Somehow only you know them. Does it depend on how the facts were obtained? Does it depend on whether you think that only irrational voters will switch? And what if those irrational voters will switch to the candidate you deem is the better one. Would that make a difference in your decision?

Don't tease us. Spill the beans

I did 30 years ago. I am the reason Dina Titus is in Congress. She doesn't dispute that.

The "irrational voter" framing is pretty problematic. Slightly better than the "shallow thinkers" framing from DUCY *but still bad. Although I've always gotten the distinct impression from you that you think irrational/shallow thinkers SHOULD be a relevant distinction in politics (ex arguments about restricting access to voting) so I was a tad surprised to see a full throated defense of their right not just to vote but to information that may change their vote in DUCY.

I generally take the view that public discourse leans more towards "exertion of power", and that you aren't talking about, say, journalistic principles. Every politician omits facts to help persuade people to vote for them, albeit usually those facts are available elsewhere, but regardless I see no firm call against exercising your power in this way.

*and no, I have zero intention of reading that book, it just was the google result from googling dina titus david sklansky, a rather annoying task for something you really ought to have typed out for us in your OP or follow up if this is the angle you are going for.

my op was not about tituss. that story was legally obtained and it was reasonable that it would change a voters mind. I parried chezlaws joke with my own but the OP was about different circumstances.

if you think withholding facts will lead to a better outcome, then definitely.

same with adding inconsequential facts? dubious facts? untrue ones?

there's a word for untrue facts

Should You Lie To Change Votes?

Yeah David, you should consider withholding information from people.

Cuz we've spent the last 4000 years learning that more information and knowledge is a bad thing... ???

smh...



So good!

Ok. Can you share what circumstances you have in mind, or your thoughts about it at all?

Help us help you with meaningful replies by telling us what your position is. This is a theme for many of your OPs.

I know it's cool to hate on David but the person who actually said they were in favour of withholding information was PokerPlayingGamble, not David.

David is doing what he always does; which is to say he is asking vague hypothetical questions without relating it to anything specific and never giving his own opinion.

is this the thread where sklansky tells us he got a copy of the trump pee tape?

because if so, im totally in for it..

you are all reading too much into this. Russia stuff spurred a question into my mind that I thought was interesting enough to post. I think various answers e.g. could be justified as long as you make sure they don't contradict your answers to other questions . or if it does you change that other answer.

Sometimes facts should be withheld. The fact of someones sexuality for example. Usually pretty ****ty to out someone because you think it would cost them votes to your preferred candidate.

Generally seems too many factors to answer this question without being a lot more specific.

What about the concept that it shouldn't be up to you whether sexuality is a legitimate factor to be considered?

What about if the preferred candidate is running against someone as bad as most people here think Trump is?

My decision so I determine what the legitimate factors are.

It's like the torture argument - you can probably create a hypothetical where I will do anything.

I think the more interesting question is, "would you withhold facts that would change votes?"

I'm assuming it would change votes. So sometimes yes.

In a jury trial the judge will disallow evidence for at least two reasons. One is that he deems the effect on juries who are not trained decision makers will be greater than he thinks it should be (especially if it is evidence that helps the prosecution). The other is if the evidence was illegally obtained (almost always prosecution evidence I think. I'm pretty sure that an illegal wiretap that exonerates the defendant is allowed.)


But when it comes to voting there is no judge to make these determinations. Only the people who happen to be in possession of the evidence. Doesn't seem like an ideal situation.

do you mean like if jerry sandusky was a big liberal socialist type guy and he was running for president and everybody thought he was squeaky clean, but really, i saw him one time in the shower raping a kid. that kinda stuff? or like, stolen emails or something?

like if i knew that the republican candidate for US senate in alabama had dated 13-year-old girls when he was 30 and was banned from the local mall for creeping on girls. but i also knew that republicans would LOVE IT if their senator was a creepy pedo, like if i knew he would definitely win if people found out. it'd be tough, i'll admit, but i'd have to turn him in and just hope for the best.

Forget extreme hypotheticals. You know something that will switch votes away from Trump but shouldn't as far as you are concerned. You know that you would sit on it if it was the other candidate.

That's the question I answered. Depends what the fact is and I wouldn't, for example, out someones sexuality. Examples where I might tell but wouldn't for preferred candidates are misdemeanours as an adult.

Ideal is an unreasonable standard.

BTW it's come up before but I'd allow illegally obtained evidence. A necessary condition for this is that there is also a prosecution for obtaining it.

Ideally in this situation other sources would go deeper into it and make it more aware from a "mainstream" perspective, because if the only source was for instance a person who has a public blog of photos of young women paddling themselves - then to an extent regardless of the validity of the claim - the morality of the person making the claim might become the issue, and distract from what matters, and thus fewer votes (if any) would be changed on something that should change votes.