Obama? McCain? Any third party advocates?

Hi TraderJoe,
I think, were I American, I would vote for Obama.

Obama and McCain both seem like intelligent, inspirational leaders. Either one, I think, will improve the world.
In terms of policy... well obviously Obama and the Democrats are more progressive socially and economically. Relaxing laws on abortion, gay unions, stem cell research is something that I approve of. That's a good start for Obama. The economy is tricker. I admire America's spirit of self-betterment and ambition. I would like if many more people aspired to the American dream. Capitalism has its advantages (incentive, financial freedom, individual identity) but then so does socialism (feeling of belonging in a community, money goes where it does the most e.g. a thousand bucks will do more to a poor man's wellbeing than it will for a millionaire). I don't really know whether America is too capitalist or not capitalist enough. I suppose you could call that one a draw.

Now international-relations wise, I think it will be better to have a democrat as president. I think that the Iraq war needs to end. And finally, the US president is leader of the free world and his impact will stretch way past the USA's borders. While Obama might get about 51% of the US popular vote, he is winning by far when you look across the world. He is probably winning about 49% to 12%. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7606100.stm). That's why I think he should become president.

What do you think?

I don't think Obama's policies are hugely better than McCain's, but I endorse an Obama presidency partly because of the less quantifiable well-being of the nation's individuals [and foreigners who, typically, want Obama to win] - there may be tangible benefits. I would go on to the benefits of having a black role model who has achieved the highest office in the free world - putting an end to the feelings of disempowerment by many young black men who've spent too long listening to Al Sharpton [and others like him] - with great effects. Whereas it's hard to see the same things happening under a McCain administration - septuagenarians won't have quite the same proud feelings...

Personally, I won't vote, which is utterly justifiable on util grounds, but that's another story

Do you think that you have better ways to use your time?

Yes. Voting will take me around two hours in total. Specifically, if I had decided I was going to vote, I would pay at least $10 for someone to fill in all the forms [for an absentee ballot], then fill in the voting ballot itself and post it for me, and I don't think that my vote has an expected value of $10 to the world.

I think you're right TraderJoe.

In Australia, on the other hand, the situation is quite different. As a person of voting age in Australia, if I do not vote, I will recieve a fine. It might be about $300. So I imagine I am ethically compelled to vote here.

On topic, do you guys think that spending such a sum of money as the republican party has on Sarah Palin's clothes might be justified? How about advertising more broadly?

I wouldn't say you're ethically compelled to vote - quite the opposite, in fact. Transferring money doesn't really affect the world, unless you think that you would put it to a significantly better [read: more utility-effective] use than the state, whereas you are wasting your and others' time by voting. But I'd certainly put aside my principles and vote if I were to be fined for not doing so.

As for Palin's clothes - if I'm right in thinking that her looks and style were the primary reason why she was chosen, rather than her experience or competence, then it certainly makes sense to ensure that she'll appeal to the people she was designed to appeal to. If spending money on her clothes is, in the Republicans' eyes, the best way to manage this, then fair enough for them to use the money for this rather than for TV ads, imo.

TraderJoe wrote:I wouldn't say you're ethically compelled to vote - quite the opposite, in fact. Transferring money doesn't really affect the world, unless you think that you would put it to a significantly better [read: more utility-effective] use than the state, whereas you are wasting your and others' time by voting. But I'd certainly put aside my principles and vote if I were to be fined for not doing so.

The problem with this reasoning is that the process is inefficient. The government demanding, and then processing the fine will use materials and work-hours (probably more than would go into Ryan's voting) that cut into the $300. Probably not by very much, but still, keeping the money and having it taken aren't equivalent, all things being equal.

Besides, if your goal is for the $300 to do the most good, giving it to the Australian government is unlikely to be the best strategy. Probably better to vote and then give it all to someone like [insert whichever charity/investment you think is most globally beneficial here].

Jinksy wrote:The problem with this reasoning is that the process is inefficient. The government demanding, and then processing the fine will use materials and work-hours (probably more than would go into Ryan's voting) that cut into the $300. Probably not by very much, but still, keeping the money and having it taken aren't equivalent, all things being equal.

