The Republican National Convention with the usual incitement, bs (the use of the past tense to talk about Covid-19, Nikki Haley assuring us we aren't a racist country and of course the usual Trump lies), the "who cares?" Hatch Act violations etc. went about as expected. Toss in lax mask wearing and social distancing and even Tiffany getting into the act. And, we still have cause not to be sure this guy won't win. This would include the Senate. It's fucking ... well can use a lot of adjectives there.
So, it's a timely moment for The Duty to Vote by Julia Maskivker (summary at link), a philosophical defense though it does not go as far as arguing it should be a mandatory legal duty. The book makes a good argument though the philosophical (multiple references to John Stuart Mill) discussion as a whole was a bit much for me to read the whole thing. But, the basics are clear-cut, you can read the intro and conclusion for a bit of a summary and skim to get some more details.
The author sees voting as a moral Good Samaritan responsibility because it is a limited burden with important overall effects. Also, even if an individual vote is not a deciding factor, that doesn't mean one lacks a duty. Duties are personal as a whole and something like paying taxes is not voluntary because one person's taxes are not the deciding factor. From what I can tell, also, she sees it basically as our duty as part of a society to promote justice. And, not doing so causes harms, including let's say poor people not voting leading to clear policy effects.
Voting is particularly important for the good of society so that it is a special responsibility (including to limit harms, even if neither choice is great; ranked choice voting here can be helpful) even if one has a virtuous life (charity etc.) in general. Also, she cites research that as a whole the average voter has enough judgment to make good choices. We do trust people (and she cites voting as a sort of public trust) that are not experts to do things, including on juries. The very act of doing these things are also helpful learning moments and provide other positive benefits such as a means to express oneself. This net helps voting be a positive.
One does have a duty more than merely to vote. One should vote fairly (not merely selfishly; toward a certain rational common interest, though she notes there are a range of possible philosophies there) and with some degree of informed thought. Again, the average person has the ability net to judge, even if they are not experts. There are burdens on voting, providing a sizable (partial!) list: poverty, political measures discouraging voting, confusing electoral rules, weak civic education, public official non-responsiveness to citizens and partisan propaganda campaigns to manipulate voters. But, she believes such things can be addressed. Is optimistic in the face of cynics of voting.
It's clearly an argument for these times, including its reaffirmation of the duty and possibility of each person to play their part without ignoring structural concerns.
So, it's a timely moment for The Duty to Vote by Julia Maskivker (summary at link), a philosophical defense though it does not go as far as arguing it should be a mandatory legal duty. The book makes a good argument though the philosophical (multiple references to John Stuart Mill) discussion as a whole was a bit much for me to read the whole thing. But, the basics are clear-cut, you can read the intro and conclusion for a bit of a summary and skim to get some more details.
The author sees voting as a moral Good Samaritan responsibility because it is a limited burden with important overall effects. Also, even if an individual vote is not a deciding factor, that doesn't mean one lacks a duty. Duties are personal as a whole and something like paying taxes is not voluntary because one person's taxes are not the deciding factor. From what I can tell, also, she sees it basically as our duty as part of a society to promote justice. And, not doing so causes harms, including let's say poor people not voting leading to clear policy effects.
Voting is particularly important for the good of society so that it is a special responsibility (including to limit harms, even if neither choice is great; ranked choice voting here can be helpful) even if one has a virtuous life (charity etc.) in general. Also, she cites research that as a whole the average voter has enough judgment to make good choices. We do trust people (and she cites voting as a sort of public trust) that are not experts to do things, including on juries. The very act of doing these things are also helpful learning moments and provide other positive benefits such as a means to express oneself. This net helps voting be a positive.
One does have a duty more than merely to vote. One should vote fairly (not merely selfishly; toward a certain rational common interest, though she notes there are a range of possible philosophies there) and with some degree of informed thought. Again, the average person has the ability net to judge, even if they are not experts. There are burdens on voting, providing a sizable (partial!) list: poverty, political measures discouraging voting, confusing electoral rules, weak civic education, public official non-responsiveness to citizens and partisan propaganda campaigns to manipulate voters. But, she believes such things can be addressed. Is optimistic in the face of cynics of voting.
It's clearly an argument for these times, including its reaffirmation of the duty and possibility of each person to play their part without ignoring structural concerns.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your .02!