Wednesday, September 30, 2009
On not bothering to vote
Meg Whitman, former CEO of EBay and candidate for governor of California, didn't vote in a whole lot of elections according to this Slate article. The article gives the standard rational choice argument regarding no one vote ever deciding the election. Whitman apologized. Do you think California voters should care about this when they decide whether to vote for Whitman?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Many economists have long argued that voting is, on the individual level, irrational---
ReplyDeleteWell, economists are positivists. They believe the individual can be evaluated according to a some methodological criterion. We are'nt rational. We are'nt irrational. We are somewhere in between, and until these dam "social" scientists start getting their priorites straight, ie individuals first and foremost-not the model, they'll forever be in the dark.
IDK, but unlike Cali, I'm not gonna jump on the "disenfranchised train." Quite the contrary, maybe if she got a little more involved and used some more of her so-called "civic skills", that she appartently learned being some big-shot at a fortune 500 company, things would be different. Instead, she chose to make tons of money, and now that she has got some time on her hands(I guess she's not working anymore???)Whitman's decided to throw her hat in the ring---for the FIRST time ever.
Do I think Cali voters should care? Yes. However, it is her right to run, so let her run.
J-Byrd
oh Tigers 16
ReplyDeleteBulldawgs 14
I recently read a great OP-ED in the Washington Post about the fact that economist need to take less math and more social sciences. After reading this article, I think that columnist was absolute right because they would never propose a proposterous theory that tells people your vote does not count. If free market economist ever got back to real world where actions have human consequences and not mathmatical ones. Americans died for the right to go into a voting booth all over this country and be counted. I would simply ask those free marketer's if all men and women are created equal why should one vote matter more than another? One of the worst stains on this nations history is the fact that all people have note always had the right to vote. I think the people of California should care about Meg Whitman not voting and not even being registered to vote. It is one thing to not vote but to not even bother to register to vote? I think that says something about her view of democracy and the belief (Most Americans) have in this nation that everyones voice does count.
ReplyDeleteOn a side note I believe whitman does not have a chance anyway. I think the current Governor is going to be a worse anchor around the neck of any GOP nominee than President Bush was. I think as a state California is more liberal than most of the country with exception of MA, people in California like gov't services, cutting gov't services very unpopular there ask Arnold, the Republican candidate candidate cannot run on the philopsy of less government, and finally I am not sure a moderate like Whitman can survive that Republican primary.
There is something to be said if any politician places themselves in the position where they expect people to get out and vote for them when they rarely made the choice themselves. How can voters pretend that she will practice what she preaches in any other aspect of public policymaking...
ReplyDeleteI agree with Chad on the consistency and trust front. She cannot rightly expect people to make the effort to come out, vote for her, and spend their resources on voting for her when she, through her actions, seems to have shown that voting is not something she necessarily prioritizes in her life. But now, all of a sudden, voting is so important because it affects her life directly?
ReplyDeleteI mean Wow, talk about obviously selfish. Isn't the "politicians are awful, selfish, manipulative people" stereotype already rampant enough? Do we really need people like her exploiting and encouraging those ideas?
This entire class is analyzing and picking apart different aspects of political participation: the whys, the hows, etc. We have touched on the question of why, if it's deemed so important, more people don't vote. It's because of things like this, it's because what the country calls democracy and representation is often clouded by alterior motives and predominantly selfish intentions and visible hypocrisy.
It just makes me sick.
Should Californians care? YES!
Why vote for someone who, from the get-go, has shown a lack of reliability as an individual? You shouldn't. That's just asking to be disappointed.
This article has strong ties to the first article we read in class. In The New Yorker article, they talk about how Americans, 200 years ago, saw voting as a privilege, even a duty if you will.
ReplyDeleteSo since when did this nation stop caring? I mean, we as a class discovered that overall voting rates have gone down since the 1960's, and we could not find a clear and definite reason why.
Maybe, just maybe, we as Americans have lost touch with what this country was founded upon. Maybe we are too important to give a few hours of our time to the country that has given so much to us.
To the articles credit, they did pay attention to the fact that civic duty as American citizens might be long gone. But why does it have to be? It should not be that way, and i wish I could do something to stop it from getting worse. But hey...I'm just one guy...my voice wouldn't matter anyway.