[applause] >> the just senate is about to gavel in. no legislative business is expected until next week. the senate has been in recess until after the elections. live coverage of the u.s. senate the presiding officer: the the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c., november 7, 2016. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable david perdue, a senator from the state of georgia, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: orrin g. hatch, president pro tempore. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate stands adjourned until 10:00 a.m. on thursday, november 10:00 a.m. on thursday, november

>> the senate has 54 republicans, 44 democrats and two independents who vote caucus with democrats. 34 seats up for election. 24 held by republicans, 10 by democrats. five senators are retiring including harry reid. 24 your california democrat barbara boxer and 16 year indiana republican dan coats. in the house 246 members or republicans, 186 democrats and three vacant seats. all 435 are up for election. 45 are not seeking reelection are running for other offices including charlie rangel into republican chairs. jeff gove of florida and education committee chair john kline of minnesota.

"the cook political report" saying most how seats are solid for one party or the other. 21 republican seats are tossup or otherwise, while four democratic seats that are considered tossup areas. >> election night on c-span and watch the results and be part of a national conversation about the outcome. be a location of the clinton and donald trump election night headquarters to watch a victory and concession speeches in key senate house and governors races starting live at 8 p.m. and wrote the following 24 hours. watch live on c-span, on demand at c-span.org or listen to live coverage using the free c-span radio app. >> tonight on "the communicators."

also the top tech issues for congress and the next administration to address. there any good by technology reporter for the morning consult. >> that key elements that interest me the most our commitment to withstand broadband access with a lot of talk about competition and bringing the benefits of broadband to all americans and didn't i think there's another strong theme running through around the idea of inclusive innovation. in other words, how do we make sure that the entire country, everyone actually shares in the benefits of the internet economy. >> i think there's a lot of sharing of goals and objectives. i think we all want to see the internet, the benefits of the net be made available to all. i think we want to see more rapid innovation are i think want to see lower prices.

what mr. trump is saying is the way, the path to those objective is less regulations, lower taxation. >> watch tonight at eight eastern on c-span2. >> announced a discussion on islamophobia and issues facing muslim-americans. this panel took place at the islamic society of north america's recent annual convention held near chicago. >> our next speaker is someone who spoke at many isna events and so i've gotten to know over the last two and a half years in my time with isna. she's an incredibly insightful and thoughtful person. she's the director of research at the institute for social policy and understanding. she's the co-author along with

others, she is a former executive director of the gallup center for muslim studies, into 2000 she was appointed by president obama to the president advisory council on faith-based neighborhood partnerships. ladies and gentlemen, please welcome sister dalia mogahed. [applause] [speaking in native tongue] >> my favorite thing about coming to islamic conventions are the conversations, the

conversations like to travel with old friends that i haven't seen for at least a year, the conversation i get to have with people that i just met. especially young people. and i've had several young women come up to me during this very convention and ask me a question that i hear quite often. in fact, one particular young woman, i promised her, that i was going to answer her question in my speech, that it was a longer conversation that we could have in the brief moments that i had. her question was, very simple and yet quite profound. she simply said what is your advice to a young person like me

who's trying to make a difference? and i think her question merits a thoughtful answer, and that's what i hope to offer right now to all of you. what is my advice to her, two other young people, and to anyone who wants to make a difference in a time of great crisis? how should we be thinking and acting in this current moment? i want to be very succinct, i want to be very organized, because you have been sitting here so patiently, and i am one thing standing between you and aspects are not going to overstay my welcome. so there are three things i want

to offer in response to this profound question. i think we have to think about courage, compassion, and connectedness if we want to make a difference in this moment of great crisis. i'm going to start with courage. because we're living in a time that requires incredible bravery. just declaring our identities as muslims has become an act of defiance. wearing a bertini to the beach has become an act of defiance. great courage though, brothers

and sisters, as i've tried to remind myself and those that have asked me, is not the absence of fear. great courage, the kind that is needed today, is not the absence of fear. in fact, if we approach the kind of responsibility, the kind of speech, the kind of risk, the challenge that we are up against today without a healthy dose of fear, they were simply not healthy. we are simply not aware of what we are up against. so fear in this moment is rational and it's healthy. but it's not the kind of fear that should cripple us.

it's that kind of fear that makes us realize that we have to dig deeper than we ever have, and reach up with more desperate -- than we've ever done. and find the strength to know that it's not that we are not afraid, it's because we are and we should be. but that we will find our courage by understanding that there is something more important than our fear. and that's how i define courage. the courage that is needed today. and one very important aspect, one very important dimension, required of this courage is the knowledge that it isn't just up to us to face today's challeng

challenges. you know, in the koran the difference between the believers when they were marching to meet goliath and his army, and those waffled and wavered was not simply confidence in themselves, but it was their focus, their focal point. one perceives the world through the prism come every other focus entirely on the means. one group found that courage because they said allah is with us. how many times has a small group defeated a large group? and they went on, the famous story of david and goliath. while the other group said we are overwhelmed by their numbers

and felt engage in and indulged that fear. one group focus on the power of the creator, and the other focused on their own inadequacy. so i'm not asking you today to simply have confidence in our capacity. that's not enough. i'm really, i'm asking you to have faith, to make your faith cover your fear, define courage in the conviction that it's not just up to us. that what we are called for his

obedience, not outcome. when i am most afraid is when i think that my abilities is what is required to bring about a positive outcome. when i instead focus on my ability to work but now that all law -- allah is in charge, i feel invincible. i feel empowered. i feel more courage than i should, if you were to see what capacity i have. my sense of courage is in the knowledge that it's not up to me, that if i obey whatever the outcome is, it is. so brothers and sisters, it is a time for courage.

but it's also a time and a need for great compassion. what do i mean by compassion? it's the kind of compassion that is needed to meet people where they are, to go to your audience, to your fellow citizens, to your neighbors, even to fellow muslims and meet them where they are. in their fear, in their ignorance, in their place of anger. and then to walk with them to a different space. this approach of compassion, we feel that the world is so

hostile can only be born out of the conviction that you have something to contribute, you have something to give, rather than you have something to beg for or take from them. our fellow citizens are not overlords to appease and today for acceptance and approval -- to beg. [applause] and at the same time our audiences and those we engage are not enemies to conquer. they are our equals, our fellow human beings that we have something to bestow upon them.

we have something to contribute in that we are offering truth telling, as an act of compassi compassion. not just in what we say but in the way that we act. i was so inspired at ispu we started doing research on the role of american muslims in the flight water crisis -- flint. so in flint, people were literally dying because they didn't have clean water, a problem that we are supposed to only hear about in far off lands. and yet it was right here in our country. flit michigan -- flint, michigan, where the water was poisonous here and when we were

doing this research, trying to understand what were the contributions of muslims in michigan, we by accident literally came across the work of hundreds of muslims in flint and their role in the recovery effort. quietly acting on their faith, leading in the recovery of a crisis, in a way that no one knew. we discovered that muslims have donated more water bottles than any other community, a million water bottles. [applause] that muslims had set up a free medical clinics, that muslims had set up institutions that

would stay much longer for a sustainable relief effort long after the cameras have gone home. doing this in the name inspired by their faith, meeting people where they were, in acts of compassion. they were not asking for anything. they were there to give. they were there to contribute. and this is the kind of role we have to see ourselves playing, as people called on to act as noble servant leaders, to those who are most in need. the worst thing that can happen

to a community that is being attacked is for them to enter lies a sense of victimization. that is not to trivialize that the actual victimization that we are actively undergoing. but what i mean by and internalize of victimization is one where we learn, we fall into learned helplessness, a sense of disempowerment where we feel isolated, where we feel alone, when we see ourselves as and a state of defense, in a state where we just want to build bunkers around ourselves. that's the worst thing that could happen. because that is far from what we are called to do.

