-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Don't Trust the Voters
- General Political Discussion
- 6 Replies
Don't Trust the Voters | The Libertarian Institute
In Against Democracy, libertarian professor and political philosopher Jason Brennan argues voting is bad for most people. Based on sixty-five years of data, he shows how completely and efficiently the voting public is misinformed on vital issues each election. The majority of voters are even...
libertarianinstitute.org
In Against Democracy, libertarian professor and political philosopher Jason Brennan argues voting is bad for most people. Based on sixty-five years of data, he shows how completely and efficiently the voting public is misinformed on vital issues each election. The majority of voters are even ignorant of what party is in power, and, for example, during a presidential election, only a minority knew which candidate was more “conservative” or “liberal.” They vote with this lack of knowledge, and it negatively affects you and me. Brennan wrote they “impose these ignorant and irrational decisions on innocent people.” In other words, as Brennan says, voting is not a victimless crime. Brennan declares “The mantra ‘Get out the vote! Every vote counts!’ is dangerous. Most citizens are not doing us any favor by voting. Asking everyone to vote is like asking everyone to litter.”
Numerous studies demonstrate people consume political information in a biased manner. It is not only their choice of biased sources, but they do not process information the same way they would non-political information. They suffer from confirmation bias and reject facts conflicting with their preconceived ideas. In short, they are not able to reason about political issues.
When consuming data outside of a political situation, test subjects are fine, but the same data placed in a political context will cause them to automatically conform it to their biases. In other words, when it comes to politics, we refuse to accept facts contrary to our preferences. It is more important to be within our herd than to admit we might be wrong.
In Democracy for Realists, and agreeing with Brennan, Professors Christopher H. Achen and Larry M. Bartels argue most voters have very little understanding of politics; for example, in a survey only 44% of voters could name at least one branch of our government. The typical voter’s knowledge amounts to what can be gained from headlines and talking points. Voters en masse do not understand policy, or how actions will affect them.
Not only are voters ignorant of relevant information needed to cast a logical vote, but they also believe many falsehoods when entering the voting booths. Often they unknowingly vote against their own declared interests and reasons for voting in the first place. A large section of voters for both parties would change their party if they were better informed. For example, many conservative media watchers would vote Democrat but what they “know” of the party makes it impossible to do so. Likewise with left-leaning media watchers; if they were “exposed” to the whole truth, many would vote Republican.
In The Myth of the Rational Voter, libertarian Professor Bryan Caplan’s research also corroborates these views. As he discovered, “voters are worse than ignorant; they are, in a word, irrational–and vote accordingly…emotion and ideology…powerfully sway human judgment.” Caplan argues that since an individual is powerless to change an election, and because they receive no direct negative consequences from an uninformed vote, taking time to research and give a well-informed decision is not seen as worth their time and energy. As a result, most votes are based on emotion and ideology rather than facts and informed reasoned choices.
Since the 1940s, researchers at Columbia University have been measuring the knowledge of voters. It has never been impressive, but the decay has increased in recent decades. Brennan quotes Ilya Somin, author of Democracy and Political Ignorance: “The sheer depth of most individual voters’ ignorance is shocking to many observers not familiar with the research.” This ignorance is prevalent among supporters of both parties in every election, on a wide array of subjects.
Not only does the average voter need to gain knowledge about basic politics and how our government functions, but they need to understand that what they think they know is often factually inaccurate. They would vote otherwise, were they better informed. Voters are ignorant of how policies would affect them, where politicians stand on issues, and how those elected officials act after the election. They are unaware of which candidate supported what position, and uninformed in many other areas. Outside of presidential elections, most voters would not know who to vote for without a “D” or an “R” next to the candidate’s name.
Because voters generally have no idea what is going on, they can’t hold politicians accountable after they are elected. Further, the vast majority of those studied could only repeat misinformation about the opposing party rather than describe their actual stances. In other words, voters only had one option because what they “knew” about the other candidate and their position was false. Which makes politicians’ supposed accountability to voters seem a myth.
Achen and Bartels also argue politicians are rarely held accountable for their actions, since most voters are ignorant of what policies have been enacted and how they affect them. Further, voters often oust or keep current politicians based on something other than policy, namely how things happen to be going at election time. Their judgment is rarely on the politician’s performance but on other influences such as natural disasters and even the success of local sports teams.
Emotion, rather than logic, is what motivates the majority of voters. Philosopher George Tollefson wrote:
In agreement, Gustave Le Bon wrote, “The masses have never thirsted after truth. They turn aside from evidence that is not to their taste…Whoever can supply them with illusions is easily their master; whoever attempts to destroy their illusions is always their victim.”
Likewise, Scott Simon revealed this truth when he wrote, “A supporter once called out ‘Governor Stevenson, all thinking people are for you,’ and Adlai Stevenson answered, ‘That is not enough. I need a majority.'”
Based on his research, Brennan categorizes voters into various groups. First, “Vulcans” make up a tiny percentage of the voting population and remain unaffected by politics’ mental and emotional degradation. As a result, they can logically and rationally consume political information and make thoughtful decisions. Next “hobbits,” are those who don’t care about politics, don’t know much, and have no interest in it; they simply want to be left alone. The allure of controlling others via government force has no hold on them, similar to the allure of the One Ring hobbits resist so well.
However, “hooligans” make up most of the voting population; they see politics as a team sport and are “beset by cognitive biases, such as confirmation bias or intergroup bias.” Political parties become, for many, a team sport where both rivals wave flags and symbols and scream slogans at each other. As a result, they become furious and feel hatred toward others on the opposing team. Politics brings out the worst in some, dividing families, churches, and communities. I have noticed this among my customers; when the more politically active types meet people for the first time, they will often recite a section of the party creed, throwing out a signal to see if they get a friendly response. Once this is achieved and they know they are on the same team, they feel empowered to begin trashing the dissenting party.
