Thursday, June 12, 2014

Ontario, it's OK to not vote.

OK, enthusiastic voting advocates, here's the deal:

Your "right to complain" and participate as part of civil society is most certainly not handed out as a prize for voting. There are more meaningful ways that you can contribute to the world than by sticking a piece of paper in a cardboard box once every few years.

If you want to vote, vote well. If you don't think you can vote well with the time you have available today, it's ok! There are a lot of ways that you can make the world a better place. Today isn't your only chance.


How to vote well:
If you're going to vote, you should do it responsibly. Reading the platforms written by the advertisers for each party is not informing yourself. You should, at a minimum, have read some basic economics. Understood the trade-offs that each policy stand that you take are likely to have, and decided that those trade-offs *are worth it* - not that they don't matter or don't exist. You should try to identify your own cognitive biases and do your best to overcome them before making a decision. You need to be comfortable with the idea that any policy that you're approving for your own benefit can be used by someone you disagree with in the future.

The idea that everybody ought to vote comes from the idea that so long as enough of us vote, we cancel out each others' mistakes and come up with the best solution. But if voters don't overcome their policy misconceptions, the more people vote, the more wrong the outcome will be.

5 comments:

tao_taier said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
tao_taier said...

Voting shouldn't be mandatory, though if it was, a "none" option for objection would make sense, but people should have the freedom of movement to simply do as they will, without a centralized force deciding otherwise.

So not voting is the same as "none".
You're just letting someone else spin the roulette for you and still bare the consequences.

Jeremy said...

I'm very happy that Kathleen Wynne won the election by a landslide. Ms. Wynne is a very open and politically progressive person who advocates gay rights, women's rights, the rights of visible minorities, environmental rights and economic equality in Ontario. Her platform has won the hearts of the vast majority of Ontarians. This liberal majority in Ontario is the next step to a liberal majority federally.

tao_taier said...

@Jeremy,

They won "hearts" but not brains. You should be more concerned with the financial reality which will rob you of all rights in reality than gushy platitudes.

That "liberal(sic)" majority just hood winked you into thinking there will be no austerity, when the service(& JOB)cuts will now have to be deeper than anything Hudak would of called for.
As well as tax hikes, which will provide LESS revenue not more!(see Laffer Curve, economics).

"This liberal[sic] majority in Ontario is the next step to a liberal[sic] majority federally."

Well, they are not liberal outside of immediate social "rights" rights of the moment that are politically expedient to champion.

You don't get "rights" from governments, you get them from economic(what you can do) freedom first, and God (what you can say, even when everything else is gone/taken). Without those last two essential freedoms, you can't genuinely have either. Rich bisexuals can do anything they want, regardless of politics & society... so why are you still beating a dead horse?

The only commonality of results promoted by these "liberal" polices leads to, is that of Islam, Mohammad & the child he married!

Also, your arguments run counter to what you were preaching about Islam & multiculturalism.

You can't play on both sides, being for Islam which hunts and murders gays & lesbians (even in non third-world countries), and being for gay rights.

It was your party that nearly brought Sharia Law to Ontario, but not for the gay/bi/les, atheists & various christens and PC activists who sounded the alarm. I'm sure activists in other parties too.

For the record, I don't care if someone is gay/bi/les/not, it's whether they are obscene or activist about it.

I very much dislike hetero uber-mancho-man activists.
It's juvenile and repulsive.

Two men in genuine love is none of my business, just be discrete and don't ask for "rights" to adopt children or redefine "marriage" (look up meaning) let alone the benefits, which were designed to encourage reproduction & "family units".

This basic stuff. Stuff that other cultures around the world that you profess to be in favor of; understand fully and care not to adopt your blind sense of "openness".

It's like you don't even understand your own arguments so you can willing shift to goal post and double speak out of both sides of your mouth... and the math on that is four, if you catch my drift.

tao_taier said...

I should,(sic) of,(sic) proof read my grammar.