we have to see ourselves as people who have a role in healing this nation from the deep -- [applause] -- traumas that our country is suffering from. so the second piece, the second piece of advice that i give to this sister is we have to leave lives -- lead lives of compassion where we are approaching our fellow human beings from a place of generosity, not a place of need. and the third and final thought that on reflection i want to share with you is in connectiveness, in seeing the connections between ourselves, our struggle and those of other

human beings. if we don't understand islamophobia as just one dimension of a wider phenomena of institutional racism, then we are not seeing the full picture. we are but one, as my colleague and brother put it today, we are one branch, islamophobia is one branch on a larger tree of institutionalized racism. if we don't see a connection, if it has to be explained to us that the same cancer that causes law enforcement to disproportionately target muslim communities from surveillance,

entrapment and criminalization, is the same ailment that results initiating and killing of unarmed black people every day, then we are not seeing the whole picture. that's one cancer, and these are two different manifestations. we need to see the connection between our humanity and those of others. and that means authentic relationships and coalition building between communities. one of the most dangerous goals of any kind of bigotry is to convince the target of that racism that they are alone, that they are isolated, that they are weak, that they were defeated.

and it is the opposite of the truth. i'm often asked in lots of different venues after give a talk about the importance of stand against bigotry, someone will always say, well, you are just preaching to the choir. we already know this. you should be talking to you, you know, xyz hostile people. and, of course, there's merit to engaging those who you may deeply disagree with, but i actually have a problem with this idea of preaching to the choir. and here is why. we should start with those who our respective to the message of an inclusive are listed america. we should begin with that. and guess what. there are way more people that are receptive to that message and we have reached.

they are reaching their hand to us, and we haven't reached back. in fact we are sometimes too busy running after those who hate us and that will never listen to us, that we haven't done the hard work of actually building relationships and coalitions with quote the choir. [applause] the second thing about preaching to the so-called choir is every single one of those people that is in that room listening to you as members of their family, and friends, who i assure you are not in the choir. and they can become ambassadors to those people who will not listen to you or me, not would listen to a family member that they trust.

so to see the interconnections between ourselves means to reach out to those first who are receptive. this is just business strategy. if you have a marketplace and 30% of the marketplace are untapped eager consumers, the you go after them first of the people that you have to spend billions of dollars to even get them to listen to half of which i do see. and yet there is a huge portion of the american public that are eager partners that we have never taken the time and effort to reach out to. and these are the people we need to start with. so in closing, i want to say that as scared and as exhausted

as some of us feel, and understandably so, i believe that as a doctor said, this is a beautiful time, a profound time and an inspiring time to be a muslim. we have an opportunity to change history. and i believe that we truly can't do it without -- we can truly get with help of allah. [applause] >> election night on c-span, watch the results can be part of a national conversation about the outcome. be on location after clinton and donald trump election night headquarters to watch victory at concession speeches in key

senate house and governor races starting levity in eastern and throughout the following 24 hours. watch life on c-span, on demand at c-span.org or listen to our live coverage using the free c-span radio app. >> tariq ramadan out on the state of muslims in america, the president to campaign and obama administration policies. he spoke also of the islamic society of north america's annual convention. this is about a half an hour. [applause] [speaking in native tongue]

[speaking in native tongue] >> so yes, as the brother said, i'm back. >> welcome back. >> and i just want to say something about this, because i think that many misunderstood the very essence of what i was saying, and i was very happy to have, to have discussions with the brothers over the last three years from the president of isna, who were instrumental in the discussion. because at the end of the day all things was to have constructive criticism and to

try to move ahead and to find the right way to respond to our challenges. it was not to undermine the legacy and the contribution of isna, which i think we all have to acknowledge. but sometimes you need to say things that you think are right, and to try to help your brothers and sisters to think about what is done under the pressure of the political pressure in the situation, and i will come to this in my discussion. the title of this convention was, as expected, is to ask the sisters and brothers. it's a call to action, to do something. and as you know when it comes to action, when it comes to go from

our principles to our daily life, what is important is to take into account the context, where we are, what are the priorities in which we have to deal with this. and there are some challenges. they are transhistorical, they are immutable. they are always is in because we're human beings. we have to deal with them whatever we are here and there are some challenges that are connected to our situation here, so we have challenges of life that life is the challenge him as a triumph, is a test and we had to deal with it. we have a challenge that are connected to the times, very contextual, what we are experiencing now in a situation and then the challenges of space come of the environment in our specific society, and for you in

canada, for those who view, coming from canada in the united states of america, and for all of us in the west. but let me tell you something first because i very much liked what our sister dalia wessling. i think that she has very good speeches and very much food for thought in what you heard this evening. and what is an essential dimension, when it comes to our situation here, when you look at what she said, for example, courage, compassion and connectedness. the three notions that she used. at the end of the day you come to the person and yo to underst, and she's completely right by saying courage is not the absence of fear. it's to acknowledge the fact that you might be scared,

exactly like -- was dared from the time of the magician and allah technology this. so you are scared but don't be scared. why? i am with you. so this connectedness that we're talking about when it comes to being connected to human beings, it's in fact the starting point of our courage is deep understanding that at the end of the day the challenge for us and united states of america in the west starts with this connection to god. no, no, there is no clapping. there is meditating and trying to understand. so when it comes to this, the very good answer to the three challenges that we are facing, if we are saying now this is a

great time, this includes the time to ask him to raise the challenges and it's good for us, it's start with in which way the challenges that we are facing are helping the too close to the one. to go through a journey which has to do with the knowledge of god, the knowledge of law. so don't translate the challenges it is something which is being active, being politically involved to not understanding the priorities. the priority is if you want -- try to get peace inside you and peace inside you is this relationship which has to do with -- safe and god, man, security with my heart and

spreading as -- so spread peace. so this has to do with the knowledge of god. and to do this, especially in our times, one of the main challenges of our time is that we don't have time. we don't even space to think with their own self, to remain with her own sense, time to think for mine, what am i doing, what am i produce, what i am doing with my family, what i'm doing with my life. we come to conventions. you bring that down and at one point he listened to talks, and all the talks are sending you back to who are you, what are you doing. so the starting point after the consumerist society, on the fashion, on the tv, internet, connection and the social networks take time. the struggle of time is in this period of time in our life, just

