While you may well be as correct as the author, it IS a different thing you suggest is also rational. The author contends that, when voting, it is rational to be ill-informed; you contend that, when well-informed, it is rational to not vote. They may both be true and may be an extension of each other, but they are distinct points.

I suspect they are not hopelessly impossible, but admit that they may be beyond the discourse here.

In the universe of the authors, it is not mere semantics. there is a real difference from a logical point of view between you vote not counting and your choices lacking meaningful distinctions. And, again, if you vote "matter" even de minimus difference are reason enough to vote. Thw distinction is next to no cost to you (e.g. gas to get to the polls) against no cost to you at all.

Argh. The ablative of minimus is minimis

Thank you for fleshing my point out for me.

Take off the lawyer hat for a second and, though this may blow your mind, assume I am allowed in this forum to expand the author's point to a broader commentary, which I did.

The result in either situation is identical. Your technical distinction is exactly that.

I contend primarily that when well informed, one cannot reach any conclusion other than that he would receive nearly identically unsatisfactory results from either party, and therefore, not voting is rational.

I also agree that when ill-informed, a category into which almost everyone falls in re politics given the inherent dishonesty and vacant soundbite nature of the information provided in the process, not voting is also rational. But it's an accidental exercise of rational behavior, which I guess would have to be retitled "good luck," in that you were lucky enough to not have wasted an hour of your day engaged in something futile.

Sebby is Roger Daultry's Sock?
 

• The rocker, who used to sing about my g-generation, added: "My answer is to burn all the f***ing oil as quick as possible and then the politicians will have to find a solution.”
  

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,4-2007230155,00.html

Sebby is Roger Daultry's Sock?
 

Daltry... Daltry.

Townsend's always had my proxy in describing the difference between elected "bosses." Nice to see Roger has a brain as well.

Rumsfeld's Rules
 

Romney leads in Iowa
 

I wouldn't have guessed it, and it's still early, yet he does.

Romney's penchant for pretty dramatic flip-flopping and pandering to whoever's holding the microphone has been exhaustively documented already, and while I found it disturbing, I guess I've got to consider the fact that many (likely Republican primary voters) don't. Perhaps, as Yglesias speculates, it has something to do with whether the newly-flopped position is something with which you already substantively agree anyway. If so, then maybe you see it less as "pandering," and more as "seeing the light."

Gattigap

immigration
 

I don't know much about the new immigration deal. Mark Kleiman says:

• The Republicans' cynicism is showing. They seem to have held out for "guest-workers" as the one piece they wouldn't budge on. That's the piece that's most advantageous to exploitative employers, and most disadvantageous to low-skilled U.S. workers. And it creates a pool of potential new "illegals": some people will overstay their guest-worker visas who wouldn't have risked crossing the border illegally. At the same time, the absurdly long citizenship process for the newly-regularized immigrants does nothing to reduce their labor-market or social impact, but it does a lot to protect Republicans' partisan interest in not creating new Latino voters.

linkyu

Gonzo Gonzales
 

So, any bets on when Golzales is Gonzo?

Specter said yesterday he'd soon be gone, but the Pres. has now weighed in defending him again - how many times does he get to sign this refrain?

Gonzo Gonzales
 

Depends on how important W views the DOJ.


George Will: Gonzales can stay on as attorney general just as long as “you’re indifferent to the damage done to one of the most important departments in our government.”

http://tpmcafe.com/blog/specialguest..._monday_may_21

Gonzo Gonzales
 

Isn't W just glad people are talking about something other than Iraq?

Gonzo Gonzales
 

Has Giuliani voiced an opinion on the Gonzales Justice Department?

eta: I see that before Gonzales testified, Giuliani said he should receive the benefit of the doubt. I haven't found anything from Giuliani addressing the issue since then. Why haven't reporters been asking him about this? I'd be interested in his perspective as a former USA.