Election Retrospective

Two weeks have passed since the last election in Massachusetts, and I would assume that it is a relief to most that our daily lives are no longer filled with political ads – TV commercials, direct mailings, radio ads, etc, etc, etc.

From what I have seen, most people have spent the past few weeks at work, spending time with family, and generally living their lives. This is the natural state of things. 

However, as so much time and energy was spent on the election, the event itself is certainly worth some cursory analysis.

In Boston, only about 24% of the electorate turned out to vote, meaning that at least 76% of people declined to participate.  Traditionally, this is seen as a “bad” turnout – bad because 76% of people decided to not exercise their rights at the polls.

From an early age, we are taught that we should all vote – every chance we get – and if we neglect to vote, somehow our “freedoms” will be taken away. Some people even go to the extreme of advocating "mandatory voting" in order to correct this perceived “problem”.

Problem, or perception?

I disagree with the premise that low turnout is a “problem”. Low voter turnout isn’t a problem – it is a truth that is right in front of our eyes. The “problem” is with the politicians and the State apparatus, not with the voters.

Just as every coin has two sides, another way to view these low turnout numbers is that 76% of people have no interest in the political system at all!

This is quite revealing because, as a general fact, the very base reason why a person takes action is because they stand to benefit from that action. I eat a meal because I will benefit from nourishment. I purchase a coat because I will benefit from warmth. I drink a beer because I will benefit from entertainment.

The benefit may not be obvious to an outside observer in all cases, and surely all people have different perceptions of what is a benefit, however, this is the essence of human action.

For a very in-depth discussion, see Human-Action: A Treatise on Economics by Ludwig von Mises. In summary, we will suffice to say that when there is an absence of action, there must be an absence of benefit.

Winner take all.

This leads us to a quite different view of the State and our political system. Certainly, it is a disturbing trait of any system that places all participants under the same rule when three quarters of people within that system decide to NOT participate in it.

Even so, it is more disturbing when the non-participants are bound to comply with the system’s rules through the use of force. Where else is this type of behavior tolerated other than in the political system and the State?

The obvious answer is nowhere.

If there were a movie theater with 12 movies to choose from, and 25% of people at the theater bought tickets to watch one movie, and the other 75% were purchased tickets evenly distributed across the other 11 movies, the theater would never make the entire audience watch the same movie. It would at a minimum be a breach of contract, and it would certainly be bad for business.

Furthermore, the theater would never think to use force to make the purchase of a drink or snack compulsory just for being in the lobby. That is, if armed security guards forcibly put people in a cage for not purchasing a snack, this would be considered kidnapping! The people wouldn’t stand for it!

Different rules?

In the movie theater example above, if people stop patronizing the movie theater because of the theater’s actions, or for whatever reason, the movie theater must change their actions in order to attract patrons, or they will go out of business.

In an alternate scenario, if 25% of people still enjoy the movie theater’s actions, they are free to continue to patronize it. The remaining 75% of people are also free – free to abstain from providing any support to the offending business.

These judgments are made daily, if not hourly, by all prospective patrons with an ability to get to the theater. This is the market reflecting the desires of people – and it is relentlessly efficient. 

The State, however, operates quite differently. Politicians are able to say and do anything within their means before an election to attempt to gain votes. Yet, when they are elected, even by less than 25% of the electorate, they are no longer held to any level of accountability in the sense of our movie theater.

Politicians may act and do as they please with the security of years between them and the next election. In this case, there is no market action. Citizens are forcibly bound to obey the rules generated by the whims of a select few.

Typically, these rules are generated to appease a very select few from within the 25% that elected the rule-makers. Typically, these rules involve stealing from one group (through taxes) to give to another (through redistribution programs that operate under a myriad of disguises).

How is this just? 

The simple answer is that it is not just. Even a child knows that it is not right to steal from another. Even a child knows that it is not right to tell another person what to do. Even a child knows that it is not right to use force to achieve their means.

Yet, our politicians seem to have forgotten (or never learned) that lesson.

By opting out of voting, the majority of people have voiced their displeasure with government, yet, the politicians and the State continue to exert their force over the entire populace.

Sound like a fair deal?