to understand if you want to get the courage to understand that god is with you, first be within. as it was said by our imam, succumbed to me as we come to you, but if you go far from me, you are going far from yourself. [speaking in native tongue] don't be like those are forgetting allah. à la made them forget themselv themselves. so this is the first which is the first challenge in the way we are to look at the things, it is also something which has to do with her own self, but also if you read the koran, what you think about the profit, changing the world and crying during the night because he got the first say that shrek. [speaking in native tongue]

so he's facing the world, changing the whole society, crying. because look at the world, look at the border are bound you, look at the science. my signed isn't this nature, the environment and you have to remember when you were set up, when you were sleeping, when you are lying, when you're sitting, remember. and this is the answer -- [speaking in native tongue] and you say, let me be one of those people went understanding, when i'm sitting, when i am lying, when i tried to be close to you because i know at the end of the day all what was said

about one to succeed if i don't see the signs of the presence around the. in this environment, even with the problems that they had in society, even if i look at some people who are doing wrong, i need to see in their creation the signs of his presence, even though i see in their behavior the signs they are law sometimes and i have to, with the creation in order to change the creator. so this is something which is so essential for us, insurance up her understand as muslims. so we were talking about changing, when we're talking about our way of life come and the american way of life, you know that the american dream can be a future nightmare your you know that what is sold to you

sometimes about having money, make you successful in this life, this could be a nightmare, but sometimes you better be a poor guy trying to get the money and close to allah than trying to live by the american dream and losing all your values, to the point that you want to be respected and accepted, to live. at one point you have to come with essential, the essential dimension and how are you going to get this? once again the first, muslim, american muslims, there are principles and there are things that you cannot miss. your personal education, the sign you take for yourself, but i would take for your wife. the time we take for your husband. the time you take for your kids. the time your kids are taken for the parents. all these things are essential

and what we're trying to do. and these are not words. this has to do with the way we deal with our life. and it means that as american muslims, their spiritual challenge and the spirit he had which were heard, it's important, the jihad of americans, this is something that it's everyone in our lives, this american jihad has to do with spiritual education, has to do with intellectual education, it has to do with a cultural production. all other this is part of who we are as muslims. and for us to be involved in all these fields as we keep on repeating for years now in science and everywhere, these are challenges that are important. so this is a certain message we

have to start with. this is where we will get courage, and we will get what is need for us to face the challenges of our time. it starts with his commitment, and be careful. it starts with but it's not ending with this. so all the people who are telling you be a spiritual being and that's enough. now, you're going to be spiritual if the way your spiritual and in the way you translate your spirituality into the could behave that is expected from all of us. now having said that, it means that every one of us, one of the main resistance is that we need to promote is disciplined. and i know that it's a word that we don't like, but disciplined with our time.

so how are you dealing with the time when you're reading books, pondering over your own life, taking time with your family, this is the way in which we deal with time and money. this is the way which we deal with our fellow citizens in our society. these are principles that are so important. we have to be disciplined. there is no spirituality without discipline. there's no spirituality without being clear with our mind. but disciplined is to advocate mention of your being. it's right for your mind, education, body, to a healthier life. be careful in the way you beat because at the end you are the way you eat. i have a problem in the society, the american way of life is not a healthy way of eating. it's not a healthy way of

drinking. it's not a healthy way of dealing with time, under pressure, stress and eating the wrong ways. in this country it's just a nightmare. so we have to come with something which is healthy islamic way. this is one of our challenges as well. having said that now, i don't want to stop with this. this is the stop i mentioned. this is where i was involved in the discussion with isna last, two years ago. it's here with you today because you know, i think that we have to engage with our fellow citizens at every level and what was said are what was said our e connected this is essential. we have to be connected and we have to get and to reach out to our fellow citizens. what is important now is not

only to behave as muslims when it comes to speak about the islamic issues. it's to speak as human beings, muslims, american citizens dealing with common issues and to society. this is our contribution. if we only a. no, if we only are visible when we are talking of islam and islamophobia, we are not going to get that. but it means that we have to be involved in this society went all, and connected and dealing with all the issues within this society. and when it comes to this, i think that we should understand that as muslims, one of the very, what you are facing it is a psychologist -- psychological or putting us in a situation where we are reacting, and we are victimizing ourselves and we keep on talking about

islamophobia. islamophobia is a very important challenge if we understand that it's connected to so many other things. it's not only islamophobia and we react. we need to get the big picture behind it. and when you see this, i think that we need to, to deal with our fellow citizens, but also with our government in a way which should be clear your look, two years ago when the muslims were invited to come for its celebration at the white house with the president barack obama, to go there and to engage with the government, you have to go, you have to speak with who ever comes to us. we are ready to speak and we're ready to speak with the highest level of all the government in the world, but we have conditions to invite, drink,

celebration during ramadan, the ambassador of israel, 1500 civilians were killed, it's a political mistake. you don't do that. if you invite us. don't do this for a medical purposes. that's not the right way of respecting as. this is what i said. when you have a president making the political mistake, you say it, that's wrong. and by the way, many americans were thinking it was wrong to do it in such a way, even from the american administration your i had the problem with the muslim leadership being silent about that. so it's not to engage. it's how do we engage with the government? and this is our critical loyalty once again. i'm very happy to have

mr. johnson coming from the homeland security year. we can be happy to have him, but i wonder as was said by one of our brothers, what is it that when it comes to speak to muslims we have mainly security agency and not the state department or the president himself coming? why not? why not? why do we talk, it's exactly this events which led to once i was invited as a swiss muslim and i was talking to a guy talking about, you know what, you ought our fellow muslim citizen. you will speak about migration and security. i'm sorry, there is a mistake there. i'm swiss and i don't have a problem with security. but there is a mindset here. so the way we are engaging the discussion, it's important, and with whom comes if you want to speak. and by the way, i had to do with the homeland security. i was banned from this country for six years, for what?

that i do something against the security of the united states of america? except to say that your take on palestine is wrong and invading iraq was wrong. and you banned me from the country. and now you're telling me forget about everything. i can't forget about my case because it was nothing, sit just outside the country. but today in the name of this renewal after the bush administration, what do we have? people being deported. people being in jail. people being treated in a way that they are like criminals. that's fine to come with my words, and i said eight years of obama's presidency was mainly about words. what about policy? we heard the other party speaking about guantánamo.

it happened that they had a friend, a brother who was there in guantánamo of three years of his life and he was innocent. and now we have people eight years of their life and they are innocent. and you promised to close at. and you promised to stop all these policies that are spreading violence, and to come to us and you say we are against radicalization. so i have a question. we are all for listening to nice words coming from the president and coming from even the candidate hillary clinton saying trump is wrong. but i have a question. is trump's rhetoric, it's coming from the west. in fact, he's getting the ground with his rhetoric because your policy has this rhetoric to succeed in this country. in fact, nice words are not going to compete with what he's

saying, if you don't change the way you deal with your fellow muslim citizens, if you don't change the way you talk to your own citizens. and if your policies are spreading fear, it's no wonder that you have all this anti-screening -- gaming ground. it's coming from the failure of years after september 11 and this war on terror and this way duty with violence and the so-called radicalization. so i think, okay, i think year that it's important for us to be involved in this discussion and also to be quite clear about our constructive criticism towards our government. it has to do with what is happening within and what is happening outside.

