To Vote or Not to Vote

Because I’m a precinct chair, I get some data on the election. I have access to names, addresses, and phone numbers of registered voters in my precinct. Additional information tells me who has voted in primary elections. Voters are then divided into tiers, so I can decide who to reach out to for Get Out the Vote (GOTV) efforts. I am encouraged to make use of the data by reaching out to them. The daily updates during early voting tell me who in the top couple of tiers has not voted. A week ago I spent an afternoon individually contacting many dozen voters to remind them of when and where to vote, and where to get information. A few thanked me. A few more texted STOP, even though I’m an individual doing it the hard way and not a list, but I’ll respect that.

image found here

Before last weekend my list started including another tier down, adding in not only those we could count on to vote Republican, but those we believe lean Republican. As of today, with just today and tomorrow left of early voting, all but 16% of the known and leaning Republicans in my precinct have already voted. The rest I am assuming plan to vote in person on election day. I can’t envision any active Republican this election year not getting around to deciding whether to vote.

I have a skeptical relationship with GOTV drives. Maybe this year more than any. Of course we need every vote we can get. We need a large enough margin to overcome any disenfranchisement done by voter fraud, which we already know is happening.[i] But what I don’t want to do—because I really hate that the opposition does this—they’re not actually giving voice to more informed votes; they’re giving additional voice to their own vote. They add numbers to their side without actually adding any more informed voters to their side.

I’m all in favor of adding more informed voters, which is why I see my job as a precinct chair—and as a political activist, if you must use that uncomfortable term—is inform people who appreciate getting the information, which seems easier for me to come by, because I’m dialed in, than it does for them.

One of the amusing stories—if these weren’t such serious times—is that one of the most Googled searches this past week (since the final presidential debate) has been “How do I change my vote?” 

Image found here

Oddly, there are several states that have a procedure for that—if they submitted a mail-in ballot that has not yet been counted. We can only hope that they are doing that securely, with no double counting or shenanigans. But maybe it’s not a great idea to vote before you know enough about your candidate. If your candidate, for instance, has had a long record of plagiarism, lying, and corruption[ii]—stories that have been widely available if you took a look—but you didn’t know about them until news stories broke through in late October, then I can see why you’d feel sick about having already cast your vote.

There's me with my "I Voted" sticker

I can see some wisdom in early voting. I often do it, usually just a few days before the election. I did that this week, exactly a week ahead of election day. I didn’t want anything to get in the way of my voting. I’m planning to work at our polling place on election day—but what if I got a sudden illness or got in an accident? I wanted my vote to be certain. I did it in person. Securely? I hope so, although our County Clerk has been unable to rectify a discrepancy of several thousand early votes—an error that simply should not ever happen. Early votes aren’t tallied; just the number of voters is what has been counted, and that is off by several thousand.  

Anyway, I voted early, and I’m glad for that opportunity. But I was certain my vote wasn’t going to change between now and election day. How certain were those people who voted early and then want to change their vote? Will they learn from this experience?

Unlike many, I don’t see voting as a right and obligation for every citizen; it is a privilege to vote, and should only be done after study, thought, prayer, and understanding. While I don’t advocate any kind of voting test (beyond being a legal citizen registered to vote who can prove identification), I do wish we could convince people not to take the privilege too lightly. As I may have said before, “with great power (to vote) comes great responsibility (to vote responsibly).”

Who should vote?

·         A person who has informed themselves about the candidates and issues and wants to express their considered opinion in a way that holds as much weight as anyone else’s considered opinion.

Who should voluntarily not vote?

·         A person who is uninformed, or worse, misinformed about the candidates and issues.

·         A person who sees only what limited sources of input tell them, and believe what they’re told without questioning.

·         A person who hasn’t read and understood the US Constitution and Declaration of Independence.

·         A person who lacks understanding about the freedoms protected by our Constitution.

·         A person who fails to understand that the proper role of government is to protect our God-given rights of life, liberty, and property.

·         A person who thinks our rights come from government, and who clamors for more invented “rights” at the expense of fellow citizens.

·         A person who thinks they have a right to other people’s money—as long as they use government to steal it and hand it over to them.

