campaign finance laws in the US make it very difficult to raise enough money to effectively promote your preferred party or candidate.
But this assumes that there is even a candidate out there that you consider worth voting for. Ballot access regulations are used to keep minor party and independent candidates off the ballot. Even if there is a candidate that says everything you want to here, there is no way you can trust them to keep their promises once they get in power. G W Bush ran on a platform of fiscal conservatism and opposition to nation building and foreign military entanglements and we see how that turned out. Can you blame people for not voting when politicians consistently break their promises?
I think our best chance of achieving true political change is to ignore the elections and focus on changing the public consciousness through discussions, education and civil disobedience.
david truong said,
November 3, 2008 at 21:05
I don’t think civil disobedience does much if you choose to ignore politics. Supporting candidates that can inspire massive changes in thinking and traditions has much greater effect.
Discussions and education is important, but ignoring elections will lead to anarchy. You can only discuss issues for so long until it becomes unproductive and a waste of time. I think the best way you can achieve change is through leadership. Leadership requires politics and elections. Vote for change!
Robbie Clarken said,
November 5, 2008 at 11:49
Hi David!
You’re certainly right that politicians can have a large impact but my argument is that I, as a voter, have no control over who is elected. Whether or not I vote will not change the result of any election or change the policies of elected politicians. I am sympathetic to the possibility that rallying votes in closely contested elections could have an effect – but there are not many places where candidates that I could support have any chance of winning.
We can sometimes change policies at the margin by being vocal in support of, or opposition to particular reforms, but in general we must weather the storm of the idiotic policies of whoever is in power. However, I believe, like John Maynard Keynes, that ideas shape the course of history and if we can win the minds of enough people then the politicians will have to follow and we can achieve lasting change. No Western politician will ever again succeed in advocating slavery, communism or (complete) prohibition of alcohol and this is not because saintly politicians extinguished these evils but because enough of the public has been convinced they are wrong.
As for not voting leading to anarchy, I, like Gordon Tullock, will start voting as soon as sufficiently fewer people vote that my vote will make a difference. But if anarchy is defined as people acting without direction from an authority then I would argue we need a little more anarchy in our society. We currently have anarchy when it comes to important decisions like who produces food and clothes, what career we each take and how many children we have. Each of these areas is crucial to our society but they are decided through spontaneous order rather than by elected officials. I think you would agree we are better off because of this.
nekocat138 said,
November 7, 2008 at 12:44
Robbie, I think you’re thinking about this too much like a mathematician.
Surely you are not so cynical in reality. :O