The greatest tyranny is the tyranny of malicious illusion. Endorsing organized coercion by pretending it is somehow voluntary is not just unconscionable, but downright cruel. Deceitfully passing off vice as virtue is the last thing that truly consistent political dissidents would want to risk doing, lest they be discovered to be just as hypocritical as those they intend to defeat.
In order for a Republic to work, the populace must be competent enough to elect representatives to the legislature. Considering the various statistics and research studies suggesting that the majority of Americans are incompetent buffoons (courtesy of the public fool system), this would indicate such a high level of ineptness to the point that these are exactly the type of fools who would easily be conned into supporting a politician through emotional rhetoric instead of based on rational criteria. Other social science research shows that people who lack expertise in a given subject (in this case, politics) are too incompetent to gauge the quality of whether anyone is qualified for public office. Worse, they are so incompetent to the point that they can’t even accurately estimate the severity of their own ineptness, always overinflating their performance on various tasks.
Another study revealed that political partisans, when presented with objective facts, will twist those in such a manner as to hang on to those facts that support their preconceived notions while conveniently ignoring the rest of them. According to psychiatrist Scott Peck, there exist only a “fortunate few” who are able to successfully avert this self-delusional trap, and thus possess the best chance of being even somewhat objective. I think it is fair to declare at this point that most American voters are an uneducated, slovenly mob instead of being an enlightened, rational citizenry.
Voter fraud is an all too well-known topic, yet for some idiotic reason, many political dissidents still think they can elect their preferred Messianic figure despite this. Ballot results are relatively easy to forge; electronic voting machines just made the fraud that much easier than the traditional paper ballots, which actually required some “creative accounting” skills to pull off. There have been provable incidents where particular agents of the State don’t actually deserve their jobs even according to the government’s own rules; thus, the air of legitimacy (which was already incredibly thin) totally evaporates.
Similar to how congressional aides regularly don’t correctly record which side of a political issue geographical constituents are on in the first place, it’s not that all uncommon for votes to be “misrecorded” either. Regardless of when voting officials actually do record results even halfway accurately, they admittedly keep databases on voting histories (so called “enhanced voter files”) with the explicit intention of profiling voters for the next electoral cycle. Everyone who chooses to vote is getting their individual voter files datamined by both the Democrats and the Republicans.
Voting encourages compromise by instilling in the body politic the supposed necessity of selecting between “the lesser of two evils.” Besides the fact that the lesser of two evils is still evil, defensive or protest voting only serves to perpetuate the illusion that if you vote “against” a candidate, you’re not really voting for his opponent. Such a fallacious notion really belongs in the wasteland of failed ideas, for the history of human experience testifies to the antithesis of that thought.
Downs’ Median Voter Theorem narrows the range of options down to a set of strict binary “choices,” that are, in fact, so very similar to each other as to be nearly indistinguishable in substance, even though they may seem superficially dissimilar. Any other choices that may be presented from time to time are not given equal weight as the two primary darlings are. The Left-Right Paradigm manipulates the median voter theorem so as to artificially limit the “serious” political candidates to those who are beholden to the dual hegemonic political parties.
The most generous individual vote strength percentage I’ve ever seen is .0253%, which is attributable to the average UK voter. For Americans, one forum discussion thread centered on the ever-shifting variables of the sample size of eligible voters, the turnout of those voters, and whether the contested area is in a swing state. A figure of .00086% was given, but that was attributed to only those who voted early and often. What I found most revealing was the chap who invented the Voter Power Index admitting that single member plurality voting “is profoundly undemocratic” and “betrays the fundamental principle of democracy – one person, one vote.” The point here is that, holding all other variables constant, individual vote strength percentages are so absurdly minuscule as to be essentially inert.
Some would argue that if the voting system were anything other than winner-take-all, then election results would reflect the “will of the people” and thus be truly representational. Typically utilizing a multi-party structure, proportional representation (PR) enacts preference ordering of candidates, so as to eliminate the “wasted vote” syndrome. Despite this, what still wins elections (quantitatively speaking) are dedicated voting blocs, coalitional voting discipline (as in the case of PR), and especially straight-ticket voters. Essentially what happens in PR is that the special interests become the political parties, so instead of the special interests bribing legislators to pass bills that exclusively favor them (which is known as lobbying), they write and pass the bills themselves, despite even open-list PR. The main flaw of proportional representation is that it encourages corporatism even more then single-member plurality voting already does (especially considering Duverger’s Law).