·         A person who thinks a person’s skin color or other “intersectional” characteristics are more important than a person’s character or even shared political beliefs—such persons are the real bigots.

·         A person who thinks big states or urban populations should dictate to smaller states and rural and suburban areas how everyone should do things.

·         A person who thinks America is inherently and systemically evil—you can’t vote for a slight tweak to what you abhor; you overthrow it, or you leave it. So please feel free to leave.

·         A person who doesn’t want free and fair elections, but thinks that lying, cheating, stealing, and fraud are acceptable ways of conducting an election—as long as it goes their way.

·         A person who thinks anyone who disagrees with them is evil and should be silenced.

·         A person who accepts deeply ingrained patterns of corruption from those on their side of the partisan divide, but who accepts not even a single flaw in someone on the other side.

If you’re one of those persons who shouldn’t be voting, do us all a favor and recuse yourself this election. As for next time, you can earn the privilege by doing the right things and becoming the sort of person who ought to vote.

---

[i] “Texas Poll Watcher Testifies On 2020 Voter Fraud In Houston: Report,” Ken Webster, Jr., October 26, 2020, KTRH News Radio. See also “The Alleged Organized Voter Fraud Ring in Harris County” September 26, 2020, Houston Business Connections Newspaper. And see also “RIGGED ELECTION: TX 'Ballot Chaser' Illegally Pressures Voters To Change Votes,” James O’Keefe, October 27, 2020, Project Veritas YouTube. And see also “Chain of Custody? What’s That?” Kris Maxymillian, October 22, 2020, Conservative Texas Facebook. And see also “Printing Issue Affects 1/3 of Mail-In Ballots in Tarrant County, Administrator Says,” Ben Russell & Lili Zheng, October 27, 2020, NBCDFW. For an example beyond Texas, see “No Signature Match? No Postmark? No Problemo! It's This Week in Ballot Shenanigans!” Victoria Taft, October 23, 2020, PJ Media. And also consider “Joe's Freudian Sniff? Joe Biden Just Said He's Got a Great 'VOTER FRAUD Organization' Going,” Victoria Taft, October 24, 2020, PJ Media.

[ii] “Evidence of Joe Biden Corruption Just Keeps Piling Up, and the Media Refuses to Cover It,” Tyler O’Neil, October 29, 2020, PJ Media. See also “BOMBSHELL: Hunter Biden Email Names Kamala Harris, Others as Key Contacts for 'Joint Venture' With China Energy Co.,” Bryan Preston, October 22,2020, PJ Media. 

Voting and Econ Lesson

One of the best pieces I’ve read recently is Mike Rowe, theDirty Jobs guy’s response to someone who encouraged him to use his platform to encourage voting—to Get Out the Vote.

Mike Rowe
image from here

I wrote a piece about whether to GOTV just before the 2012 election, which seems even more necessary this year. I’m in agreement with Mike Rowe. Here is part of his response:

Thanks for the kind words. I appreciate it. I also share your concern for our country, and agree wholeheartedly that every vote counts. However, I’m afraid I can’t encourage millions of people whom I’ve never met to just run out and cast a ballot, simply because they have the right to vote. That would be like encouraging everyone to buy an AR-15, simply because they have the right to bear arms. I would need to know a few things about them before offering that kind of encouragement. For instance, do they know how to care for a weapon? Can they afford the cost of the weapon? Do they have a history of violence? Are they mentally stable? In short, are they responsible citizens?

And he continues:

Voting is a right, not a duty, and not a moral obligation. Like all rights, the right to vote comes with some responsibilities, but let’s face it—the bar is not set very high. If you believe aliens from another planet walk among us, you are welcome at the polls. If you believe the world is flat, and the moon landing was completely staged, you are invited to cast a ballot. Astrologists, racists, ghost-hunters, sexists, and people who rely upon a Magic 8 Ball to determine their daily wardrobe are all allowed to participate. In fact, and to your point, they’re encouraged.

The undeniable reality is this: our right to vote does not require any understanding of current events, or any awareness of how our government works. So, when a celebrity reminds the country that “everybody’s vote counts,” they are absolutely correct. But when they tell us that “everybody in the country should get out there and vote,” regardless of what they think or believe, I gotta wonder what they’re smoking.