so as much as i'm talking about the spiritual journey, i'm also speaking but what is happening in the country. we have people demonstrating and saying stop deporting, don't treat people like this. and they are right. they are not acting are behaving against america's interest. on the contrary, they are talking to the power of to say be careful, we are here and we won't let you do this. that's not us. you are not talking in our name. and when it comes to what we are celebrating, like many muslims now are saying it's like i'm sorry, i'm sorry, even in the way to the we speak about muhammad ali, remember one thing. the way we speak about muhammad ali as a sport that, he was boxing. it's not the same way we are talking about malcolm x, his mentor. he was thinking. you are coming with a vision. you're saying you know what,

everything that we have in this country which has to do with racist is to recognize races is connected to the way he treated the africans, the way you treat the palestinians, to the way you treat the world. in fact, the logic within is the logic outside. tv don't get that, so kill me. and he knew, he wrote this to my father two days before he was going to be killed, now that i know the truth that they're going to kill me, it was taught about the nation of islam. it was about connectedness. it was about the big picture. it was not knowing now what is the struggle, the struggle is the way you treat the black people, the latinos and the muslims. islamophobia, and the way to forget the dignity of the palestinians and the way you exploit african people. it's the same logic. you insight as. do you know why? because we are true americans, free people and we're not going to let you do that.

that's the reality of it. [applause] now. it means the big picture. so when you black lives matter today, look at the way they're looking. their time to get alliances the route crossing the border but a fortune we don't have enough muslims there. it's as if muslims, you know what we do with the? we do with islamophobia. we are victims. you what as to unite? we will unite. it's about connecting, it's about even going and keeping and being silent about the fact that what is happening in palestine is wrong, what is happening in bangladesh, killing people is wrong. it's about silencing our voices and the new generation of muslims who are ready to be silenced are betraying not only them, they are betraying humanity and they are betraying even the american values. what we heard coming from -- that we have to heal, to yield

this country. it says something which is essential. but has reconciled the transit of america with the principles in practice, not just with principals come with words. enough of good words. i myself like so much t of the discourse of barack obama in cairo. what happened afterwards? nothing. words, words, words, said shakespeare. that's it. that the reality. let it be practical in my conclusion because i am losing my voice. is something which is important in all this. because we are coming and i really thank the brother and sister some isna, and you, that i was not going to keep quiet and what i heard from the president, when i heard from so many, we are not here to be silenced on critical issues. we get it right.

we want to be free american citizens. but what dalia was saying is essential. it starts with courage. but let me tell you something. if you look at all what i said, when you were talking to allah and our life is about communication, get the sense of his communication with them. we need to get the courage of loneliness. remember one thing, which is really terrifying. when sometimes i think about the people i love who passed away and you read in the koran -- that one day you will be alone, that one day you're going to be under this soil and just below in your grave. soon the courage of being lonely in this life is just to think, take time about think what are

your priorities. the courage of loneliness in this world. the courage as well of independence, and it depends is what i said no, to be independent is to speak the truth, to be independent is even to speak the truth to the people you like. i didn't like and i'm going to say, as much as i didn't like, not i didn't like, i didn't agree with what i heard coming from homeland security telling us that everything is not we we know what is happening in the country. so i'm critical but am also critical from the deputy prime minister, the turkish and deputy prime ministers coming in the country here and saying things that are just label all the tears and we have to supported. i'm sorry. the best way i kept -- now now now. the best way i can support by turkish brothers and sisters is to be constructively critical when i see a government come in telling us we are going to go

for that penalty because the people want that. and saying all operatives our tears and say i'm not going to buy that. that's not possible. and because i am supporting you, your quest for democracy process, i'm not going to accept that. you go to far. and when you are going to for a have to be critical. so the courage of independence, even with their own brothers and sisters. promote what is right even against your brothers and sisters and promote what is right even against powerful people. that's the courage of independent. the courage of dealing also with our ethics. ethical into society. be courageous enough to be ethical. ethical means to abide by your principles. be courageous enough to say you know what, at the end of the day you do whatever you want, but don't ask me to promote what you were doing.

i'm not going to go for any ethical or any unethical behavior when it comes to human behavior. don't like and expect to be that i'm going that way. that's not the way. and the last thing is also to encourage others the right political point that is needed in this country. can i tell you something? this country is in dire need of people who are courageous enough to speak the truth. and if you think you are american muslim, american citizen and by accident think it is for you is to be respected and accepted without speaking the truth in this country, you are not going the right way. if you're here you to help the country to have the courage to be vocal enough to be heard in this country. and remember one thing that you find in the koran.

[speaking in native tongue] don't be, don't fear the fear. don't be sad to you are going to win if only you are a believer, and now this. this is truth. even if all the people think you are failing, that if at the end you are killed because you're right or you are in jail, and you are right, and you were insulted and you are right, and you have no money that you are right. at the end of people can think that you failed, but you know that you are winning. that's the reality of it. winninwe name needs to be right, whatever the people think, whatever the price you pay. [speaking in native tongue] i'm very sorry. 10 minutes more. that's my swiss way of dealing with friends.

[applause] ♪ >> a picture the story of hillary clinton taking a picture with reporters who have been covering her campaign. [inaudible conversations] >> this is a tradition among the press corps. she stopped also to make a few comments. >> it would make a real difference in what we could get done, but right now we are just looking at maximizing our turnout operation everywhere, and working in coordination obviously with other candidates in both the house and the senate, and governorships. but i'm really excited about having a chance to make all the

stops today. the event tonight at independence hall is really meaningful to me about where it is and everyone who is there. [inaudible] >> it seems to me that over time you have been often ahead of your time. you been sometimes misunderstood. do you think that today america understand you and is ready to accept you? >> well, i think i have some work to do to bring the country together. as i've been saying in the speeches in the last few days, i really do want to be the president for everybody, people who vote for me, people who vote against me. because i think these splits, these divides that have been not only exposed but exacerbated, the campaign on the other side are ones that we really do have to bring the country together.

opdyke. >> absolutely. i love this country and i believe in our people and we have a big agenda ahead of us but i'm excited. .. it is one of a number of rallies that we are covering live today. we are also showing a donald trump rally in scranton

pennsylvania. and it begins at 530 eastern. it will continue tonight at eight eastern with president obama and first lady michelle obama campaigning with the clintons in philadelphia hillary clinton again in raleigh north carolina. be part of a national conversation about the outcome. on the election night headquarters and watch victory and concession speech is in key senate house and governors races. throughout the following 24 hours. on the communicators.

they talk about the technology issues. the top tech issues. they interest me most are the commitment to really expand broadband access. with a lot of talk about competition and bringing the benefits of broadband to all americans. mister trump's policies are concerned. i think we all want to see the internet. and see it be made available to all i think we want to see more rapid innovation.

what they're saying is the way to that path was lower taxation. on c-span two. should libertarians vote. they recently debated that. from economic and social perspectives and from the standpoint of whether or not voting can influence policy and opinions. good evening. welcome to the cato institute tonight we are debating the question should libertarians vote. why is there something rather than nothing. for libertarians why is there some government rather than no government.

