2020 Election---How I Voted and Why

     First of all, I voted Libertarian Party. That is because, after reading the party platforms of the four largest parties (Democratic, Republican, Green, and Libertarian), I find that the Libertarian Party platform moves us in the direction of justice and prosperity significantly more than the other platforms. However, at least in 2020, Libertarian Party candidates are not available for many positions.

     Secondly, I voted for some select Republicans. This in spite of the fact that, although there may be language in the Republican platform that resembles some language in the Libertarian platform, once elected, Republicans in general tend to be under-performers with regards to promoting justice and prosperity. The exception is the Republican Liberty Caucus. RLC candidates can be trusted to vote in the direction of justice and prosperity on a wide range of issues. For this reason, I consulted the Arizona Republican Liberty Caucus Liberty Index 2020 ranking for candidates that I could vote for. I voted for candidates that got a score of 90% or higher on the Liberty Index. I won't explain here the workings of the Liberty Index or why I think it's such a useful tool. Please follow the link above and decide for yourself. I think I can prove that the Liberty Index does indeed promote justice and prosperity, but that is off the topic of this post.

     I also voted for a non-Libertarian if I judged that one candidate was a significantly greater threat to justice and prosperity than the other.

". . . without his consent having even been asked a man finds himself environed by a government that he cannot resist; a government that forces him to pay money, render service, and forego the exercise of many of his natural rights, under peril of weighty punishments. He sees, too, that other men practice this tyranny over him by the use of the ballot. He sees further, that, if he will but use the ballot himself, he has some chance of relieving himself from this tyranny of others, by subjecting them to his own. In short, he finds himself, without his consent, so situated that, if he use the ballot, he may become a master; if he does not use it, he must become a slave. And he has no other alternative than these two. In self-defence, he attempts the former. His case is analogous to that of a man who has been forced into battle, where he must either kill others, or be killed himself. Because, to save his own life in battle, a man takes the lives of his opponents, it is not to be inferred that the battle is one of his own choosing. Neither in contests with the ballot---which is a mere substitute for a bullet---because, as his only chance of self-preservation, a man uses a ballot, is it to be inferred that the contest is one into which he voluntarily entered; that he voluntarily set up all his own natural rights, as a stake against those of others, to be lost or won by the mere power of numbers. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, in an exigency into which he had been forced by others, and in which no other means of self-defence offered, he, as a matter of necessity, used the only one that was left to him." ~Lysander Spooner, "On Voting," No Treason No.VI: The Constitution of No Authority, 1870

I call the above the "Lysander Spooner Proviso." However, it can't be applied if both duopoly candidates are equally undesirable.

     There were many positions that couldn't be informed by the above criteria. I've conducted random internet searches for further information, but in some cases, where the information available does not help to decide which candidate is more likely to promote justice and prosperity, I decided not to vote one way or the other ("Abstain").

President and Vice-President---Jo Jorgensen and Spike Cohen

Libertarian Party candidates

U.S. Senator---Martha McSally

Though generally not liked by Libertarians for good reason, the alternative (Mark Kelly) seems even worse, so I invoke the Lysander Spooner Proviso.

U.S. Representative---Abstain

Although Tom O'Halleran (D) ignores his constituents (and me in particular), I was equally disenchanted with Tiffany Shedd (R)'s bordertarian pro-War on Drugs stance, so I abstained.

State Senator, LD11---Abstain

The incumbent, Vince Leach (R), only got a 75 in the Liberty Index, and the challenger is a Democrat, so I abstained.

State Representatives, LD11---Bret Roberts and Mark Finchem

Bret Roberts got a 100 on the Liberty Index and Mark Finchem got a 90. Nice going!

Corporation Commissioners---Abstain

The reason I don't vote for corporation commissioners is that I don't see the Arizona Corporation Commission as something that promotes justice and prosperity. In fact, I'd like to see it abolished. Perhaps there is a way that a corporation commissioner could move us in the direction of justice and prosperity, but I've not been able to see it. Suggestions welcome!

County Supervisor, District 4---Abstain

The Pinal County Libertarian Party website offers no advice on which supervisorial candidates to vote for. Most of them are running unopposed anyway. I've not been able to figure out how to construct a scorecard for county supervisors.

County Assessor---Abstain

Douglas Wolfe running unopposed

County Attorney---Abstain

Kent Volkmer, unopposed. Due to state law, the more people that vote for the county attorney, the harder it will be for third parties to get county-level recognition.

County Recorder---Abstain

Virginia Ross, unopposed.

County School Superintendent---Abstain

Jill Broussard, unopposed.

County Sheriff---Mark Lamb

Mark Lamb is unopposed and bad on the War on Drugs and immigration, but I voted for him as symbolic support for his stance on the hysteria-induced COVID-19 proclamations of Gov. Ducey.

County Treasurer---Abstain

Michael McCord, unopposed.

Shall the Following Justices be Retained?

Robert Brutinel, Justice of the Arizona Supreme Court. Abstain. Couldn't find any info to help me make a decision.

Andrew Gould, Justice of the Arizona Supreme Court. Yes. Described in the iVoterGuide as a "proven originalist."

John Lopez IV, Justice of the Arizona Supreme Court. Yes. Described in the iVoterGuide as a "proven originalist."

Karl Eppich, Judge of the Court of Appeals, Division II. Abstain. Couldn't find any info.

Garye Vasquez, Judge of the Court of Appeals, Division II. No. The only info relevant to his judicial stance was that in 2008, he wrote a decision in a case concerning provision of state funds to private schools in which he stated:

"Only by ignoring the plain text of the Arizona Constitution prohibiting state aid to private schools could we find the aid represented by the payment of tuition fees to such schools in this case constitutional."

