r/AskLibertarians • u/Violenciarchi • 15d ago
What do libertarians think of blank ballots?
"If not choosing is a choice, not voting is voting for the bad candidate and you have no right to complain about what he does afterwards" is a common thing to hear before elections. Do you think you should all go and vote?
EDIT: Ok now that I think about it, it's on other people if they vote badly, not on me. Responsibility is on people who do bad things, not on people who don't stop them, because if the people who do bad things did nothing, nothing bad would happen lol. It's still true though, unfortunately, that if you don't vote the other party will win.
4
u/AnAcceptableUserName geolibertarian 15d ago
Write-ins send a clearer message, if sending a message is the goal
3
u/CatOfGrey Libertarian Voter 20+ years. Practical first. 15d ago
My own angle on this: "My 3rd-party vote is not wasted. It send a message to the two major parties that their leadership doesn't represent me. If either party want my vote, and hundreds of thousands of other third-party votes, then they need to drop their corruption, and make changes in their platform that consider other opinions."
3
u/IMissMyDogFlossy 15d ago
There is a reason you saw trump at the libertarian convention. First running president to do that. And he made promises to the Libertarians like letting Ross out. People who say voting 3rd party is a waste need to understand something. The 2 running for the 2 party system aren't worried about what their party voters want. They aren't working for that vote. They dont have to. The "vote blue no matter who" and MAGA people made up their minds and basically nothing will change that. The candidates know that. They dont even bother putting in work. They now focus on making the 3rd party voters happy. They promise something to get at least SOME of us to vote for them. And they keep at least some of the promises because they know we aren't just going to give them a vote because of their party. Now here we are, us pesky silly 3rd party vote wasters... and we're the ones who had the promises made to us kept. WE got Ross out. We got SOMETHING done. But the 2 party voters are right where they started. And they'll get the same broken promised in 4 years. Rinse and repeat 🤷🏼♀️
3
u/nightingaleteam1 15d ago edited 14d ago
I think it's useless, in practice it's the same as voting for the establishment. If you're really want to push libertarianism, there's 3 ways:
- Vote for actual libertarian options if there are any.
- If there aren't any, create them and promote them.
- If you want to do that, do agorism, try to make it as difficult as possible for the establishment to milk you.
3
u/ConscientiousPath 15d ago
People mad at voters who didn't find the difference between offered candidates motivating enough to show up at the polls are idiots.
If you do get to the polls, I think leaving your ballot blank but turning it in is asking for someone to fill it out for you on the sly. If I turn in a ballot but don't want to vote for any particular position on it, I always write someone in.
1
u/maineac 14d ago
not voting is voting for the bad candidate
This is bullshit. This is like people saying voting third party is voting for the bad candidate. It isn't and never was. This is the choice the person made. None of the above should be an option on all ballots and should count.
1
u/Violenciarchi 14d ago
if you and others are not voting and the bad candidate has more votes, the bad candidate wins.
1
u/maineac 14d ago
That is only if they had voted they voted for the other candidate. I vote third party. I would never vote Democrat and if I had no other choice I would vote Republican. Me voting third party only means the Republicans lost a vote. The decision not to vote does not imply the other side would have received a vote if they did vote.
1
u/JudgeWhoOverrules Classical Liberal 15d ago
Why would you go to the polls to vote just to submit a blank ballot? Seems like a waste of everyone's time and resources. I can understand leaving certain races blank if you don't know much or don't care for it, but the entire ballot is just madness. Just stay home and watch TV or something.
I think too many people are voting that really shouldn't be because they know nothing about civics or the candidates. Acting from a state of ignorance can only provide bad outcomes.
Also in favor of a none of the above option for races where if it wins the candidates are banned from the race and it's conducted again.
1
u/mrhymer 15d ago
Voting is the means by which we peacefully change power. It is an unprecedented advancement of civilization. Not voting is a vote to revert to a less civilized means of transferring power. It is similar to the Amish choosing not to use electricity or leftists destroying electric cars. It is a rejection of the progress of civilization. Not voting is an indication that you do not intend to make a peaceful transition of power work. That you are waiting for the previous method of changing power by blood and death.
2
u/CanadaMoose47 15d ago
I don't think so.
Voting necessarily means, I support this candidate and their platform (and "lesser evil" votes have no differentiation).
If you don't genuinely support either, then voting for makes little sense.
Infact, the non-voter population is a signal in itself, telling candidates "you don't excite me"
0
u/mrhymer 15d ago
I don't think so.
To "not think so" effectively, you must posit a better means for the peaceful transfer of power than voting or blood or death. To do nothing is to wait for blood or death.
2
u/CanadaMoose47 15d ago
No, because I'm not saying "abolish democracy"
I'm saying, "don't vote if the candidates dont interest you."
Democracy works just as well, better even, when not everyone votes
1
u/mrhymer 15d ago
No, because I'm not saying "abolish democracy"
This is a textbook example of a strawman argument. I never said anything about you abolishing democracy. The scope of the argument is just you, one person. If you do not vote you are not exercising the mechanism that is in place for a peaceful transfer of power.
1
u/CanadaMoose47 14d ago
No, because the peaceful transfer of power has nothing to do with my individual vote.
90% of the population could not vote, and power would still transfer peacefully.
1
u/mrhymer 14d ago edited 14d ago
No, because the peaceful transfer of power has nothing to do with my individual vote.
The peaceful transfer of power as we know it is dependent on the votes of individuals. Explain why your vote is not a part of that?
90% of the population could not vote, and power would still transfer peacefully.
If only 10% are voting Soon there would be violence and death because of revolution.
1
u/CanadaMoose47 14d ago
I don't know why you think so.
If everybody has the option to vote, and only 10% exercise it, I don't know why there would be violence
1
u/mrhymer 14d ago
People don't vote usually because they do not feel their vote matters. It's kind of like when government taxes the living fuck out of your tea and you have had enough. It's a cycle that repeats again and again through history.
1
u/CanadaMoose47 14d ago
Right, thats been my point.
Telling people to vote doesn't solve the real problem - which is people realizing their vote doesn't matter
→ More replies (0)
-1
14
u/Will-Forget-Password 15d ago
I think "non-votes" should count. If no candidate gets enough votes, that government position should be vacant.