Ok, it's getting awfully close to November, and it's been a few years since the last time, so I feel a grumpy anarchist / public choice econ anti-voting rant swelling within me. The proximate cause is reinaness's post with some pro-voting slogans on e-cards, but really I'm reacting to this whole election season.

Ah voting...that opiate for the masses to make them feel as if they have had a voice, while the politicians of both parties continue to exploit the country for their own gain, and to help their special interest friends.

The middle one ("I strongly encourage you to vote, even if it's for the wrong candidate") is the clearest illustration that voting is being viewed as a magic talisman of participation which puts a stamp of legitimacy on the process, as opposed to a procedure where people actually have meaningful power. If it doesn't even matter who you vote for, only that you participate, then clearly it is a system designed to make everyone feel happy by giving them little gold stars, as opposed to one where their decisions actually matter.

Here's Bryan Caplan on the social costs of getting out the vote. The average voter is better educated and more knowledgeable about the issues than the average non-voter. Therefore "getting out the vote" is a procedure which *decreases* the average quality of votes cast, by encouraging people who know less about the issues to vote too.

This makes perfect sense if the goal is to encourage a feeling of participation, but it does not make sense if the goal is to accurately select good candidates w/ good positions. For the latter goal, getting out the vote is clearly counterproductive. (At least, getting it out in a general way - encouraging people who side with you to vote is productive assuming you feel sure that your side is better). Hence people who are in favor of getting out the vote are either trying to help their side win, or they favor a feeling of participation over accurate selection of candidates. In neither case is their goal an admirable expression of universal empowerment.

I definitely think that democracy is way better than hereditary monarchy or dictatorship or any of those systems where the leaders don't even need to pretend to be acting in the people's interests, where there are no checks or balances on power. But I am being sadly sincere when I describe it as a system which is much better at giving the feeling of participation than actual participation. To me, this is one of the terrible things about democracy (and part of why it is so successful) - because voting lets people feel like they can influence things. Even if they don't vote, they feel like they could have voted.

But any one vote never matters, and the problems with the system are generally (the past 8 years is a rare exception) problems caused *by the systemic incentives of democracy*, not problems caused by which of the "two" "different" parties wins any one election. And to the degree to which the problems (like screwing over dispersed interests to benefit concentrated ones, which the bailout is a perfect example of) are systemic consequences of democracy, voting does not matter, because voting happens within democracy[1]. And to the degree to which voting doesn't matter, it is really awful that people get a fake feeling of empowerment which gives the system a fake feeling of responsiveness to individuals, because it blinds them to the real source of the problem, and it's awfully hard to fix things that you are blind to.

I think it's wonderful that people want to have a voice, and want others to have a voice. But I believe that a vote is less a true voice than a fake one which redirects the urge of self-determination into harmless channels. Makes people forget that the US Congress re-election rate averages over 90%. Gives them the crazy delusion that the chance to be one of a hundred million people picking between one of two candidates justifies all the crime, theft, and chicanery - even that which both of those candidates agree on and thus the voters don't even have the illusion of choice about. No matter who you vote for, a politician gets elected.

One reason given for supporting democracy is "But there's no credible alternative". Maybe part of the reason there is no credible alternative is because democracy has this beautifully Machiavellian mechanism for taking those who might otherwise create alternatives, and redirecting their energy into being expended uselessly within the system, instead of building up to explode into more effective action. And I want, I seek, I yearn for a better system, and so I hate how democracy cleverly tricks potential revolutionaries and co-opts them by pretending to give them a voice.

It may seem callous to yearn for bitterness, apathy, and disempowerment, but since I truly believe that we as voters are disempowered, that is what I yearn for. Because it more accurately reflects reality - and because it is more fertile ground for revolution.

(note that I am not mentioning my particularly alternative system here, because I have felt this way about voting for my whole life, even before I had an alternative system, and I do not think an alternative is necessary for this criticism, given the idea that voting coopts revolutionary energy and reduces the creation of alternatives).

[1] I suppose if you are voting on a ballot initiative which substantially changes the mechanism of democracy so as to change the incentives, that is an exception.