Legislators, as the most commonly elected agents of the State, are beholden to their campaign contributors, NOT their geographic constituents (except in rare cases when they are one and the same). The party who throws the most Federal Reserve Notes around will always trump the plebeian civilian schmucks who happen to live in the same area. Once successfully elected, the politician in question now possesses the incumbency advantage, which is a game changer. The rule is to stay in office; the exception is to be beaten.
Most popular electoral media coverage is on the executive branch, not the legislative. This is pretty startling, considering that the legislative branch was the only one that was specifically designed to be representative; it is what makes a Republic of what otherwise would be a military junta, an absolute monarchy, or a Communist dictatorship. Voters have more sway over legislators than the President, but they are told to focus more on something they automatically have less effect over.
Even worse than this is the overemphasis on executive over legislative elections as well as the hyped focus on federal over state-level (or provincial) elections. The fact that a gubernatorial election is considered less newsworthy than the Presidential election is alarming since your Governor is infinitely more important and more accessible to you than the President ever will be. The fact that Congressional elections are considered more important than the state-level legislative elections is appalling, since your state senator (for instance) affects your life more directly than some douchebag US Senator ever will. Minarchism is all about LOCAL government on the smallest scale possible.
Many dissidents have heralded more popular democracy as the antidote for what ails the body politic. What these well-meaning souls fail to realize is that popular voting has proven to lessen our Liberty, especially considering two important historical precedents. The 17th Amendment utterly gutted the purpose of the US Senate as being representatives of their state legislatures to being considered as yet one more US representative. This not only lessened the perceived relevance of the 50 state legislatures, but also mocked the balancing act of federalism. The subsequent gutting of the Electoral College is especially appalling; first, over half of the states in the Union are bound to the popular vote; second, in the non-biding states they are “advisory,” but in that case, why should the Electors give a flying flip? They should vote according to their own criteria instead of what the uneducated democratic mob feels like doing at the moment.
Notable alternative media figureheads will occasionally spout the invaluable benefits of “direct democracy” tools. Referenda are promoted as a runaround the legislature by providing an opportunity for the hapless civilians in a local area to vote on a piece of legislation. Recalls are designed to remove a public servant from office before his term ends. The problem with both are that not only do they typically rely on petitions to get started and that during each there is the ever present tyranny of the majority, but also that you are inherently relying on government officials to tally the votes.
Curtis Ellis, the same bloke who invented the concept of “democracy commandos,” has made a suggestion that voting must be made compulsory! The implications of this are quite atrocious from any principled perspective. In order to have freedom, people must be forced, under threat of punishment by the State, to perform specific actions, or so Mr. Ellis would have us believe. This kind of tyrannical thinking is what brought us public school attendance, jury duty, the draft, and paying taxes. It is a bold mockery of the consent of the governed.
If you choose to vote, you CAN’T complain, since by voting you are already agreeing to the election results ahead of time; this is philosophical similar to when a court arbitrates a case, in that you are agreeing to the verdict ahead of time by being involved in a trial in the first place. I prefer to not participate or otherwise sanction the begging and groveling for smaller portions of wealth that were stolen at gunpoint. It is both a matter of honesty and pride to not pretend that dangerous illusions are beneficial to human beings, when the fact of the matter is, is that they are detrimental to the human experience in every conceivable way.
The American voting system has cheated, been broken, and lost the faith of considerable portions of the population, seeing that the least active mainline political process method is that of voting. Organizations such as Rock the Vote, MoveOn.org, Ron Paul’s 2012 presidential campaign, and such others who have made it a point to encourage previously non-voting (or at least apolitical) people to vote are disingenuous for attempting to instill false hope in our struggle for Liberty. The consistent trend of decreasing voter turnout is a positive change and it should continue with paralleling increases of non-compliance with the Establishment as a whole.
For those who can’t bear to not vote, the next best thing is to become a straight-ticket voter for the Libertarian Party. As much as their condescending attitude at LP chapter meetings towards newcomers and overall partyarchy irk me, they are the biggest third-party in America, being larger than all the other fringe parties put together. Another option is to go ahead and vote, but when you’re in the booth, vote for the write-in candidate. You can write in a fictional character, yourself, a fellow dissident or hapless bystander that got railroaded by the government, or “None of the Above,” (this is essentially a vote of no confidence). Hopefully by doing this, people will understand that the entire exercise is pure pabulum, and they will eventually regroup by exploring other methods that have a realistic chance for securing our Liberty.