What we need are better voters, so we don’t get the intolerable choices we got stuck with this election. He suggests:

I can’t personally encourage everyone in the country to run out and vote. I wouldn’t do it, even if I thought it would benefit my personal choice. Because the truth is, the country doesn’t need voters who have to be cajoled, enticed, or persuaded to cast a ballot. We need voters who wish to participate in the process. So if you really want me to say something political, how about this—read more.

Spend a few hours every week studying American history, human nature, and economic theory. Start with Economics in One Lesson. Then try Keynes. Then Hayek. Then Marx. Then Hegel. Develop a worldview that you can articulate as well as defend. Test your theory with people who disagree with you. Debate. Argue. Adjust your philosophy as necessary. Then, when the next election comes around, cast a vote for the candidate whose worldview seems most in line with your own.

He continues with a couple of paragraphs about the right and responsibility of informed voting. And then he concludes with this:

In the meantime, dig into Economics in One Lesson, by Henry Hazlitt. It sounds like a snooze but it really is a page turner, and you can download it for free.

So, thank you, Mike Rowe, for using your celebrity to share wisdom, yet again.

That’s two mentions, in one short piece of Economics in One Lesson, which I happened to start ^th anniversary edition from 1996. The original was written in 1946. It’s amazing that words written 70 years ago seem so current today.

reading a couple of days earlier. I’m only a few chapters into it yet, but he’s right that it is quite readable, and under 200 pages. It has been on my list of stuff to read for several years—and actually on my shelf, waiting to be read for a few months. I have a used paperback, 50

There’s a premise the book makes early on, explaining why so many economic efforts go awry. This is from page 1:

In addition to these endless pleadings of self-interest, there is a second main factor that spawns new economic fallacies every day. This is the persistent tendency of men to see only the immediate effects only on a special group, and to neglect to inquire what the long-run effects of that policy will be not only on that special group but on all groups. It is the fallacy of overlooking secondary consequences.

In this lies the whole difference between good economics and bad. The bad economist sees only what immediately strikes the eye; the good economist also looks beyond. The bad economist sees only the direct consequences of a proposed course; the good economist looks also at the longer and indirect consequences. The bad economist sees only what the effect of a given policy has been or will be on one particular group; the good economist inquires also what the effect of the policy will be on all groups.

Here at the Spherical Model we have a similar saying about unintended consequences:

Whenever government attempts something beyond the proper role of government (protection of life, liberty, and property), it causes unintended consequences—usually exactly opposite to the stated goals of the interference.

I’m sure I’ll want to refer to Hazlitt’s book more as I read to the end, but I think this is going to be a main theme. And I want to quickly apply it to one example: Obamacare, or the inaptly named Affordable Care Act.

When the Supreme Court was hearing oral arguments about whether the government had the power to compel citizens to buy a product or service, there was discussion about how healthy young people were getting away with lower costs, or going without insurance, which was unfair to older or chronically ill people. The only way to lower their costs was to bring in a lot of healthy people who would not need the coverage, to even out the risks, and the costs. There was an assumption that the government ought to have the power to even out life’s unfairness.

But, just as Hazlitt suggests, the group that needed lower cost insurance because they would make more use of it is only one group. If you focus only on the goal of solving their issue, you might end up doing harm to other—maybe every other—groups in society.

If there is a time for a person to choose to pay for health care out of pocket, it might be when that person is young and healthy. Such a person might still want catastrophic coverage, or might want to risk not having it. But if this young person is at the beginning of a career, and making only $15 an hour, he is probably not going to appreciate being forced to pay $1000 a month for coverage he doesn’t want or need, just because some older (and probably wealthier) person wants his coverage subsidized.

And, of course, as it turned out, you don’t get to keep your doctor; you don’t get to keep your coverage; and costs have skyrocketed—even for the group government was targeting to help in that SCOTUS conversation. (Michelle Malkin offer her personal experience in this piece.)

How did we get here? By electing leaders who get the attention of various factions by promising them things—and by voters who fall for it.

So, I’m with Mike Rowe: go vote, if you know what you’re doing. If you don’t know what you’re doing, stay away from the polls. If you want to get ready for future elections, read. Start with Hazlitt’s Economics in One Lesson.