By voting responsibly. Sometimes it's a tough choice but you do the best you can. 3rd party voting, for example, can seem attractive, but it can mean that the really bad candidate wins.

The right way to start is to gain some substantive understanding of the candidates and the parties. But also to have some basic understanding of your country.

Then consider that your vote is not for you, but for your community, whether local in a local election or national. The idea is that the best man or woman wins. That seems obvious, but think about what it means to be best. At what? For what?

Today I'm looking at Bernie, Joe, and Elizabeth. And I'm thinking, notwithstanding the considerable merits of most of these three, wtf happened? Are these among the five or ten best possible in the US of A? They're all 70+ years old! I'm 70+ years old and I know I'm not the man I used to be! But that's the way it is. One of them or Donald. And not Donald!

On Youtube you can find speeches by Julia Gillard and Jacinda Ardern, PMs respectively of Australia and New Zealand. Why cannot we have some of that? What is wrong with us the US that we settle for candidates and presidents like Nixon, Reagan, Bush I & II, Trump, or Barry Goldwater, Bob Dole, John McCain, never mind the selection of mostly wackdoodle 3rd party candidates. And the insult of Sarah Palin!

So do your best, but also make sure that in a Kantian sense it is the best - the best for all.

If YOU decide to vote or not vote...it is a "responsible" vote.

No matter whom you vote for...that is a responsible vote...

...unless you vote for that ignorant, classless boor Trump...in which case you are being very irresponsible.

Hoped that helped.

So you’re suggesting that the most responsible way to vote is to put the good of the country or local community ahead of your own personal values, ideals, etc.? Not necessarily disagreeing, but I’ve heard it argued that you should vote for your own best interest. Care to elaborate why you fall on the side of the fence you do?

No matter whom you vote for...that is a responsible vote...

Then what does irresponsible voting look like?

Then what does irresponsible voting look like? — Pinprick

Allow me to answer that by fully quoting the post from which you took that partial quote:


If YOU decide to vote or not vote...it is a "responsible" vote.

No matter whom you vote for...that is a responsible vote...

...unless you vote for that ignorant, classless boor Trump...in which case you are being very irresponsible.

...unless you vote for that ignorant, classless boor Trump...in which case you are being very irresponsible.

And, what exactly makes doing this irresponsible?

A responsible vote is a vote that maximizes the good that is likely to get done. For yourself, your country, the whole world. This includes doing research about the options, of a depth proportional to the weight of your particular vote; just enough to come to a reasonable informed opinion. It could include abstaining from voting if you have no idea one way or another which is the better option on that topic. It includes strategic voting, like avoiding voting for someone better yet who has no chance in a race where that increases the odds of a worse candidate winning than if you had voted for someone slightly less optimal with better chances of winning. Strategy also means knowing when that is not the case, and when a vote for a better loser actually does more good (e.g. if you live in a "safe" state and think a third party candidate is better, voting for a mainstream candidate is the actual wasted vote, since a particular mainstream candidate will win anyway and your "wasted" third-party vote could at least influence party alignment in the future).

Not necessarily disagreeing, but I’ve heard it argued that you should vote for your own best interest. — Pinprick

Defined as how? I'm inviting you to think. There are lot of thing that I might like now. I could vote for the guy who says we'll demonize and dispose of you and take your property. No doubt about it: I'd be better off with my owning your property than you owning your property. Or would I? How do you answer?

How exactly is one supposed to vote responsibly? Are there situations or circumstances where it is more responsible to not vote at all? Where exactly does my responsibility lie? Myself? My party? My country? Does it make sense to compromise when the candidate you favor is out of the race and simply vote for the candidate you dislike the least?

I think it would be irresponsible to vote for someone along party lines or for strategic purposes, because to do so would be for the sake of power-grubbing, not principle. If there is no candidate who you can stand behind don’t bother voting.

Figure it out. If it has to be explained, you won't get it.

Go ahead...give it a try. Work on it.

I think it would be irresponsible to vote for someone along party lines or for strategic purposes, because to do so would be for the sake of power-grubbing, not principle. — NOS4A2

Strategic voting is about not making perfect the enemy of good.

Say there are three candidates, A, B, and C.

A if your favorite candidate. B has problems, but C is clearly way worse than them. All measured by principles: A best supports your principles, C violates them the worst, and B is not as good as A but not as bad as C.

It becomes clear that A will almost certainly not win whether or not you vote for them. But B could beat C, and your vote might make the difference, and that would further advance the cause of your principles, or at least impede attempts to violate them. To abstain from voting might be to allow C to win over B, just because you couldn't have A.

So, for the sake of defending your principles, B is the strategically best way to cast your vote.

Strategic voting is about not making perfect the enemy of good.

Say there are three candidates, A, B, and C.

A if your favorite candidate. B has problems, but C is clearly way worse than them. All measured by principles: A best supports your principles, C violates them the worst, and B is not as good as A but not as bad as C.

It becomes clear that A will almost certainly not win whether or not you vote for them. But B could beat C, and your vote might make the difference, and that would further advance the cause of your principles, or at least impede attempts to violate them. To abstain from voting might be to allow C to win over B, just because you couldn't have A.

