Gordon Tullock Explains Why He Doesn't Vote
GMU Professor Gordon Tullock won't be in this line today...
In an irreverent look at voting, George Mason economist Gordon Tullock (co-founder of the Public Choice school of Economics) explains in this PBS video why he doesn't vote, and why he believes you're better off avoiding the polls altogether on Election Day.
"It's more likely that you'll get killed driving to the polling booth, than it is that your vote will change the outcome of the election."
But what if nobody voted? Professor Tullock answers...
HT: Cafe Hayek
"It's more likely that you'll get killed driving to the polling booth, than it is that your vote will change the outcome of the election."
But what if nobody voted? Professor Tullock answers...
HT: Cafe Hayek
19 Comments:
I liken the election to being forced between Coke and Pepsi. Slightly different flavors of the same product.
I'd like to vote for somebody who voted no on the bailout.
I'd like to vote for someone who would get rid of the socialist, nanny state entitlement programs...
It would save billions more dollars than what was WASTED on that damn bailout...
Juandos,
1) Thanks for your kind response to this comment.
2) We agree on entitlements and the bailout.
3) I don’t like either candidate for President (or many other politicians). But, what I REALLY fear is a Far Left supermajority.
I'd like to vote for someone who would get rid of the socialist, nanny state entitlement programs.......like the $700 billion dollar bailout and tax breaks for corporations who ship jobs and technologies to other countries.
I believe that voter turnout is directly related to the overall health of our democracy. Perhaps we should follow Switzerland and impose a fine (about $100) if you don't vote.
Anonymous (11:18 AM),
Is this your idea of how to keep jobs here at home?
We have the second highest corporate tax rate in the developed world. Is it any wonder that business moves jobs overseas?
But, the real story is that the entire world is losing manufacturing jobs to automation. Other jobs take their place (in locations where government does a slightly better job of staying out of the way).
Professor Tullock is one of those I would classify as too clever by half.
America! Obama has plans to put gas in your car and pay your mortgage!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6ikOxi9yYk
We are in for a world of hurt.
Vote for Dr. Pepper!
From Plato:
"One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors."
From FDR:
"An election cannot give a country a firm sense of direction if it has two or more national parties which merely have different names but are as alike in their principles and aims as two peas in the same pod."
Here are a couple more pieces along the same lines that people might enjoy
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/06/magazine/06freak.html?_r=1&oref=slogin, and
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/06/is-voting-dangerous-for-your-health/
I advise economists read zeno's paradox. It will help explain why the reasoning applied is erroneous
MP, please keep up the efforts to comvince your readers not to vote. you're doing the rest of us a great favor.
How does that saying go - you get the government you deserve. Consider MA, they had a chance to repeal the state income tax and it failed, approx. 70%-to-30%. People in MA actually like being taxed. We are turning into a neo-socialist society - like it or not.
anon @7:46
What percentage of the residents of MA pay the state tax and what was the alternative to the state income tax?
If the majority don't pay and the likely result is fewer entitlements, then we get the mob rule associated with democracy - and a pretty good argument against unfettered democracy. But it says nothing about whether or not people like being taxed.
If the alternative to the state income tax was worse than the income tax, then it was merely a choice between evils.
I don't live in MA, never have and never will, so I don't know.
Judging by these comments I think it would be a great idea if most of this blog's readers (ie juandos) decided not to vote.
anon 1:16 said: "We are in for a world of hurt."
That would be an improvement.
> and tax breaks for corporations who ship jobs and technologies to other countries.
Tell me, annoynimouse -- what kind of shipping container is used for that task?
I could refute your ignorance directly, but this is so much easier to just point anyone actually believing your drivel towards:
The Nation That Lost Its Jobs, But Got Them Back
In short, you're ignorant, and you're a fool. You have a right to an opinion, but, along with that right comes the responsibility to grasp how worthless it is, and thus unworthy of wasting peoples' time by expressing as though it had the least actual value.
Given that the above is far too complex for your feeble mind to grasp, I'll restate it in simple, plain lettering: STFU.
Too clever for sure. Obviously, both parties have run up deficits.
As for the bailout, it probably kept us from crashing to the point where unemployment would now be 30 percent.
Post a Comment
<< Home