The legislation provided $2.5 million in state tax vouchers to the parents of former foster children who have been adopted, and $2.5 million for disabled children. I think that 1) a voucher system would move us at least a little bit in the direction of justice and prosperity, and 2) the "state aid" that was being withheld was originally money stolen from taxpayers. Granted that Vasquez's decision was correct according to the letter of the law, it was dubious from a justice pov, so I don't want to retain him.

Patrick Gard, Judge of the Superior Court, Div. 31. Abstain. Couldn't find any info.

Joseph R. Georgini, Judge of the Superior Court, Div. 20. Abstain. Couldn't find any info.

Jason R. Holmberg, Judge of the Superior Court, Div. 25. Abstain. Couldn't find any info.

Stephen F. McCarville , Judge of the Superior Court, Div. 17. Abstain. Couldn't find any info.

Christopher J. O'Neill, Judge of the Superior Court, Div. 29. Abstain. Couldn't find any info.

Robert Olson, Judge of the Superior Court, Div. 30. Abstain. Couldn't find any info.

Kelly Harrington, Chuck Wright, School Board Members. Abstain. Couldn't find any info.

Proposition 207 (partial liberalization of marijuana laws). Yes. According to the U.S. Libertarian Party platform, ". . . we favor the repeal of all laws creating 'crimes' without victims, such as . . . the use of drugs for medicinal or recreational purposes . . . "

Proposition 208 (tax the rich for education). No. According to the U.S. Libertarian Party platform, ". . . We support any initiative to reduce or abolish any tax, and oppose any increase on any tax for any reason."

Proposition 451 (issuing of bonds by Toltec Elementary School District). No. Same reason as Proposition 208, plus I'm not a fan of public education in particular.

Why Shouldn't Low-Risk People Get the Virus?

     In news dated June 24, 2020:

"The state's top health official says the key to slowing the spread of COVID-19 could be finding a way to reach the people who believe they're the least likely to get infected of suffer ill effects.
     Dr. Cara Christ said the biggest group of positive  test results is now among those age 20 through 44.
     'They're likely not the ones who are going to have the outcomes and the risk factors from COVID-19,' she told Capitol News Services.
     'But we need everybody to keep in mind that all of us have connections to loved ones and family members that all of us have connections to loved ones and family members that are high risk or people out in the community,' Christ said. 'And that's what we're trying to protect by containing the spread.'
     The trick now, she said, is crafting a message that is designed with that audience in mind.
     "We do want to see these numbers go down and we want to see the percent positivity go down,' Christ said.
     That, however, means convincing individuals to act safely---including those who may believe that even if they don't think they're invincible that contracting the virus won't really hurt them. And that, Christ said, comes back to the messages of physically distancing and wearing a mask while out in public when staying six feet from others is impossible.
     That message, however, is not getting across to those in the 20-to-44-year old demographic, she said, as evidenced by the high number of people in that age group who are testing positive for the virus---and as shown by videos of people crowding bars without masks.
     These are the people who are less likely to suffer severe adverse effects. But they're clearly coming down with---and probably transmitting---the disease.
     Consider: Of more than 43,000 confirmed cases of COVID-19 so far, more than 46 percent fall into that age group.
     But they make up less than a third of the population.
     Yet, they're not dying at the same rate of the disease, accounting for just 67 of the more than 1,300 deaths.
     Christ said exhortations for these people to protect themselves apparently does not work. So that, she said, requires a change in the message.
     'We need everybody to keep in mind that all of us have connections to loved ones and family members that are high risk, or people out in the community,' she said.
     'We need everyone to think about, "You may not feel sick, you may not think that you've been infected,"' Christ said. And a lot of people appear symptomatic.
     'So it's really important that if you are going to be within six feet of somebody you have got to wear that mask,' she said.

Let's examine the assumptions behind Dr. Christ's statements.   

Can wearing masks and physical distancing have any effect on the spread of the virus?
Theoretically, wearing masks and physical distancing could slow down the virus if implemented at a certain stage of the spread of the virus. However, there is no way of knowing exactly what stage one is at during the spread of the virus---such a determination can only be made ex post. Therefore, it can't be stated with certainty that wearing masks and social distancing have any effect on the spread of the virus.

Slowing down the spread of COVID-19 is a desirable thing. 
There are only two reasons commonly given for wanting to slow the spread of the virus:
1) To avoid overwhelming medical facilities. When it's said that medical facilities, the capacity of which has been determined by the state department of health of which Dr. Christ is the head, could be overwhelmed, they are talking about indoor ICU beds. There is nothing wrong with treating patients in field hospitals which, being outside, would lessen the danger of the spread of the virus.
2) To give researchers time to develop a vaccine. Unfortunately, vaccines against respiratory diseases have not historically been all that effective. They also require a long time to develop. Meanwhile, COVID viruses mutate rapidly which limits a vaccine's period of usefulness.
     Note that the claim is not made that slowing down the spread of COVID-19 will result in fewer deaths. If there is no vaccine, anyone who hasn't already contracted the disease will be a target for the virus. The only thing that could possibly protect uninfected people in the long run would be herd immunity. But slowing down the spread of the virus retards the formation of herd immunity.

Getting everyone to wear masks and physically distance will protect high-risk people.
It would if it could be implemented at exactly the right time (which can't be known), and if everyone went along with it. However, wouldn't it be more effective to concentrate on protecting the high-risk people instead of wasting resources on implementing measures that include low-risk people?

I've yet to hear a persuasive argument that there are any benefits from measures that keep low-risk people from getting the virus.