for some of us politics and the offer ends there. tonight though we can ask about a very specific act within the policy. taking the affirmative side. they should vote. we have the senior fellow jim harper. and michael cannon who is the director of health policy studies. taking the negative side. on the far right. at the center for constitutional studies. and research fellow and editor of libertarianism.org. i am jason. also a catered we search. i will be moderating this debate tonight. some ground rules and because debates always do that. first of all nothing that you have there.

we do not take sides on those things. it's not what the mission is. so we are going do the best. thus that's i will be are trying to tell you. first, we have a ten minute opening statement from each side starting with the offender minute. then there will be 20 minutes of moderator questions. then there will be ten minutes of questions inside the audience and i will stress they must be questions not speeches. hopefully we won't run too far off time but we will do the best we can. so without further ado i will turn it over to our affirmative side. >> thank you jason.

thank you colleagues for participating. thanks all of you for observing this debate. thanks for folks watching at home. i hope it is interesting and entertaining. maybe just one or the other. there is a lot of folks who argue against voting some of the best our right here with us. i think there are three reasons to vote. one is the direct influence on the outcome. the indirect influence on other political actors and what i will call social influence that michael cannon is gonna discuss mostly. friends of ours and most people argue against voting because there is no way your vote is going to affect the outcome. that's fine. again, good people. they have not thought this all the way through. i would like to assess briefly the cost and benefits of voting it will go to the back of the envelope to do some excellent calculations.

start with cost. does it take a thousand hours to figure out how to vote. do you need to educate yourself about every issue. not really because of voting is very constrained. and if you're a libertarian you probably already know enough about a lot of the issues. maybe it's one to two hours. at the time it takes to go. maybe there's a line maybe not. let's say it's 20 minutes of your time on the cost situation. they are only that you are voting in a presidential. that is the one that they calculate four. their chances are about one in 60 million depending on the and depending on the state you're in it could be higher and lower. and the next conclusion. i'm out of here. another study by scott alexander assess the value of

that chance of affecting presidential outcome at $5,000. that's based on the $2 trillion that the bush administration expended in the iraq war for example. what if you want in 60 million chance of stopping it. the trillion plus expenditure. it could be the one that stop that from happening. still i think that's an overestimate. let's take it down by a factor to $500. a course that model of a presidential vote is not the entirety of it. if the vote in the senate. maybe it's $1.3 million. but still $10 of that. your governor maybe you can affect things that it could be the deciding vote. your mayor or alderman mayor or alderman whatever the case may be.

initiative campaigns in many states are pretty big deal. they have a 9 billion-dollar bond issue that being the defining is out -- being been the deciding vote on could be that. and tweak these numbers anyway you want. let's say it's worth $5. if spent a little more time on all of these the chance of affecting them are small but the value is quite high. i put $530 here but let's say it's more like 53. i think it's a least a crow -- close call. one of my favor on this question this comes from experience. we both worked in capitol hill so we have some experience. votes are at dazzling roman candle.

these witnesses are incorporating vote information not just outcome but the win loss margins. there watching those that you create. even if it doesn't elect or decline. and incorporate that into the action. were talking about people who decide to run or decide not to run. were talking about the parties that decide to get behind candidates or not. they write differently about different candidates or parties. in were talking about donors. so that is a the question of indirect influence. like the direct influence but there is also a social influence and i will hand the microphone over to him to continue with that topic. and i will hand the microphone over to him to continue with that topic. think you all of you. the good news is that they had defeated every right and it's all less for us to discuss now

is whether they should vote. if you are the sort of libertarian who does not care about making the world a better place if you just want to complain and wants to turn people off of the ideas you want to confirm stereotypes who don't care about anybody but themselves then you should not only not to vote you should brag about it. you should brag about how useless it is. if however you are sort of libertarian who wants to make the world a better place yes you should vote. and jim has talked about the benefits of voting in terms of your influence on policy outcomes or the strictly financial cost benefit. the benefits of voting in terms of your influence on electrical outcomes. they are even greater than they suggest.

it has direct vote totals. they see it as an act of caring. suppose an african-american mother approaches you with a campaign fire and ask you to vote in the presidential election because she fears for her sons had donald turn wins. a significant share of african-americans already believe that they are full of it . if you tell her i agree with you but i don't vote. let me tell you why they are your real friends. we think she's in a think. is her mind going to be open. it ends in the federal government deporting her

grandmother. she can a belief that they are her friends. would you believe it. if you don't vote some people are going to think you're selfish and most people don't open their minds to what selfish people think. and that not only applies to you but every libertarian including everyone who listens to you. aaron and trevor had thousands of obedient followers on twitter if they broadcast to their followers that it's a good idea give or take. if they broadcast that they don't vote. the decision to make not voting affects more than just one vote. with all libertarians who we have here.

charles murray. kennedy. we have it gary johnson there. a lot more twitter followers than any of the rest of us have. if they decide it's irrational and a second have an impact in the broadcast the message to their twitter followers a lot of them can be libertarians who will depress the vote even more. what if they did the same thing. he head about 2 million followers. they came out and said we are libertarians. should they encourage their followers not to vote. pretty soon you're talking about a significant number of votes not showing up in the vote tallies not showing up in primary elections.

even in the polls of likely voters. they screen for whether you voted or not. it will skew how politicians and if you don't vote. their views won't show up in as a public opinion surveys. it will be most influential surveys. but they could show up at the libertarians play the card right. glenn whitman once wrote. he is a writer in hollywood now. here is this just a week ago. the whole question is just a classic collective action problem. they would all be better off if they all voted because we would be able to pull political parties in a more libertarian direction. i don't vote.

you're right. it's not likely to affect the ultimate outcome. if every libertarian follows that. then we're all worse off. everyone else that is the people they adapt to the problem that way they usually do. people should do the socially beneficial thing. they are benefited from created such a social norm in favor of voting. it is a repeat game. it is according. and there are principal reasons not to vote. and i vote that they react to examiners. he even offers at this picture of his newborn son.

[applause]. and feared us to the other side it has some adorable kids too. i'm can allow them ten minutes to make their case. >> thank you jason and think you all for coming. thank you for coming up with this event and michael for joining us and letting me join on. i'm in a start with the basics and want your vote. in most situations. it still of the gold standard of one and 60 million chances. that is a general chance if you were in california and you're voting republican it could go up to one in the billion. in terms of the expected value this is a different question. your chance times the possibility that some things can get past. they ran the number and came up with 2.5.

for your to actually make a difference unexpected value. if it's a runaway victory. or 1936 of her roosevelt. and no single vote has every -- ever decided the presidential election. the turnout. the turn out. the same problem. no politician has ever said i won by 4.0017. i would totally have a mandate. it has never happened once in human history. they look at 56,000 contestants since 1898. they found that seven that were decided by a single vote.