So, for the sake of defending your principles, B is the strategically best way to cast your vote.

That would certainly be true if I was interested in seeking and maintaining power, or as a corollary, blocking someone from achieving it. But to me, voting for candidate B is a case of voting against candidate C. Rather, I will only vote for the candidate who is worthy of my vote, whether he has a chance or not, whatever the possible consequences. Consequently I will refuse to vote if there are no such candidates.

A responsible vote is a vote that maximizes the good that is likely to get done. For yourself, your country, the whole world.

This is easy enough to accept, but at least sometimes what is good for yourself is at odds with what is good for your country, etc. Then how do you decide?


Trump’s insufficiencies are too numerous and various to name. Without you offering a particular characteristic, or number of them, that qualifies voting for him as irresponsible I’ve nothing to reply.

Strategic voting is about not making perfect the enemy of good.

Say there are three candidates, A, B, and C.

A if your favorite candidate. B has problems, but C is clearly way worse than them. All measured by principles: A best supports your principles, C violates them the worst, and B is not as good as A but not as bad as C.

It becomes clear that A will almost certainly not win whether or not you vote for them. But B could beat C, and your vote might make the difference, and that would further advance the cause of your principles, or at least impede attempts to violate them. To abstain from voting might be to allow C to win over B, just because you couldn't have A.

So, for the sake of defending your principles, B is the strategically best way to cast your vote.

Would you recommend this strategy if doing so causes direct harm to yourself? For some, the line between making ends meet and being destitute is very thin. I cannot blame a person in poverty, for example, for voting for Andrew Yang solely for the purpose of receiving $1K a month, knowing how valuable that $1K a month is to them. Even if he doesn’t represent their deeply held values otherwise, or they do not believe that his policies would be better for the country.

↪Frank Apisa
Trump’s insufficiencies are too numerous and various to name. Without you offering a particular characteristic, or number of them, that qualifies voting for him as irresponsible I’ve nothing to reply. — Pinprick

Aha.

A response telling me that you are not going to respond.

Interesting.

Seemed like the polite thing to do.

That would certainly be true if I was interested in seeking and maintaining power, or as a corollary, blocking someone from achieving it. — NOS4A2

It's not at all about power, it's about getting the policy results you want.

Say the thing you care about is the well-being of puppies.

- Candidate A promises to feed and shelter all stray puppies until they can be placed in loving homes.

- Candidate B has no particular plans about puppies but is open to working with other politicians to find a solution to the puppy problem.

- Candidate C promises to send death squads out to hunt down and kill every last puppy.

Obviously candidate A would be the best pick to achieve your goals, and candidate C would be the worst.

But suppose that given the whole electoral system:

- If you don't vote, Candidate C will probably win, and all puppies will be killed.

- If you vote for Candidate C, he will probably win, and all puppies will be killed.

- If you vote for Candidate B, he might win, and likely very little will change from the puppy status quo.

- If you vote for Candidate A, Candidate C will probably win, and all puppies will be killed.

Given your principles regarding puppy well-being, how are the first or last of those voting options, where all puppies get killed, somehow better than the third, where nothing significantly changes? True, none of them is your clear favorite choice of providing food and shelter for all strays, but of the available options, it's pretty clear which gets you the closest to that, and it's not the first or last ones.

This is easy enough to accept, but at least sometimes what is good for yourself is at odds with what is good for your country, etc. Then how do you decide? — Pinprick

That depends entirely on the situation. If you are in a disadvantaged minority (not necessarily racial, just numerically) facing some kind of systemic injustice, voting to correct that injustice benefits you, and maybe removes an advantage that many more people enjoyed, but since that was an unjust advantage, that's the right thing to do. But if you're in some unjustly advantaged minority (again, just numerically; "the 1%" are a numerical minority by definition), voting to maintain your unjust advantage over others is wrong. Likewise if you're in the majority, voting in ways that advantage or disadvantage most people (like yourself) could be good or bad, depending on who they're advantaging or disadvantaging them over and how and why.

How to judge what is right or wrong, just or unjust, good or bad, etc, is the whole question of ethics, but whatever method you're using to make those judgements, vote in whatever way brings about good ends, by just means, etc.

I understand the utilitarian benefit of moving my vote to candidate B, which you explained quite nicely. But I consider my vote a statement rather than a tool to achieve a certain end. It’s expressive rather than instrumental, representing my conscience instead of my wants and desires. So I would vote for candidate A even if he was sure to lose.

Fair enough.
Thanks, P. That was nice of you.

I feel somewhat similarly, although admit that Pfhorrest’s logic is solid. I think the issue may be whether or not you bring your emotions with you to the voting booth? If you feel like you’re making a stand against a certain stance it feels gratifying and is alluring. Whereas compromising can feel like you’re betraying yourself a little bit. So perhaps that is the first question to answer; whether or not to be calculated and strategic, or passionate and assertive?

