The Dangers of Settling in Elections
Pragmatic voting masquerades itself as the lesser of two evils. How can one person set on unchanged political principles carry out the needs of all in a thorough fashion? Not to conflate pragmatic with perfection but in a society where democracy is the gilded pinnacle of responsibility, questioning authority is vital. With the upcoming election being marketed as the “election of our generation” towards millennials; the ballot box represents nothing more than a Pandoras’ Box. A dismal choice that only narrows down to ominous figures that promise dwindling certainty. There are dangers that should be recognized when one promotes settling in elections.
Political Decisions Versus Economic Decisions
Voting is never respected as a responsibility, even to those who pass it off as such. American politics can be seen as a complex algorithm, specifically favoring deviancy. Understandably, one might choose to emphasize upon the ethics of a situation versus much-needed empiricism and building comprehension when it comes to housing, taxes, international affairs, and medical care. Even more so, there are distinctive differences between economic decisions and political decisions.
Political decision-making seldom quantifies economics as a reference point. The contrast between the two creates catastrophic consequences that are simply passed off as a natural occurrence in politics and the market. In reality, political decision-making based off of questionable ethics ignores the importance of the economic decision-making which relies on models and comparisons.
Furthermore, the key difference unlocks how politics relies on voting as a solution, without any substantial knowledge to the long term repercussions highlighted by economics.
Observing the average voter proves that political decision-making based on the short-term outcome is preferred.
For example, voters who seek the political decision would applaud making drugs illegal in order to reduce addiction, gang-related crime, and lower incarceration. However, the voter who approaches the criminalization of drugs from an economic perspective can correlate how laws will do the opposite of the goal set in place. Opposite results that include higher incarceration, more broken homes, black markets due to higher prices, and even drug money trafficked by the state. Gun control also has the ability to further corruption.
A recurring argument for settling in elections, that is, choosing a subpar candidate for the sake of voting, caramelized in “good will”, pours itself on morality as the central argument. For instance, “we do not want the x candidate to win because that would compromise the y candidates’ endeavors”. Politicians rarely mention how issues such as gay marriage should not be handled by the government and arguably has no place in government intervention. Mandated counseling, court fees, and the splitting of property via divorce courts has caused incredible strain on families.
Responsibility is dismantled by passionate politics. When one seeks decisions using the institution of the ballot, that seems to be the only result. Settling with that power only reinforces and inflames deviated variables, feeding never-ending exploitation and sealing tyranny. If it is acknowledged that the laws are bent on either side and senatorial tampering will always remain a common denominator due to it being an intrinsic democratic factor, then what selfish sense does that make? The elections serve as an unraveling danger, hinged on the lesser of two evils fallacy.
Personal accountability is more times than not, nonexistent within the lens of the electoral vote and all decisions that have to do with economics. By voting, one is not able to sweep the issues under the rug just like adjusted wages do not promise market regularity or a seemingly decent outcome will be sustained beyond a doubt.
In conclusion, government, as generated by the public manifests a placebo “what kills me, heals me” effect, postulating a false narrative of safety with sacrifice. In reality, the price paid for bureaucratic rhetoric serves as a danger in the elections process.