that was in 1910 race in buffalo. about 41,000 votes cast. but upon recount the single vote disappeared. it gets me to bush beat gore. it actually proves that if it ever comes out to 500 votes it will be decided by courts and lawyers and not by the actual voters. they are not reasonably up for debate. you have not mattered in every -- ever election. i could take you back as your angel and say look of at the world that happened. i would be the exact same world except you would have more time as you didn't vote. we should reframe the question. why should they do that. at least in the outcomes that are concerned. there is a lot of reasons to not do that. anything effective is good

enough reason. if someone says why that what you write dance he would say because it's ineffective if you ask people why don't you vote that just seems weird. it's odd. you all know that your vote doesn't matter. most of you are on the other side and we are the weirdos in the room. what makes this weird. what matters is what michael pointed out. yes your vote doesn't matter but voting in the aggregate matters. as it trivial true statement. voting that way does matter. to ask whether or not it is run for wrong for a libertarian to abstain from voting. the answer at the at question is no. we are not making the case that they should abstain from voting. were not saying that it's wrong for them to vote.

if it is meaningless we don't care what you do with it. instead we reject the idea that there is something wrong with choosing not to vote. choosing to abstain from an election is nothing to be ashamed of. we believe that there are reasonable arguments for abstaining in fact the argument between jim harper and me they believe that they are more ugly -- morally troubling aspects to it. and they do it know it fully mother any individual's decision to not eat meat want save the life of a single animal.

do we condemn them for not fulfilling their specific duty. are there principles stronger or better than ours. your vote has no impact on the direction of the country. yet still that doesn't mean it's without cost. it has deep symbolic meeting. and that symbolic meeting is overplayed and wrongheaded. >> we believe it has a moral limits and there is a private spear of choice. they are in nearly everything they vote on. it falls outside the bounds of libertarian principle. it is symbolically signing on to what those people do in

your name. and given the outcome will likely be profoundly on libertarians it is not something i'm willing to do. i also know that it will make government worse. it allows me to maintain my principles. and live my sense of justice which is important because i owe it to the world to make it better. and i can do that in part by pushing back against the history on it. most americans have about the moral in and weightiness of voting. that makes me weird i admit but it is a weirdness i am happy to embrace. i wish more people would as well. it is not just a positive good it could be positively dangerous. james madison was terrified of voters so he wanted mechanisms for that.

they started creating the administrative state. all the while our government has got to be most powerful organizations. in making us hate each other in the process. why can't it do this while voting of course. it is an adequate check on government and the justification for whatever government does. they are beyond the legitimate power of government. we need to step back characterized voting as a week and an adequate form it can have real costs. the people raise voting many do. for many when president obama entered office it was like the messiah. he would sell things, fix things and make it better.

the antiwar movement of the left mostly disappeared partially because of partisanship but parsley because obama was in a take care of it. because of voting is perceived to support the government i can be very dangerous to see in every peoples republic of in the world. if the election is hitler versus stalin don't vote. >> what if they held an election and nobody came. they are only giving them the ability to say however many people voted that they chose me and claimed legitimacy. your vote doesn't matter. it is symbolic. let's agree that both are symbolic. if you like you can do your duty and i don't. i symbolically non- vote. what is wrong with that. if there was a national referendum on a national haircut. we started having a discussion

about it. and people start coming out and saying make your voice heard. do you believe in democracy. we do not vote about these things. mildly and without shame. and we will be the one to do that. i can imagine your argument making the opponents very happy.

what do you say to that. there is some sort of computer because it would be a very small amount. i'm talking about myself. it's all libertarians don't vote. into a question about voting mattering. we are resisting. it is not wrong for libertarians to not vote. there are other ways of trying to do social change but i think that changing people's minds about what voting can do in terms of that is something that is socially beneficial and can change that as well. jim's arguments about giving the cost.

if that works. they had been obligated not just to vote but to vote for someone one of the major party candidates who can win as opposed to throwing your vote away for someone like gary johnson or another independent candidate who stands no chance of winning and that will not influence things. what you think. mike's argument is throwing your vote away is irrelevant. jim, what you think about throwing your vote away. just to vote effectively or

just vote. because of the signaling that it throws up. a vote for a third-party candidate is not a thrown weight vote. the way you do that is by having more votes in the columns this year than you did the year before. and you can not just assume that other people don't exist. because they actually influence more people than just trevor. he has more than he may be thinks. we can't just assume that. it is only a thrown away vote. the only thing that matters is whether your vote will be the deciding vote on who gets to be president or who wins this

election. .. if the sheep screens i vote no, that does not legitimize the process. i mean, you could vote for whoever you want for whatever reason you want to a vote is you

are registering your opinion about your influence, such as a boat is about how the government will use its source of power and if you say i don't want it to use its core civic power you can do that and there is nothing that legitimizes about voting for-- you can vote for john q anarchy you want to. there is nothing legitimizing about that. it doesn't make you responsible. >> in brief i went-- before i get to my answer want to discuss some points of agreement among us. aaron and trevor each said they were weird and that is one point of agreement, but i do think that the national haircut was a bar thrown in the direction. >> with a revolution comes.

>> if i may move on. >> voted to ratify the outcome and i'm inclined to believe there is a minor seat signal sent and maybe someone somewhere on the pro- big government side that says look at the voting process patient that there is, therefore, the outcome is valid, but that is a minor and rarely used signal as compared to the margins of victory in the electoral races them self because again those are used by congressional staff, funders, future cabinets-- candidates. the signal given off by the margin of victory is more powerful than the ratification of the democratic process of effective participation. >> so, on the sheep it seems

reasonable for the sheep to instead of saying i vote no, to vote you don't get to vote no. also, people don't use coercive force seems like an argument more about ballot initiatives that we should be making x illegal yes or no, no, we should not make it illegal would not violate my principles, but it does not apply to candidates or anyone who has a chance of winning because they may have some things we think our libertarian, but they will do lots of things better not with like an abdication of force. also, my sense is that people take voting on seriously, so writing in mickey mouse or a pretend candidate or writing in -- >> vermin supreme.

>> at least as offensive and offputting as abstaining from voting. >> is it just going to the booth that you require of me to not think i'm a weirdo? i go to the booth and-- >> leave the ballot blank? >> or leave it blank, is that more the better? >> and we have a yes or no and then maybe move on. >> i'm not sure it's a yes or no >> just go to the ballot box and cast a blank ballot to-- to satisfy the requirement? >> benefits signaling. >> the greek-- degree of signaling improves, but if you write in a legitimate person and say this was my choice, then you are telling the person you are talking to who a you are trying to bring to your side that i also care about my community. >> if i can respond to appoint aaron made.

i don't think it only applies to ballot initiatives are coming when we are voting for candidates for office we are selecting between different people in deciding who will get the pre-existing powers that exists in the apparatus in this particular office. i don't think it's legitimizing or that it validates the bad things that the candidates i didn't vote for did or even a candidate i did vote for does, if what i'm trying to do is trying to cast a vote for the candidate i think will do the least bad stuff with awful powers i think government should not have. >> do you say that to jehovah's witnesses? >> that they should try to-- >> that they should vote for the least-- >> it depends on-- i think locke-- non- libertarians should not vote, so it depends on how

libertarians-- >> i'm going to move on. why are you people unhappy we are eating having this debate. we have been told we risk making ourselves look odious to the general public. your point about rain dances may be true in that rain dances are ineffective at generating rain, but anthropologists have long pointed out that rain dances serve an additional function, which is social cohesion. in times of crisis and periodically even without crisis, communities perform rituals to bind themselves together as a community. what do you say about the ritual function of voting? >> some of those rituals are child sacrifice, also. we could waive the ritual and the morality of the ritual. i believe in social cohesion, but i think voting pulls us apart in a very specific way.

