(no subject)
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/06/magazine/06freak.html?8hpib
An interesting look at voting. I think all of the "civic duty" stuff is sort of comical, especially now, when we're often aware that the difference in candidates is generally nothing more than the level to which they will screw us. I think we, as a society, could do a hell of a lot more to change things for the better if we all didn't vote than if we continue to throw our votes at whichever candidate happens to scare us less. Afte r all, if you keep going to a restaurant, and they burn the food, bring it out late and cold, and then charge you too much for it, you'll eventually stop pouring your time and money into going to that restaurant. As this article suggests, we incur costs to vote for a candidate. Why should we give up those costs for an inadequate candidate.
At the same time, the result of the Swiss experiment in the article is telling. The suggestion that people vote for appearance rather than civic responsibility is too perfect for me to comprehend.
An interesting look at voting. I think all of the "civic duty" stuff is sort of comical, especially now, when we're often aware that the difference in candidates is generally nothing more than the level to which they will screw us. I think we, as a society, could do a hell of a lot more to change things for the better if we all didn't vote than if we continue to throw our votes at whichever candidate happens to scare us less. Afte r all, if you keep going to a restaurant, and they burn the food, bring it out late and cold, and then charge you too much for it, you'll eventually stop pouring your time and money into going to that restaurant. As this article suggests, we incur costs to vote for a candidate. Why should we give up those costs for an inadequate candidate.
At the same time, the result of the Swiss experiment in the article is telling. The suggestion that people vote for appearance rather than civic responsibility is too perfect for me to comprehend.