Election stuff is going on, but I'm not watching any news. I will hear what others say and thus kind of follow what is going on, but I understand that the election outcome isn't really something that is under my control, so it is a waste of time and energy to get worked up over following it.

The strategy I am describing here—just talking to friends and stuff but not watching the news—goes beyond "not watching TV" (and instead looking on the Internet). Indeed the Internet is plastered with election stuff all over the place. We temporarily have a new "favorite American past time" (which many non-Americans seem to take a lot of interest in as well).

No, you cannot just "go on the Internet but not read about election stuff" if you simultaenously visit popular websites like Facebook or Youtube. One must more actively filter!

Thoughts about elections generally

It is amateur political philosopher hour! Today's topic is why I don't like elections as a way of governance.

Firstly, the machinations of elections rely on techniques like flattery and deception. No matter who your preferred political candidates are, you must recognize how large elections necessarily involve lots of propagandizing to get numbers. Numbers are important, so you have to appeal to the lowest common denominator.

Secondly, elections put pressure on people to get involved in deciding stuff for other people that they may have no business deciding. I know nothing about... water rights in Nevada. But some stuff I vote on may have big implications for that? Someone with a career in political things might urge me to "get educated" and be active learning about this-and-that. But for people who are not professional political analysts, this is really not feasible. At best, you can find someone you like and trust with good character who follows politics and follow their voting patterns. Regardless, nobody pays you to do this!

Thirdly, elections are a huge waste of time, energy, and resources. Insofar as US dollars actually are money in the sense that they represent value/work done, elections and their side effects are costly. These costs are recurrent costs as elections happen in cycles.

Finally, there is the question of how well elections actually do at representing what people want. If most people want a justice in the sense that crime is punished, a government that is not too intrusive such that basic civil liberties are preserved, and reasonable taxes to do stuff like maintain roads and provide utilities... do we really need elections?

Conclusions

It is common in the West for people to defend their current forms of government as favorable because they are "the best thing we've got, though all systems are imperfect". I think there is a strong bias here mainly stemming from,

• The current system is familiar and so relatively comfortable
• Assuming that technology, associated with post-Enlightenment thinking and models of government, has improved quality of life and that it would be impossible to have this without republics/democracies, and
• Enlightenment carciatures of other forms of government as totally depraved/evil/terrible

Associated with the last point is the retort, "Oh so you would like to live in Saudi Arabia?" without consideration of how democracies/republics have been instrumental in propping up many of the "third world dictators" we villainize today.