politics makes us worse as aaron and i often say and it makes us worse because of the things we are voting about. if a hillary supporter and trump a supporter lived next door to each other, they can live next door to each other because they are not in a world of property rights trying to control each other's lives, but as soon as you have them voting about what children world-- will learn, evolution or creation or what health care plan they will have they will hate each other and i think that the hatred that exists in america is proportional to the size of government and how meddlesome it is in our lives. prepared for this debate, i was looking for text about principled nonvoting or non- anarchist text and the one i found work christian texts work they were all mennonites, jehovah's witnesses, quakers writing about why they don't photo one of the most common ones was that it makes me hate my fellow man and i do not

followed jesus' commandment to love night enemy when i've-- i'm involved in a political system tried to control each other's lives, so in terms of civic engagement and how much we care about people i think we have the better argument. >> i think that argument you just made argues against your position and here's why, what divides as is not the act of voting or the act that we had different preferences when we go into the ballot box about this haircut or back haircut or creationism versus evolution, it's that the government is trying to impose one answer on everyone. that's what divides us. it's not the act of voting itself. if the government were not doing this and we are coming up with a one-size-fits-all rule for everyone than i could teach creationism and you could teach evolution and we could shave our heads and you could not and we could look better than you. [laughter] >> we would get along fine. we would be neighbors, different, but sybil with each

other and no reason to fight because to each his own, but when you say that the problem is of voting and voting is what divides us, so we libertarians will not vote then you are making it harder to get rid of those things that actually divide us, so for all the reasons we stated libertarians should vote to reduce the government's influence over all of these quests-- >> one quick response and we will move on. >> if you are sliding back to voting in the aggregate, my individual vote will not lose the government in a more libertarian direction and secondly, from the signaling thing, our argument is that all of the way people have to place on voting and that they think voting is how we participate in that we ought to participate in for serious people we ought to participate is exactly what we are pushing back against. we are saved by voting and telling people to vote and signaling voting is okay, we are reinforcing these false beliefs about the scope of government

and so it's not-- it would be one thing if we set i'm not going to go because i'm lazy and libertarians should not bow because it's easier to sit home and play video games that would look bad, but with responding to the principled argument to why i'm abstaining to this particular system seems at least arguably as persuasive in the right direction or at least as a ray of hope that we will move in the direction or people don't think this is a legitimate way to choose how we run our lives. >> i have a question from the affirmative side. surveys have shown that voters know who their senators are. they show only half of voters know that the states get to love them. voters often cannot name more than one candidate or the house of representatives in their district. they can't say what the first amendment does. they are routinely ignorant about the fact of public policy. these are embarrassing and presumably not limited to the

political mainstream. how do you recommend that anyone felt in light of pervasive voter ignorance. >> like michael i think non- libertarians should not vote. if you know enough about yourself to be a libertarian you probably know the structure of the government and know that there is one representative in your district and two senators for your states. you probably know how you come out on most issues, so that this not affect our thesis come i don't think, that libertarians should vote. >> , to be clear about what we are for, connecting actually the eight-- all three of these questions because michael said about the intrusiveness of the government. these are the kind of things a government is doing that we think are outside of a legitimate boundaries of government and that people are voting on that is the problem and that's .1. secondly, for the question of ignorant voters, we know why they are ignorant voters, because your vote does not

matter. likely have an entire system that explains why when you actually own the benefits or the cost of decision you make you make better decisions and because of voting as a matter that is why there's ignorant voters. it is true, though, and i think maybe jim would endorse this, i'm not sure about mike, but it is true that if you are very very ignorance on the stuff that jason talked about, it's probably your duty not to vote. and it's your duty not to vote because the point of voting is to use-- to affect the course of powered government and if you do it from a position where you don't know how me representatives you have how many senators there are or you don't know who's running for office, then your ignorance could do a bad thing to people if you were the deciding vote. >> this is a reason to advance our principled objection to voting because one of the reasons that lots of ignorant people votes is because we as a

culture have convince ourselves that voting is this enormously in-- important thing and everyone should do it. doesn't matter how you vote or who you vote for, but the way you vote is the way you discharge or civic duty. you get out there do that every four years or two years than you have done what you need to do is a citizen and you are done and if we pushed back against that by same voting is like one of the more minor things you can do to advance your civic duty, that would seem to help cut out at least some of the ignorant of. >> real movements that actually rise to the level of the major parties and put it good deal of effort into activating their own voters and deactivating the other side of the voters making the other side of the voters feel demoralized. >> my next question is to the negative side. this week a poll was conducted of the cato institute policy staff.

it showed some 70% of respondents described themselves as regular voters and another 17 and a half percent were okay show voters pick of these figures are comparable to the figures of all americans that have a college degree or higher and i ask the negative side, where the libertarians of the cato institute not taking your advice. >> i start by saying if we are going to take having lots of people disagree with us as a sign we are perhaps wrong-- >> we are in the wrong building. >> that is held voting works, though, isn't it correct my colleagues have not listened to us enough. >> we don't have a problem with libertarians voting. of the best reason to vote is because it feels good to me because it doesn't matter it's part of the reason we don't have a problem with it, but if you feel like you're discharging some import duty and the costs are not too primitive, you

should vote. we are not arguing for a principal of a duty not to vote. >> i think we had in the libertarian community a lot of sensible people who understand these dynamics, pretty well and that statistic you shared, jason, we also have folks who really enjoy signaling how much they dislike democracy. i disliked the results that democracy produces and my preference is for liberty over democracy. by publicly expressing revulsion at democracy, i alienate myself from audiences that i could bring to my side, so i think it's self-defeating to talk a lot if you don't vote about not voting and why it is stupid. >> i would like to ask a question. i gave the thought experiment of an african-american mother or latina, but you can imagine any individual who faces a real threat from the outcome of any election, a real threat to their liberty that really is personalized for them and they

are very afraid of that threat, coming to you imagine someone like that coming to you and saying will you vote for candidate x in this election and what would you say to that-- this person that includes come i don't vote, includes the statement i don't vote. what would you say to that person including a statement i don't vote and how that advance the cause of liberty's? >> as you said in your introduction your signaling is caring and these people think by not voting what you are saying is i don't care about your problem. you work in healthcare policy and you argue that we should turn healthcare over to for markets. lots of people, it's one of the people-- reason we have a hard time convincing that turning this over to the market as opposed to saying i'm going to vote for a lot of that will help

you, that will cause for someone to give you medical care is signaling not caring. so, the objection is need to convince the people that this is a poor signal of caring and that by not doing it or bite turning healthcare over to markets or the other policies that we advance at the cato institute, we are doing it out of a sense of caring. >> one of these is a libertarian objective in one of these is not pick the libertarian objective of turning healthcare over to markets, not voting is not-- does not reduce corpsman society >> turning healthcare over from the government to the market reduces the influence of government in society and reduces cores in, so that's the principle and the inaccurate belief that i'm trying to overcome. but, as far as voting, it's sort of-- it's not something we have to take on. this belief that people have

