Search Mailing List Archives
[liberationtech] Freedom in the face of power and a vanishing vote
ms3035 at columbia.edu
Fri Sep 23 07:27:51 PDT 2011
I'm unpersuaded -- on multiple grounds:
1) The original 5 points Mike offers were almost certainly not
conceived by an American -- the U.S. is rare if not unique among
democracies in having an extensive primary election system where
voters DO choose the general election candidate from among an often
large group where getting one's name on the ballot is pretty cheap and
pretty simple for most elective offices.
2) The 2nd and 3rd points are either redundant -- both saying "my vote
does not affect the election outcome" or else the 2nd point is
nonsense (obviously one's vote does not affect the "course" of the
election because one's vote is cast at the END of the election after
its "course" has run!) No one tries to influence the course of an
election with their vote but with their donations of time and money
and discussion and debate with friends, relatives, strangers. And, in
the end, it is largely true but not 100% true that "my vote does not
affect the election outcome." Every election year you read a story
from one location or another about a race that ended in a tie or was
decided by a single vote. Is it likely that any given individual will
be a voter in such a race? No. Is it possible? Absolutely.
3) The premise of the 5 points is that political freedom is a direct
and simple extension of being part of an electorate where one's vote
is likely to be decisive. Political freedom must therefore be greater
in small countries than in larger, or in Nevada with a small
population than across the state line in California. But does that
follow? There is, in fact, an argument that has been made (by James
Madison) that your freedoms are more vulnerable in small countries
than large because powerful individuals are in a better position there
to exercise their influence and twist arms to secure votes -- and they
are unable to do that so effectively as the size of the electorate
grows (see Federalist No. 10). Besides, I can't think of any
democratic theorist who would equate "voting" and "political freedom"
-- pretty much all of them would say that what makes a democracy is
not simply the existence of voting but the existence of voting coupled
with a set of constitutionally guaranteed freedoms BEYOND THE POWER OF
VOTERS TO DENY (freedoms of speech, press, assembly) and an electoral
system with more than one competitive party.
4) State power and laws ARE generally speaking unaffected by your
individual vote -- your individual vote IS an aspect of your freedom
and, perhaps even more, is a symbolic REMINDER of your freedom, but in
actually existing democracies you put yourself in a position to alter
state power and change laws by JOINING WITH OTHERS (in a party, in a
pressure group, in a demonstration, in a union, in a petition, etc).
Quoting Peter Lindener <lindener.peter at gmail.com>:
> Dear Mike -
> Some of your points seem near the truth....But then not completely spot
> Granted that our current methods for a Social Decision process from an
> Information theoretic point of view, fails all tests of legitimacy from the
> point of view of conduction the aggregate will of the electorate into the
> governance decision making process.... and as such, by conclusion must only
> be rituals designed to satiate the masses into thinking they had some input
> into the decision process.
> And granted you do make the point of personal alarm that would seem
> fitting....but it is not entirely a lost cause.... These problems
> regarding the transmission of the desires of the electorate into the
> governance process can with the appropriate Social Network based Decision
> be effectively addressed....
> In summery you are spot on regarding the limitation of choice space....
> and also the unresponsiveness of representation to those who are not
> donating $$$s to political campaigns....
> But there are much bigger challenges ahead...as Noam
> Chomsky<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky>point out involving
> the electorate apparently being effectively blind to
> media driven mass manipulation. I personally think this will resolve it
> self by means of neurological maturation once our Social Decision systems
> mature to actually respond to the will of the electorate...
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Michael Allan <mike at zelea.com> wrote:
>> Dear all,
>> I'm posting to ask if anyone has heard an argument like the following.
>> I know that the rationality of voting is sometimes questioned from an
>> economic standpoint of cost and benefit , but I never before heard
>> an argument that puts that benefit at exactly zero, or draws the moral
>> conclusions with regard to individual freedom and the legitimacy of
>> state power and laws. 
>> I used to believe that I was free because I lived in a democracy
>> and had a vote; but the truth is, I have no political freedom at
>> all. Whether I vote or not, and regardless of who I vote for:
>> (a) the candidates are chosen ahead of time, and I have no
>> influence over the choice;
>> (b) the course of the election is unaffected by my vote;
>> (c) the outcome is the same, regardless;
>> (d) state power is unaffected; and
>> (e) the laws are unaffected.
>> If I disobey (d) state power or (e) the laws, then I am brought
>> into submission by force. The powers that affect me are unaffected
>> by any comparable power of mine. In regard to my political
>> freedom, I might as well live in China or Saudi Arabia.
>> Disobedience is my only freedom, and yet the cost of exercising it
>> is physical confinement or worse. In this regard, it follows that
>> I am a slave.
>> By a corollary, state power and laws have no moral authority or
>> legitimacy. In embodying a disregard for my liberty, which is the
>> most fundamental of human rights, they forfeit any claim to
>> reciprocal recognition.
>> The conclusions are difficult to swallow. But the argument as a whole
>> seems solid, and I think this comes from its rigid focus on the
>> individual. Has anyone heard this argument before?
>>  Stephen J. Dubner and Steven D. Levitt. 2005. Why Vote? A
>> Swiss Turnout-Boosting Experiment. New York Times. November 6.
>>  The argument was developed in these discussion posts:
>> It continues in these (which are temporarily inaccessible):
>> (see Writing a charter)
>> Michael Allan
>> Toronto, +1 416-699-9528
>> liberationtech mailing list
>> liberationtech at lists.stanford.edu
>> Should you need to change your subscription options, please go to:
>> If you would like to receive a daily digest, click "yes" (once you click
>> above) next to "would you like to receive list mail batched in a daily
>> You will need the user name and password you receive from the list
>> moderator in monthly reminders.
>> Should you need immediate assistance, please contact the list moderator.
>> Please don't forget to follow us on http://twitter.com/#!/Liberationtech
More information about the liberationtech