Simplifying the decision process for voting

[Burgess Laughlin 0]

PURPOSE

The purpose of this topic-thread is to offer methods for approaching the sometimes difficult decision of how to vote, if one chooses to vote.

SCOPE

This subforum is the Self-Improvement and Self-Help subforum. Many other topic-threads are open for discussion of the particulars of current events. I hope all participants in this thread will confine their contributions to general methods that should be applicable to all elections in all semi-free countries, allowing, of course, for differences in particular forms of government.

Following is one summary of the main and auxiliary issues arising in the U. S. 2006 congressional elections. The author is Jason Crawford, a member of the Seattle-Portland Objectivist Network. With his permission I am posting it here as one step toward simplifying the task of deciding how to vote in any election. Although Jason draws his summary from one election and one country, I would suggest that in general it might apply to other elections and in other countries.

PROBLEM

What is important here is not the particulars that apply to this election, but having some structured way to approach elections. What alternatives would you suggest to Jason's general approach of summarizing the issues prior to making a decision, that is, what alternatives would you suggest as generalizations for most or all other elections?

[i have taken the liberty of adding bold subheads to show the elegant structure of Jason's summary.]

The election debate: A summary

Jason Crawford

PURPOSE

Allow me to attempt to summarize Objectivist debate about the election. I present the following in the hopes that it will help approach the question in a structured way--which is as necessary as it is difficult, owing to the complexity of the issue.

ASSUMPTIONS

I proceed assuming that the basis for the decision should be the philosophy and policies of the two sides, that the task is to determine whether the right or left is better for America (or less dangerous). This is where most of the debate has concentrated; however, there are auxiliary issues, noted at the end.

FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION

In evaluating the two sides, a fundamental question arises: What issues are most important in the election? To my mind, the two main answers are:

A. Specific, immediate issues of policy are most important. Most of this part of the discussion is on foreign and defense policy, especially regarding the war with Islamic totalitarianism. A smaller part of the debate is on economic policy, including welfare programs and restrictions on business (such as those of the SEC or FDA).

B. Long-term philosophic trends are most important. The main threat discussed is the rise of the religious right (although a few suggest that socialism or environmentalism on the left are equal or greater long-term threats).

For the most part, then, those advocating voting Republican believe that the rise of religion is less important than specific policy issues such as the war, and who believe that the Republicans are doing a better (less awful) job on those issues. Those advocating voting Democratic believe that the long-term threat of religion is most important, or that the Republicans are worse than the Democrats on the war and/or the economy, or both.

Regarding long-term cultural threats, the key questions I see are:

- What is the specific evidence of a cultural trend? Examples are the popularity of religion among the public, its prominence in academia and the media, and its record in political battles (e.g., the Schiavo case, creationism in schools).

- What side has a deep, consistent ideology supporting it? Are there passionate ideologues on the left anymore? How prominent are the committed Christians on the right?

- How much protection do the remnants of the Enlightenment afford (including the structure of the U.S. government, the value placed on freedom, and the general American sense of life)?

- In comparing Christianity to the totalitarian Islam: How powerful are our enemies abroad? Are they strong enough to destroy America? Or does the only real threat to the U.S. come from within?

Regarding the policies of the parties, most of the debate is about the war. Here the key questions I see are:

- Does the Bush Administration have a "mixed" policy, perhaps even (in the best interpretation) the right general aims, but the wrong implementation? Or is it fundamentally a policy of national self-sacrifice, perhaps motivated by Christianity, perhaps in the name of spreading freedom as a charitable duty (hidden behind a veneer of self-defense?)

- Is this policy more effective (or less disastrous) at deterring Islamic terrorism than the pragmatic retreat and appeasement advocated by most Democrats? Is it better to half-fight a war and lose or become bogged down--or not to fight at all?

Similar questions could be asked of economic policy: whether the conservatives' policy is partially pro-capitalist or fundamentally welfare-state, and whether such a policy is better or worse than being clearly and explicitly anti-capitalist.

These are the core questions. Finally, there are a number of auxiliary issues:

AUXILIARY ISSUES

First, should one vote along party lines, or evaluate the individual candidates in each race? Some advocate voting strictly on party lines; others suggest voting by party as a rule, with exceptions for cases where one candidate or the other is egregiously bad.