that voting is even if it is false. even if it as false as i do the government-- that markets will lead to worse of care. even if it is that false argument. it is-- it does not involve corson, so again i ask you instead of dodging the question i ask you what do you say to that folder that is very afraid of the outcome of an election and how to advance liberty? >> i will tell you. first of all, it's kind of-- when people asked me about voting on initiatives and things like this because i am not-- there are times i can imagine myself voting under certain circumstances when things are small and based on my cost-benefit of analysis and if the government is limited. jim's style is against democracy pick we are not against democracy. we are against rampant overpowering at democracy, which

is what libertarians are against, also. >> why don't you sit over here? >> it's a very different moral question. if we are voting on a limited government. is a different moral question for libertarian. in the same way that it could be for a quake or someone else with different beliefs. if we are voting on courts and stoplights and if there will be a road here when we have a diagram that has brought overlap that is a very different question, but when people asked me to vote on specific things like mike's question, first of all i say i don't vote accurately and if i am going to vote i will research what you are talking about and make a decision about whether or not i'm going to vote. her assertion that i have two vote just to say i vote i will walk away and i did not call list debate like i don't go around telling people not to vote like usually. [laughter] >> and making a big deal out of it.

i don't do that. if people asked me i will tell them or i will just say i'm okay i don't make a big deal out of it in that way. >> can we wrap up with this comment? >> i would say to the person who is scared of their liberty being undermined by a person winning, that first, me voting for your site is not likely to impact your liberty one way or another. second, that the living out principles of justice and living out the principles of liberty that led me to believe in libertarianism by not legitimizing what i see as largely the legitimate powers of government has at least as much of an affected move in the world and the right direction and third, that i have compared to voting i have dedicated my career to protecting this person's liberty in all sorts of ways that i think are arguably much more effective than my vote and so if that's what matters than i think i'm doing okay.

>> with that, i would like to open the floor to questions from the audience. i see one question here. please wait for the microphone and identify yourself and make sure it are sentences in the form of a question. >> my name is drew clark, i'm a columnist in new york city-- sully city. i am probably in the camp that why are you even having this debate six days before a election, but i'm glad i came because i want to be able to ask a question of those who are not in favor of voting and sells personally. just want to preface this by saying that i used to believe like you all did on this side of the table and did not vote the first time i was eligible and i had what i think would-- it might regard as a asked attentional crisis thinking i

can't believe a throwaway that opportunity, so i've always tried to vote. i have not always succeeded because there are times when things are too costly, so i think you have made some good points like we probably overemphasize the importance of a voting, but by and large i think you really have to come down on the side of voting unless you are an artist. i'm not sure if you are not asking you if you are. >> what are you asking? [laughter] >> the reason the question is as a form of impossible rights, if i am a believer that my rights need to be compatible with the rights of all other people, you act in a way such that everyone in gauges in the same behavior as you would if you are arguing not to voting, result in a system where there was in fact no legitimacy to the state. so, question is, can you believe

in a limited state and still abstain from voting or i guess i should ask the reverse, to submit the case that your stance only holds value if you believe that the government as a whole is a legitimate? >> i would push back on the idea that voting is the way that we legitimize government. in fact, i think that there are quite airtight and quite compelling arguments that voting is not legitimize government and if we are going to legitimize it we have to do it some other way, so i would question the very premise of your objection. >> i agree as i said our arguments depends on what this thing that you are affecting, like a flea riding on the back of an elephant, but like affected theoretically what it's doing. it's entirely dependent upon that question about whether or

not i went to purchase they it's something i view as deeply immoral. there are things that the state does like the drug war for example walking-- locking people in cages were smoking a drug that the majority of people 80 years ago did not like, that's deeply immoral. i don't want to find-- sign my name to anyone who is for that. even if they are for political purposes and really does the drug war, but say therefore it. they are still immoral, for a different reason. first of all, i have never met a politician who is for all of my positions and there's another noise in the system about politicians because we have oversold-- there's another noise in the system i said about expected value calculation. we need to understand this in 2006, the democrats took the house and senate and it was all styled as a referendum on the

iraq war and it was time for exit polls showed massive voter interest and time for the government to rethink the war. that did not happen. candidates are like mirrors, nothing until you look at them and they will change entirely based on when they get in office , so there is doubt about what they will do including someone that would be for my positions. i will abstain because of that it merits. >> another question? s? yes? >> my name is christina and i just have a question about the way you are addressing voting, i guess, in general. when you are talking about it come it seems like more about presidential cider when i'm listening it i feel like i'm taking more of a local government. on this small-- i'm from a small town in iowa of 800, so when your target about the legitimacy

of government, what would you say where one or two votes do matter or school board members or city council will it-- where will affect your life in your target about making an impact on a smaller more social level and that seems to be most important to your community with what kids are learning and different things with your local economy or whatever? i guess that is my only question. >> the position trevor and i are staking out is that there are multiple considerations in place and one of them is how likely your vote is to influence things and move the margins in a way that will change things and then there are the moral considerations and you need to weigh them against each other. the smaller that election the fewer people who vote the more chance there is that your vote will matter and so it may be a flip to a coin where that outweighs our moral concern, but also there is this weird thing that happened in this country when we talk about elections

which is the indignation that week's press for who say they will not vote took only really comes up when we are talking about the presidential election. lots and lots of this, far fewer vote no smaller elections then vote in the national election. we don't get mad when people say i did not vote in the midterm or i did not vote in the school board election even though they have a greater chance of affecting things in those, so we are in this weird situation where we are the rage that people feel that nonvoters adversely proportional to how much the vote matters. >> let me endorse the question because a lot of people come to this based on a model and that's the model that you will have one vote in the presidential election and that's the only thing going on. down ballot gives you lots and lots of opportunity to affect things and you're more likely to affect outcomes by its own small margins, but participating in these elections is a big deal in the small town. i'm-- this is a related story.

my mother used to grant against a variety of things, but the political sphere she turned that ranting interaction. it was in a boat, per se, but she ran for office. she ran for a hospital board in california that purported to govern a hospital that no longer existed on the platform that she would do away with the board. lissa, she was not going to get elected and she didn't, but she said something to a lot of people and she may be hooked up with some mind to that again about whether that county hospital board should exist. think about the down ballot, not just the pure economic model that we are only talking about. >> i have seen a lot of questions in the audience and i have promised both sides closing statements, although, if you want to weigh that in favor of more questions i will be in favor of that also. what you think?

we will take one more question i guess and then close. you in the front. >> i would like to ask something in regard to not voting because of ignorance. so, what i'm wondering is why would you promote not voting instead of providing being informed, educating yourself and being ongoing, how's that better >> being educated on all of the issues, so not just the presidential election, but the down ballot except that jim is big on is extraordinarily time-consuming and has a lot of opportunity costs. there are plenty of issues that i don't have enough knowledge on