Figure it out. If it has to be explained, you won't get it. — Frank Apisa

If you can't explain it in a clear and concise way as you would to a child you don't understand it yourself. How can he be expected to take you seriously if you are unable to provide evidence for your claims, or even a general explination?

MyOwnWay
13
↪Frank Apisa
Figure it out. If it has to be explained, you won't get it.
— Frank Apisa

If you can't explain it in a clear and concise way as you would to a child you don't understand it yourself. How can he be expected to take you seriously if you are unable to provide evidence for your claims, or even a general explination? — MyOwnWay

Take this in its progression, MOW.

Pinprick wrote: "How exactly is one supposed to vote responsibly?"

I replied, "If YOU decide to vote or not vote...it is a "responsible" vote. No matter whom you vote for...that is a responsible vote...unless you vote for that ignorant, classless boor Trump...in which case you are being very irresponsible. Hoped that helped."

In one of the other forums where I post...where my fellow posters might be a bit less intellectual than the people here, I would have posted that remark in green font...the universally accepted way of indicating a post as being sarcasm or smarmy.

Here, in a forum devoted to Philosophy, I figured most people would be more than intelligent enough to understand the "Trump" part of my response as pure sarcasm. So when Pin asked about it, I indicated "if it has to be explained, you won't get it" as further sarcasm.

Sorry if this was above your head. I'll try to dumb my remarks down if I see further need for that.

I truly hope I don't.

As it appears to me voting responsibly is an impossible task. To do so would require sufficient information on a wide range of things from the moral character of candidates to adequate knowledge of complex social, economic, global, etc. issues and that we know is a tall order. The fact the media is known to give conflicting accounts of candidates and parties adds to the confusion; instead of getting a clear picture of a white horse to pin their hopes on and a black horse to keep out of office, voters are faced with the black & white stripes of zebras. Can anyone vote responsibly then? Does the notion of responsibility even make sense in this context? To vote responsibly would be to do so in the interest of all but if one doesn't know what that amounts to, forget about the difficult task of making everyone happy, how can one ever vote responsibly?

Good point. How then would you determine who to vote for, while maintaining a clean conscious?

How exactly is one supposed to vote responsibly? — Pinprick

It’s a curious question. In general, doing something responsibly means realizing the foreseeable consequences of your actions and being willing to face those consequences. Now, what are the consequences of your voting behavior? Absolutely nothing. However you vote, it will not change the outcome of the election. You might as well vote for any crazy candidate or not vote at all, your action will have no consequences because the winner would have won no matter how you had voted.

The normal objection to this is: Sure, but if everybody thought like that, there would be no serious elections and democracy would cease to exist.

Let’s suppose that’s a valid objection. Its implied premise is: “you should act the way you want everyone else to act”. If you take this Kantian maxim seriously you should vote for your favorite candidate regardless of his chance of winning, because if everyone did like you, this candidate would actually win.

Tactical voting breaks with this principle and offers nothing instead. Either you vote according to the self-imposed fantasy that your vote decides how everyone else votes, or you take the hyper-realistic approach saying that your vote doesn’t matter at all. If you opt for the fantasy, you might as well do it completely. A combination of the two doesn’t make sense.

How exactly is one supposed to vote responsibly? Are there situations or circumstances where it is more responsible to not vote at all? Where exactly does my responsibility lie? Myself? My party? My country? Does it make sense to compromise when the candidate you favor is out of the race and simply vote for the candidate you dislike the least? — Pinprick

I've heard arguments along these lines: Since robust voter turnout is said to add "legitimacy" or perception of legitimacy to an election, eligible voters who are radically critical of a government, an electoral process, or a candidate might do better to abstain, especially if the electoral process seems biased.

I think such arguments are flawed. I suggest that we're obliged to vote even in cases of radical dissent, even in cases of biased or rigged elections.

I would argue there's a significant chance that the votes we actually cast tend to influence the official outcome of elections, and a significant chance that our votes and the outcome of elections actually influence policy. If you can't rule this out entirely, go vote.

There are other ways to express dissent against a candidate, an electoral process, a government, a global order. Try some of those instead of not voting.

It's irrational and counterproductive to abstain just because you're not thrilled with any of the candidates. Go vote for the one that seems least awful to you. In a close contest, you should arguably be more tactical: Vote for the one who needs votes in your voting district to defeat a more detestable candidate.

For example, say three candidates are running. A is your favorite, C is detestable, and B is somewhere in between. A has no real chance of winning. It's a close contest between B and C, and votes in your district will contribute to the result. So you vote for B in this particular election. Try not to cry about it. Vote your conscience wherever you can without sending your city, your country, and the whole world to hell. When there's a bad taste in your mouth on the way back from the polls, consider more productive means of dissent and political action.

If everyone behaves this way, we might be able to push policy and public debate in the direction the people prefer, and thus improve the selection of candidates in future elections. If people like you don't vote, people unlike you will have more influence on the course of policy and debate, and on the selection of candidates in future elections.

Don't be fooled into thinking our votes in one election only matter for that one election. The results of every election have much wider and much more long-lasting effects than that.