The point of voting isn’t to predict the winner. It’s to choose the winner. The case for Ron Paul.
Loss of control
The point of voting in the elections isn’t to predict the winner. If it were, it would be called gambling, not voting. People vote to *choose* the winner, not to give away the little influence they have to yellow journalism.
People sometimes vote for whom they perceive will be the winner, because they feel like they have more control over the outcome. But that’s just an illusion, because you rejected your first choice. In reality you lost AND you didn’t even try. In reality, you forwent the little control you had, just to make yourself feel good.
That’s cowardly.
Consequences of pursuing the illusion
When you vote based on popular perceptions, you are handing your vote over to the media, as they control perceptions. You are perpetuating their illusion.
Exceptions
There are strategic times to vote for a second or third choice; which is why it would be good to have multiple choices and run-off voting range voting (thank you to commenter Bruce for this reference). However, if your first choice is Ron Paul, when all democratic and neoconservative candidates look the same, it is illogical not to vote for your first choice.
A Solution
If you need to predict the winner in order to feel good and impress your friends, create a time capsule and jot down your prediction; or spend your money on exotic gambling. If you predicted the winner, congratulations, you have a license to impress. If your favorite candidate won, you should instead be ecstatic.
Share This
Comment by Bruce | August 30th, 2007
I agree with the sentiment expressed in this post, however see the article “Why Range Voting is Better than IRV (Instant Runoff Voting)” at http://rangevoting.org/rangeVirv.html