I guess we're talking at cross purposes - I certainly agree with this, but I meant it to be included by my specification that the state must use your money almost as effectively as you would. If the process is sufficiently inefficient, then it is indeed superior to vote, and waste some of your own time, than to allow the state to waste some of your $300.

yeah I think your conclusion is spot on. The difference in the utility of the money versus the utility of the wasted time.
I don't think there's a great deal to add to that. I suppose the government is a fairly constructive spender, but I would like to think that I am too.

With respect to buying clothes for Palin, of course it's good from the perspective of the Republican party. But equally, it's bad for the Democrats. The real question is, from the perpsective of the universe (this theme is taken from Peter Singer's writing), could something better have been done with the $150,000. As you said, it's transfer, not evaporation of money. It's the lucky day of some upper-class fashion designers. But could it maybe do more in the third world? Increasing a poor kid's income, then having money flow through those who sell food there, etc. etc.? I think that if politicians spent a great deal less on promoting themselves, they could spend more on important things.

RyanCarey wrote: I think that if politicians spent a great deal less on promoting themselves, they could spend more on important things.

This is certainly true. But it's also true that politicians generally think that their party's rule will be better for the world, and that the gains from this > [Good that could be done with party funding/chance that spending the funding on their party will get their party into power] - or so I assume.
Also, donating money given to them to charity is a great way to get donors to stop giving.

Joe

On the other hand, you have to factor in the good that could be done with the party you are against in power. It can be of the ethical opinion of both parties that they are doing the right thing by buying advertising, but they can't both be right. If advertising is largely transferring cash to salespeople to get one-up on your political opponents, then either one or both of the parties are overall causing harm by taking donations and spending them in this way.

Refraining from comment on the election. As Fox News has taught me, if you can't say anything nice about McCain and Palin, you shouldn't say anything at all.

RyanCarey wrote:On the other hand, you have to factor in the good that could be done with the party you are against in power. It can be of the ethical opinion of both parties that they are doing the right thing by buying advertising, but they can't both be right. If advertising is largely transferring cash to salespeople to get one-up on your political opponents, then either one or both of the parties are overall causing harm by taking donations and spending them in this way.

Oh, certainly. But similarly, at least one politician is misguided in his beliefs - of any two or more politicians who run against each other, precisely one will do the most good when in power [as happiness is a discrete scale, and millions' lives are, even if in a small way, affected, I refuse to believe that two pols can be 'tied' for the most good] and we don't find it illogical that they all believe in what they stand for; therefore we shouldn't find it illogical that they are all willing for small sacrifices to be made...I almost finished with 'for the greater good', then realised the implications of that phrase - oh well, they're all doing it for what they believe to be the greater good!

The sacrifice might be relatively small, but so is the expected gain. Buying expensive clothing that looks identical to something you could find for a few quid in Primark doesn't seem like the most efficient kind of campaigning, though that's McCain's problem in itself. I imagine what's irritating most people is that Palin is spending campaign money on personal gain.

Well there is the concept of accountability. I guess it's reasonable for politicians to self-promote to some extent so to ensure that the government is well behaved. I guess politics doesn't have to be a /completely/ zero sum game.

RyanCarey wrote:... It can be of the ethical opinion of both parties that they are doing the right thing by buying advertising, but they can't both be right...

This is assuming that "right" can be objectively defined. If you instead define right as something subjective - say, sticking up for your family - then you can have people trying to do opposing things, both of which are right.

Arepo wrote:The sacrifice might be relatively small, but so is the expected gain. Buying expensive clothing that looks identical to something you could find for a few quid in Primark doesn't seem like the most efficient kind of campaigning, though that's McCain's problem in itself. I imagine what's irritating most people is that Palin is spending campaign money on personal gain.

I think she's giving the stuff back post-election. At least, so she claimed...

TraderJoe wrote:I think she's giving the stuff back post-election. At least, so she claimed...

Giving it back to who? I can't imagine the designer wanting it...