Tuesday, November 4, 2008

Voting Is A Waste Of Your Time

Rather than submitting a list of endorsements or suggestions for your review this election day, I'd like to suggest that you reconsider the value of even participating in the process at all.

There's been a lot of discussion of various platitudes this election season, as there is every four years. I see people on the television telling me that they expect some resurrection of "hope" or "change" if one candidate or another wins the election. The same thing goes, to a lesser degree, for local elections.

As with most vague statements, these slogans bear little connection to reality. In fact, I've found that most Bay Area people I've spoken with can't even articulate any specifics when I ask how their candidate will affect their life.

If you think about it for a moment, you'll realize that this isn't too surprising. What a preposterous concept for someone to think that some action by the government can give them "hope."

Now, don't get me wrong. I do believe that people are affected by whom they select to lead them. It's just that I believe people make systematic errors by selecting leaders who tell them what they want to hear instead of those who might do something that would improve conditions.

This is exacerbated by the fact that nearly everything government does or can do causes harm. So, when a politician promises to "do something," this nearly always translates to "hurt people." When the government does manage to do something which improves conditions, more often than not it is an accident.

There is an old saw that every urban community and every urban school district is dominated by Democrats. So why then do those in urban areas seem to blame Republicans for the ills they suffer? The same goes for suburban Republican voters.

The bottom line is that voters follow predictable patterns, repeating the same simple mistakes time and again. In this way, politics is just like capitalism. Just as people guide the economy through their largely random purchases, so too do they guide the government through largely random voting patterns.

So, there is largely no point to voting. Doing so wastes your time. Elections almost never come down to a single vote. And, even if "your" candidate wins, you have no concrete or meaningful way to translate that election win into predictable positive consequences for you.

As one friend put it, democracy is the American religion. In church, people pray to a higher power, hoping their conditions will change -- yet nothing predictable ever comes of it. In America, we cast ballots thinking it will make some difference. Yet the vote of any individual is irrelevant.

So why even bother spending time writing about political issues? I have a couple answers to that. First, I believe local politics has a better chance of being relevant to an individual than do state or national politics. Also, just as a matter of statistics, a local blogger might shift enough views to cause one or another proposition to pass. That is why this blog largely focuses on the local.

More importantly, I view politics as an excellent source of good humor. I enjoy watching politicians repeatedly lie to constituents about their plans to "solve" various problems. It is great fun to watch debacles like the Mandela Foods Cooperative.

Of course, the only reason why I can view the terrible actions of our local politicians with such good humor is that none of them really affect me -- aside from taxation, that is. And, as readers of this blog know, I view local taxation as somewhat positive as much of it is regressive, which drives out the poor and improves the community.

If I lived in inner-city Oakland and had to send my kids to the crazy liberals' school-shaped laboratories, I would probably feel different. I'd probably be angry, and I'd probably buy into messages of "hope" coming from above.


  1. Wow. Nihilistic, much?

    Granted, Oakland could turn anyone cynical but you've gone way the hell over the top here.

    You seriously think De La Fuente as mayor wouldn't have been any different from do-nothing-Dellums? Sure he's probably on the take but at least he wanted the job in the first place. And this year measure OO passed, which'll put us just that much more in the hole. I really hope nobody took your advice.

    I usually like reading your stuff, but I'm starting to think you seriously need to move. Which'd be a shame, cause a conservative voice is needed around here. But I'm a little concerned for your mental health.

  2. I think you speak for most people. I know am in a minority.

    That said, keep in mind that I do believe local politics has a better chance of making tangible change for people. So, I would agree with you that electing De La Fuente would have been better.

  3. HaHaHa the Oakland voters have once again proved their stupidity and voted for OO . This will be interesting to see the ramifications of the stupidest way to budget- ballot box budgeting.

    Local government especially in OAK has a huge credibility problem and budgeting gets decided at the ballot box - mostly b/c we have a bunch of weak, stupid/sleazy elected officials and very very complicated problems, that have been incredibly compounded into massive problems.

    Look for instance at the LLAD bonds- totally corrupt, a BK school system, the Riders case & measure Y, the Raiders, Edgerly, Your Black Muslim Bakery to name a few.

    I guess I should be worried b/c I agree w/ The Boss. The only reason I contemplated voting for OO is to see the budget blow up. I think going BK or putting severe stress may be the only way to solve our problems in OAK.

    It's not an old saw that dems control school districts and large urban centers in America- it is fact, and I do so delight in the limousine liberals who send their children to private school, use no city services but say they trust in local gov't. The fact is that local tax is not based on wealth, the wealthy generally are not invloved in local gov't., (hey I undrstand they have their own lives) local gov't is a huge pot of $ so it attracts the sleaziest, the uneducated and is a huge slush fund. They cannot spend $ in a low cost, concerted manner- it is someone else's money. I guess one has to watch it w a certain amount of humor or it will drive you crazy- look at our friend Sanjiv Handa.

  4. (BTW - to the commenter above - I appreciate the mention of Sanjiv. I like that guy. He is intense, maybe a little crazy because of it, but we all benefit from his efforts as a gadfly.)

    To the blogger here however after reading this post I can't find respect for you. To write a politically focussed blog and yet besmirch voting undermines every argument you could possibly put forth here. Yes, one can participate in politics in many ways other than voting, but the majority do not participate at all. In my view apathy is the biggest problem. I'd like to see a study of voter apathy and government corruption.

    A more reasonable approach to your argument would acknowledge that less that a third of eligible voters typically vote in any election. (And sometimes I think it is too bad "volume" doesn't "weight" election results in a similar manner it does the stock market.) If you don't believe me, I suggest a review of the evidence. Check the numbers of registered voters versus eligible voters sometime, and then look at the percentage of registered voters that actually bother to vote. Its pretty clear to me from these numbers that the thrust of this post is pretty much what the vast majority of Americans think.

    From that perspective you aren't an alternative voice at all which renders your claims to being "oppressed" in a more recent post as little more than wishful thinking.

    After all how could an "oppressed" person not really care?