Events

The bleak prospect of living in a country governed by one of the major-party presidential candidates seems to bolster arguments against voting. Declining to participate in this year’s deeply unsatisfactory election may signal a preference for “none of the above” while denying personal sanction to the many wrongs and injustices governments mete out in our names. Not voting is a time-saver, too.

But non-participation in the vote may be an unwise option. Voting doesn’t just elect a candidate: it may signal to a variety of important audiences what direction the electorate would like the country to take. Perhaps voting is the best option available, even if other candidates and other systems of government would provide more liberty and prosperity. Failing to vote may waste personal power.

Is the best choice to vote one’s conscience, vote strategically, or not vote at all?

Join us for a debate on the merits of voting, followed by a convivial reception to pre-mourn the outcomes of the forthcoming election.

In favor of voting:

• Jim Harper, Senior Fellow, Cato Institute
• Michael Cannon, Director of Health Policy Studies, Cato Institute

Against voting:

• Aaron Ross Powell, Research Fellow and Editor, Libertarianism.org, Cato Institute
• Trevor Burrus, Research Fellow, Center for Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute

Moderated by:

• Jason Kuznicki, Research Fellow and Editor, Cato Unbound, Cato Institute

If you can’t make it to the event, you can watch it live online at www.cato.org/live and join the conversation on Twitter using #CatoVoteorNot. Follow @CatoEvents on Twitter to get future event updates, live streams, and videos from the Cato Institute.

Are immigrants and refugees critical threats to American security? The Syrian refugee crisis and terrorist attacks in the United States and Europe have prompted fierce debate over how to strike the proper balance between national security, the benefits of immigration, and a humanitarian refugee policy. Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has taken the extreme position that the United States should not welcome any immigrants or refugees from Muslim-majority nations because of the threat of terrorism. Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, has called for significant increases in the number of Syrian refugees that the United States accepts. Join us for a wide-ranging discussion as our expert panel examines the risk posed by foreign-born terrorists and how the public views the connection between immigrants and refugees on the one hand and national security and terrorism on the other.

Recent events in Oklahoma and North Carolina continue to draw the nation’s attention to the combustible relationship between police and the communities they serve. Yet despite the national focus, important facts are getting blurred as partisans on both sides square off in an increasingly divisive national debate.

Join our panel of Cato scholars to sort out and clarify a broad range of issues, including pretextual stops, police militarization, the use of body cameras and more.