INTRODUCTION Voting as an Ethical Issue - The Ethics of Voting by Jason Brennan. #feticismodemocratico #patentedivoto #elettorereale #egonarcisismo #doveredinonvoto #analogiafreespeech #nonbastaleggereilgiornale #glielettorinnsonotuttiuguali
INTRODUCTION Voting as an Ethical IssueRead more at location 66
Note: le domande a cui risponde il libro le 2 tesi del libro le colpe di chi vota voto etica e laicità un idea di democrazia come vota l elettore medio irrazionalità e etica del voto Edit
The way we vote can help or harm people. Electoral outcomes can be harmful or beneficial, just or unjust.Read more at location 76
I argue that we have moral obligations concerning how we should vote. Not just any vote is morally acceptable.Read more at location 78
The purpose of this book is to determine whether a citizen should vote at allRead more at location 80
Should citizens choose to vote or abstain? If a person is indifferent to the outcome of an election, should she abstain? When citizens do vote, how should they vote? May voters use their religious beliefs in deciding how to vote? Must voters vote sincerely, for the candidate or position they believe best? What counts as voting for the best candidate? In particular, should voters vote solely for their own interest, or should they vote for the common good, whatever that is? Is it ever acceptable to buy, sell, or trade votes?Read more at location 81
When you order salad at a restaurant, you alone bear the consequences of your decision. No one else gets stuck with a salad.Read more at location 91
Now, in voting, nobody chooses by herself. Each vote counts, but it does not count much. We decide electoral outcomes together.Read more at location 97
Even though individual votes almost never have a significant impact on election results in any large-scale election, I argue that this does not let individuals off the hook. Individual voters have moral obligations concerning how they vote.Read more at location 99
Some call voting a civic sacrament. Many people approach democracy, and voting especially, with a quasi-religious reverence.Read more at location 110
I argue for these claims: 1. Citizens typically have no duty to vote.7 However, if citizens do vote, they must vote well,Read more at location 131
1. When vote buying, selling, and trading are wrong, what makes them wrong is that they lead to violations of the duties described in point 1.Read more at location 136
I am not arguing that voters should vote for whatever they believe promotes the common good. Instead, I am arguing that voters ought to vote for what they justifiedly believe promotes the common good. So, on my view, if a voter votes for some candidate whom she believes will promote the common good, but this voter lacks good grounds for her beliefs, then the voter has acted wrongly.Read more at location 140
many politically active citizens—writers, activists, community organizers, pundits, celebrities, and the like—try to make the world better and vote with the best of intentions. They vote for what they believe will promote the common good. However, despite their best intentions, on my view, many of them are blameworthy for voting.Read more at location 148
I argue that some citizens should not vote. This does not imply that they should not have the right to vote.Read more at location 159
People often assume that if it is morally wrong to do X, then it is morally permissible to stop people from doing X.Read more at location 162
Sometimes it is wrong for you to do something, but the law and other people should allow you to do it.Read more at location 167
In general, if you have the right to do something, this does not presuppose that it is morally right for you to do it.10Read more at location 169
Consider an analogy to the right of free speech. The right to free speech means, at the very least, that people should not be interfered with or punished for saying and writing certain things.12 This does not mean that saying anything one likes is morally right. Neo-Nazi rocker Michael Regener has the right to write music spreading the hatred of Jews.Read more at location 174
Why not have a poll exam—a test of competence that determines whether a citizen may vote? Or why not give extra votes to educated people, as Britain did until 1949?Read more at location 199
Democracy is good because liberal, constitutional democratic governments perform well compared to the feasible alternatives.Read more at location 219
Actual human beings are wired not to seek truth and justice but to seek consensus. They are shackled by social pressure.Read more at location 227
Unfortunately, this leaves us with a deep bent toward tribalism and conformity. Too much and too frequent democracy threatens to rob us of our autonomy.Read more at location 230
you need both A and B to get C: A. Normative Theory: Voters ought to do X. B. Empirical Account: Voters in fact do Y. C. Evaluation of Actual Voters: Voters behave well/badly.Read more at location 241
in chapter 7, I discuss B, social-scientific evidence describing how voters in fact behave. In light of this, I conclude C, that many voters in fact behave badlyRead more at location 245
Not all voters are equal. They have equal voting power, but their contributions are not of equal quality. Some people tend to make government better; some tend to make it worse.Read more at location 248
Some voters form their policy preferences by studying social-scientific evidence—from economics, sociology, and history—about how institutions and policies work. They are self-critical and use reliable methods of reasoning in forming their policy preferences. They actively engage contrary pointsRead more at location 253
For instance, a 2009 poll of likely voters in New Jersey showed that 8 percent of them (including 5 percent of Democrats and 14 percent of Republicans) believe that Barack Obama is the anti-Christ, while 19 percent of them (including 40 percent of self-identified left-liberals) believe George W. Bush had knowledge of the 9/11 attacks before 9/11.20Read more at location 261
many voters in the 2008 U.S. presidential election rejected Obama on grounds that he is “a black Muslim terrorist-sympathizer.”Read more at location 265
One potential problem with campaigns to increase voter participation is that they might lower the average level of voter quality.Read more at location 267
Increased political participation could mean that most voters start asking for foolish, ineffective, or immoral policies.Read more at location 270
Most activities—such as piloting aircraft, performing surgery, playing guitar, dancing, writing philosophy, nursing patients—require skill, training, and practice to do adequately.Read more at location 274
There are different kinds of information needed to vote well. It is one thing to know which policies different politicians favor and are likely to promote. However, it is another matter to have the relevant social-scientific knowledge needed to evaluate these positions.Read more at location 280
imagine you are choosing between two physicians who have proposed different treatments for your asthma.Read more at location 285
Individual votes are of little instrumental value in influencing electoral outcomes or the quality of government. In the next chapter, we look more closely at attempts to show otherwise. These attempts fail. Collectively, votes matter. Individually, they do not.Read more at location 296
I am not going to argue that because your vote is insignificant, you should not vote.Read more at location 298
From my perspective, the insignificance of individual votes is neutral in how easy it makes it for me to argue in support of this book’s conclusions.Read more at location 301
People who lack certain credentials (such as knowledge, rationality, and intellectual virtue) should abstain from voting.Read more at location 318
Because this book is meant to present a theory of voting behavior that is neutral among different theories of the ends of government, for the most part I remain relatively neutral about what the common good is.Read more at location 321
Note: INDIFFERENZA DEL BENE COMUME