When it comes to politics, hooligans stop thinking logically and enter into a tribal good-versus-evil mode. They cannot seek to understand those from the other side, and this mindset breeds hatred. Becoming involved in politics is like a viral vector for phronemophobia. I think it is partly why each party demonizes the other; to justify the abuses they will inflict on them when they come to power. They must demonize the other side in the eyes of their voters to morally justify obliterating their enemies’ self-rule. They must show their voters the other side cannot govern itself.
Getting involved in politics causes hatred; we demonize others outside of our tribe, making us think irrationally. Brennan said, “Politics… pulls us apart, stultifies and corrupts us, and makes us civil enemies.” Again, Brennan writes:
Numerous studies from multiple researchers demonstrate emotion is intertwined when discussing politics, and people stop thinking logically. The brain releases pleasure responses when party members are given information revealing opposing politicians as hypocrites, allowing them to be criticized. The same happened when they defended members within their party for the identical actions. Many believe this pleasure response becomes addictive, like cigarettes and caffeine. Likewise, people watch their favorite political shows for the same reason; their brain generates these chemical responses as their source reinforces their position and ridicules the opposition.
Voters are willing to accept and defend actions of members of their party they condemn in others. When told the opposing party held a position they would condemn it harshly, but when it was revealed it was their party’s position, they did a 360, now defending it. Hypocrisy is innate in the thought of the typical voter. We would rather do less work and believe what we want than do more work and challenge our cherished views.
An alarming study showed that if nine people (who, unknown to the tenth, were shills working with the researcher) gave the wrong answer to an easy, straightforward question, the tenth, being the test subject, would give the wrong answer 75% of the time. Brain analysis showed these subjects actually believed their statements were factual; they were not just trying to fit in. This is precisely why mob politics (democracy) is the perfect political system to enable a population to accept falsehoods.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Hunter Biden suggests Ambien contributed to Joe Biden’s poor debate performance
- By Richard T
- News & Current Events (Articles Required)
- 12 Replies
Taking the 5th is almost always a good idea. Lying to Federal officials is always a bad idea. Just ask Martha Stewart or others like her. If they want these people to talk they can offer immunity.Loading…
www.abc4.com
And in other related news
Another Biden aide invokes Fifth Amendment in deposition before House panel
Annie Tomasini became the third Biden administration official to plead the Fifth Amendment in a House panel's investigation into the former president's mental fitness.abcnews.go.com
Loading…
thehill.com
Biden's doctor has also done the same:
Kevin O’Connor, Biden’s former doctor, also pleaded the Fifth to questions asked during his testimony before the same panel last week, which earned another rebuke from Comer.
“When Joe Biden’s doctor was asked under oath whether he had ever been instructed to lie about Joe Biden’s health, he pleaded the Fifth,”
Obviously pleading the 5th isn't, by itself, any indicator of guilt or wrongdoing. And sometimes lawyers will advise clients to do that if the question is either a no-win question or deliberately meant to obscure context/facts
However, if you look at the transcripts of the questions these three different individuals were being asked, they didn't seem to fit that mold - and were fairly straightforward, hence...some of these invocations of the 5th can't help but look a tad suspicious.
Were you ever instructed to misrepresent the President’s health?
Were you ever told to lie about the President’s health?
Did any unelected official or family member execute the duties of the President?
Did you advise President Joe Biden to pardon his son?
If the answer to those questions is a definitive "No", then why would they answer with anything but definitive and assertive "No"?
The other possibility, there are times where lawyers will all advise their clients to plead the fifth to hedge against additional charges of perjury if their answers don't line up.
For example:
If John Says: "I'll invoke my 5th amendment rights" to the question "Do you know who stole that car?"
And then Dave gets on the stand and says: "It was Chuck who stole the car, and John knew about it"
John would've been in a lot more trouble had he answered with "No"
You have an interesting take on justice and vengeance intersecting. Yours is probably more mainstream but I'll offer this alternative. If it is personal or based on past offenses where conviction was never secured, then justice seems lacking to me. I offer OJ as evidence on the motive of prosecutors and even juries. No one goes to jail that long on a first offense robbery/(plus unusual kidnapping charges) unless there is a special motive. That motive was to keep OJ in jail longer to pay for the murder that he skated on. This is not impartial justice. It is justice with a vengeance.
Trump too had vengeance prosecutions as you noted. The NY prosecution was done in such a way that the charges were uniquely applied. He had all kinds of prosecutions thrown his way, as it became a political game that is being played on both sides. So to me the reasons are quite relevant. Prosecutors have lots of latitude in charging, in plea deals, in sentencing. I could side with mercy far more than I could side with throw the book at them. Motives to smear and demean by attempting prosecutions should give way to what is practical as well.
Lerner head of the IRS had far more perjury and bad behavior than Federal Reserve Chairman Powell. So the Powell referral to the DOJ is plain and simple from the wrong motive, to force him to resign or lower interest rates.
For the case against covering up Biden's health. It seems pretty subjective to ask a non DR. about someone's health. Is it memory loss from Alzhiemer's or a lack of sleep, or medication? Even a Dr. short on tests should not make a diagnosis too quickly. To me the system failed because the 12 amendment switched the President and VP to being from the same party. Had a GOP person been VP the health status would have been questioned more vigorously. Of course a better cure would be to have a more constitutional limitations on the President such as age or competency tests. Perhaps more required speeches like the state of the union though without notes or a teleprompter too would deter those with poor cognitive abilities? anyway, a sort of fascinating outcome, that America could run somewhat on autopilot with very little consequences at least as of yet.
Upvote
0