Second, some suggest that the decision should be based not merely on an evaluation of the parties, but should take into account a subtler political strategy, such as an attempt to completely crush one party or the other based on predictions about the aftermath.

Lastly, a few downplay the entire issue of the election, owing to Objectivists' inability to sway the national elections. (Clearly, by composing this summary, I am implicitly granting the issue importance. The election is important to the nation at large, and I consider myself a part of the nation.)

That is the outline of the debate as I see it. I hope it provides some value in formulating and structuring the questions we must answer.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

PROBLEM

What is important here is not the particulars that apply to this election, but having some structured way to approach elections. What alternatives would you suggest to Jason's general approach of summarizing the issues prior to making a decision, that is, what alternatives would you suggest as generalizations for most or all other elections?

ASSUMPTIONS

I proceed assuming that the basis for the decision should be the philosophy and policies of the two sides, that the task is to determine whether the right or left is better for America (or less dangerous). This is where most of the debate has concentrated; however, there are auxiliary issues, noted at the end.

As a generalization this assumption fails because it is much too narrow. The assumption that the "basis for the decision should be the philosophy and policies of the two sides [right or left]" does not allow for decision based solely on individuals. For instance, regardless of what bad philosophy and policies are explicit or implicit in the Democratic Party, one still might vote for a particular Democratic candidate. In the current election, if I resided in his state, I would vote for Joe Lieberman because of his stance on the war, even though I assess the Democratic Party as a whole to be horrendous.

[Burgess Laughlin 0]

As a generalization this assumption fails because it is much too narrow. The assumption that the "basis for the decision should be the philosophy and policies of the two sides [right or left]" does not allow for decision based solely on individuals. For instance, [...]

I agree. I would add two more possibilities for voting for a particular individual:

1. If I am convinced that the candidate is personally honest (reality-oriented), regardless of the state of his explicit philosophy or policies -- and his opponent is not honest. An example might be someone who has been successful in business, because he pays attention to reality, but then enters politics with corrupt baggage and nevertheless tries to solve problems based on facts as well as he can.

2. If I am convinced that a particular candidate in particular circumstances might improve the political process as an antidote to an entrenched power. For example, I might vote even for a Bible-thumper as one member of an otherwise cookie-cutter, "secular," leftist city council (Portland, Oregon) if I thought his presence might at least stir debate or slow down the juggernaut.

Having said that, I applaud Jason for attempting to identify issues in a systematic way, all in one place. Taking such a step, for me, is one way of simplifying the process of decision-making.

An attempt to write-up a situation, all in one "essay," can be a very helpful exercise. Preparing to write it requires observation, essentialization, and integration. Then submitting that one piece of writing to criticism, can be informative as well.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

This is my approach to voting from a post I just submitted to HBL:

I propose a different voting strategy than voting for all Republicans or all Democrats or not voting.

Observe that whenever an Objectivist has repudiated an entire party, regardless of which Objectivist and which party, it is because of the principles at the core of the particular party. While some third parties do have an ideological core, the two major parties really don’t. The Republicans include the anti-abortion, sanctimonious Santorum as well as pro-choice Schwarzenegger and Giuliani. The Democrats include urban secular atheists and Bible-Belt born-agains like Jimmy Carter. Bloomberg switched parties without changing his principles.

Each major party is actually a loose coalition of local parties that have to band together every four years to elect a president by beating the other party in enough winner-take-all state contests. The only principle that unites each major party is getting its candidates elected.

Since that is the case, my election strategy is to vote only for major party candidates based on the particular candidates’ predominant political principles, regardless of party. I vote for the one with the best principles in each race, if possible. If one candidate is outright evil, I vote for his opponent. If both are mediocre, I don’t vote.

Voting this way is an act of justice, rewarding or penalizing individual men for their chosen ideas and actions. It could also “send a message” to the major parties that whether or not a candidate gets votes depends, not on which party he belongs to, but on what kind of IDEAS he supports.

===

In addition to the above, I evaluate individual candidates by the standards Ayn Rand outlined in the article on how to choose a political candidate in the March 1964 issue of The Objectivist Newsletter.