<< Back to Ben Hur [#GRZ_21] {-Stories-} Forward to Shakespeare [#GRZ_62] >>
<< Cycle to Leadership [#GRZ_162] {-Trump-} Forward to Russian [#GRZ_77] >>
I saw a sign on the road the other day, “The only rational thing to do is not to vote.” It must have been a joke, since it made me laugh.
This type of sign has legs because—to say it nicely—so many people don’t prefer voting for Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. Yes, this yard sign is suggesting for citizens not to vote in the the upcoming Presidential Election, as a rational decision.
I suppose that the rational logic is something like, “The worse it gets, the less willing I am to contribute.” Or, “America is in such trouble, that I will now become politically non-existent.” Or, “I might as well be politically dead.“
Certainly, the right to vote is a fought-for and died-for privilege in America. As to the extent of personal honor or duty to exercise that right, that is for each citizen to determine as a matter of personal conscience.
One of my friends has decided to write-in a vote for the Tasmanian Devil. I’m thinking this means the Looney Toons version and not the Australian marsupial, since the latter would be a waste of a vote, as well as also a failed attempt at humor. My friend’s rational logic is something like, “Writing-in ‘Tasmanian Devil’ will make such a statement to the politicians!” I really don’t think so. It seems to me simply to be an indulgent act of childish spite, and no less from an adult. Maybe my friend wasn’t serious. A mind is a terrible thing to waste, and so is a vote.
Moreover, it seems to me that casting a vote in this manner will effect no meaningful consequence in this horse race of a presidential election.
Another close friend of mine is voting for one of the other candidates; that is, an actual presidential candidate, but one other than Hillary or Donald. This is one step better than voting for the Tasmanian Devil, of course, because it is not a cartoon character or a foreign marsupial; it is a real living person who is actually in the Presidential Election race.
My friend’s rational logic is that my friend simply cannot support either Hillary or Donald as a matter of personal conscience. My friend was very satisfied with the decision after apparently taking a long time to think about it.
My friend also tried to convince me that Hillary and Donald are not the best candidates for the job, from the field of available presidential options. But, I must admit to you, that my friend’s rational logic, if it purports to be such (and I am not sure it does), caused me some consternation.
“Okay,” I replied, “Now, for the sake of argument, let’s just assume that other non-Hillary/Donald candidate you have chosen is the best candidate for the job, by whatever theoretical objective metric of comparison. Let’s just start there and assume you’re right.“
“But, unfortunately,” I continued, “So far as I understand all points of rational prediction in this horse race, your non-Hillary/Donald candidate simply cannot win the race.“
I was just trying to have a nice friendly conversation about politics. But, for some reason, my friend became angry with me. So angry with me, in fact, I had visions of the Tasmanian Devil. What did I do? My friend then started to argue about all the issues that everyone is arguing about: Hillary is smug, Donald is arrogant, on and on. But, I said, “So what. At this point, it simply is what it is…“
Now my friend gave all sorts of arguments for the non-Hillary/Donald candidate, such as, “Don’t we root for the underdogs, don’t we encourage variety?“
Sure we do. Sure I do. Like many people, I often root for the underdog in sporting games, children sports, adults and professional teams. I encourage free and different thinking. Yes, yes, sometimes, it just feels great if an underdog conquers all the opposing forces and wins! It’s wonderful when new candidates affect and effect the conversation: indeed, it’s important, needed, and greatly appreciated. I fully understand that, if we concede to a two horse contest, we might have not encouraged the revolution of new ideas and candidates that we love.
But, voilà, short of a statistically highly improbable exception to the point of immateriality of rational consideration, this horse race of a presidential election is just simply a two-horse race. Like it or not, it just is.
Pure stubborn math.
Certainly, a war is greater than the battle, and a card game is greater than a hand, but, it is certainly a flaw of reasoning to concede the opportunity to effect a positive result in a battle or a hand of cards without knowing the strategic purpose to effect change in the larger war or the card game. Without a larger strategy or other material effect, it’s just a waste of a vote.
Voting for the Tasmanian Devil, or voting for a candidate who cannot win, might effect some positive result in some view that is not now obvious, but the voter had better know exactly what the voter is doing. Otherwise, once again, it’s just a waste of a vote. Minds and votes are terrible things to waste.
Sure, choosing between two less than preferred candidates might be distasteful, but, as a matter of rational probabilities, we’re going to eat one of them, whether we like it or not.
This reminds me of the Fable of Voting for the Three-Legged Horse.
The Fable of Voting for the Three-Legged Horse.
Once upon a time, there was a Farmer who was old and dying. The Farmer’s farm had not been doing well for lack of a beast of burden to serve the farm. He had three daughters that he loved and who would inherit the farm. The farm was failing and any beast of burden would be better than none.
Another competitive farm had arisen, as well. So, the Farmer asked the Gods, “Please send me a beast of burden, so when I die, my daughters whom I love and the farm will prosper.“
The Gods never make it easy, and they determined to grant the wish in a manner commensurate with the man’s wisdom.
The Gods set forth a horse race. In this race there were three horses. Two of the horses were very different types of horses, but neck-and-neck in speed. The third horse was an excellent steed but only had three legs and could not, as such, come close to match the speed of the other two horses.
The Gods commanded that the man choose a horse as the winner, and if the man did not choose, the man’s competitor would choose the man’s horse for him. But the Gods gave the man one energy biscuit that he could feed to any horse that would supply a small but perhaps meaningful difference in the speed of a horse.
“If your horse wins the race,” said the Gods, “Your reward for choosing well is that you shall get to keep that horse for your farm and the daughters you love.“
Moral of the Story: Passion and compassion aside, a rational decision must be made that is calculated to do one’s best to effect positive change for the future from the available options that life has presented.
It’s not for me to tell anyone for whom to cast a vote, to each his or her own. However, it seems to me a point of wisdom to think really hard about the importance of each vote—that one energy biscuit—and how it will make an impact in this year’s presidential horse race or perhaps otherwise used in some meaningful way.
Math is a stubborn thing, and votes are instruments of math. One vote may be thought to be a small thing, as such, but each one encapsulates all the rights and majesty of citizenship in the United States of America.
We are charged as stewards to do the best with what we have, no more no less. Life thrusts upon us adverse and less than preferred circumstances at every level, in different varieties, day after day. To this, we are simply charged, as said by Theodore Roosevelt to stop whining and to do what we can, with what we have, where we are. The Gods are playing a game with us, and we have to pick a horse. Our vote is one biscuit. All the emotion aside, to be rational, will we give that biscuit to the three-legged horse who cannot win?
<< Back to Ben Hur [#GRZ_21] {-Stories-} Forward to Shakespeare [#GRZ_62] >>
<< Cycle to Leadership [#GRZ_162] {-Trump-} Forward to Russian [#GRZ_77] >>
Stand for America® is a series of publications intersecting philosophy and traditional American values.
© 2016 Gregg Zegarelli, Esq. Gregg can be contacted through LinkedIn. Read more articles here.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fable-voting-three-legged-horse-gregg-zegarelli-esq-
GRZ45 GRZUID45
TEV Law Group. Legal services for American entrepreneurs: Stand for America®
We Represent the Entrepreneurial Spirit.®
<< Back to Ben Hur [#GRZ_21] {-Stories-} Forward to Shakespeare [#GRZ_62] >>
<< Cycle to Leadership [#GRZ_162] {-Trump-} Forward to Russian [#GRZ_77] >>