Bryan Caplan  

Why I Don't Vote: The Honest Truth

Good Economics News from Harva... In monetary policy, 8k peaks a...
I do not vote.  Since I'm an economist, the parsimonious explanation is that (a) I know the probability of voter decisiveness is astronomically low, and (b) I selfishly value my time.  But that's hardly adequate.  I spend my time on many quixotic missions, like promoting open borders.  So why not vote?

My honest answer begins with extreme disgust.  When I look at voters, I see human beings at their hysterical, innumerate worst.  When I look at politicians, I see mendacious, callous bullies.  Yes, some hysterical, innumerate people are more hysterical and innumerate than others.  Yes, some mendacious, callous bullies are more mendacious, callous, and bully-like than others.  But even a bare hint of any of these traits appalls me.  When someone gloats, "Politifact says Trump is pants-on-fire lying 18% of the time, versus just 2% for Hillary," I don't want to cheer Hillary.  I want to retreat into my Bubble, where people dutifully speak the truth or stay silent.

I know this seems an odd position for an economist.  Aren't we always advising people to choose their best option, even when their best option is bleak?  Sure, but abstention is totally an option.  And while politicians have a clear incentive to ignore we abstainers, only remaining aloof from our polity gives me inner peace.

You could respond, "Inner peace at what price?"  It is only at this point that I invoke the miniscule probability of voter decisiveness.  If I had a 5% chance of tipping an electoral outcome, I might hold my nose, scrupulously compare the leading candidates, and vote for the Lesser Evil.  Indeed, if, like von Stauffenberg, I had a 50/50 shot of saving millions of innocent lives by putting my own in grave danger, I'd consider it.  But I refuse to traumatize myself for a one-in-a-million chance of moderately improving the quality of American governance.  And one-in-a-million is grossly optimistic.

What about my children?  If I'm worried about their fate, I'll save more, put money offshore, or buy canned goods - all of which could plausibly actually help my children.  What about the victims of bad policies if the Greater Evil prevails?  If I had an effective way of helping them, I'd consider it.  (The same goes for the victims of bad policies if the Lesser Evil prevails).  But voting is a pathetically ineffective way of helping these victims.

I have fine friends who find my attitude dumbfounding.  My question for them: Suppose the Greater Evil wins - and offers you a job in his administration.  Will you take it?  If you need time to weigh your answer, you're more like me than you admit.  Even if you ultimately say Yes, your hesitation at my hypothetical shows that consorting with bad people hurts you deep inside.

Politics isn't utterly hopeless, but it's mostly hopeless.  The only way I know to escape this darkness is to focus on the tiny corner of the world in my control and make it beautiful and pure.  Call me anti-social if you must.  Unlike your candidates, at least I'm honest.

COMMENTS (46 to date)
Jacky writes:

does this mean you should hold your nose and vote in local elections? The chance that you could affect results is more than 5%. At least in the latest results at Fairfax (where you are at, i suppose), your family alone could have swayed the results:

"SEVEN CANDIDATES vied for six positions, with just three votes separating the two with the lowest vote totals"

Daniel Klein writes:

"Indeed, if ... I had a 50/50 shot of saving millions of innocent lives by putting my own in grave danger, I'd consider it."

Moments like this reinforce our suspicion that we know you better than you know yourself.

Keith writes:

I don't disagree with this analysis, but I wonder if Bryan has considered the larger electoral effects of telling everyone about it--especially on a disproportionately libertarian forum. After all, many potential voters might be persuaded not to vote.

Robert Wiblin writes:

"But I refuse to traumatize myself for a one-in-a-million chance of moderately improving the quality of American governance."

Presumably voting wouldn't actually traumatize you - it would just be unpleasant for an hour or two.

And if you're in Virginia, your odds of changing the election outcome are around 1 in 10 million based on Gelman's research.

So it's more like: "But I refuse to suffer an annoying experience for 1-2 hours for a one-in-a-ten-million chance of improving the quality of American governance." (Usually moderately, I'd say more than moderately this time.)

Which is still understandable if you're not that self-sacrificingly altruistic towards the many strangers in the world.

MikeP writes:

My honest answer begins with extreme disgust. When I look at voters, I see human beings at their hysterical, innumerate worst. When I look at politicians, I see mendacious, callous bullies.


I have never voted for anyone who didn't run as a Libertarian or who didn't explicitly express libertarian principles. So the mendacious, callous bullies don't really affect my voting.

As for your first complaint, that is actually why I always vote. I vote because it is my one chance to be surrounded by people who feel deep in their hearts that it is not only their right but their civic duty to choose my rulers for me. It is very funny and very sad at the same time, and there are few places that you can get that blend of emotions. I suppose I could drive myself to disgust as well, but that's not very fun. And it's frankly uncharitable to place such blame on people who are quite rationally uninterested and mistaken.

Maybe with a small change in attitude, voting can be fun for you too!

For committed libertarians, I offer my reasons for not voting in Is it Wise to Vote? Getting My Head Ready for Freedom. It has to do with building my brain into productive habits.

AntiSchiff writes:

Dr. Caplan,

I think the contradiction here is that you seem too emotional about a potential decision to vote that you say has a miniscule chance of mattering much. It seems that rational indifference would be a consistent view.

Evan McIntosh writes:

In your opinion do you feel that by not voting at all, and from that abstinent, incentivizing your personal party to no longer attempt to pander to your needs. Knowing that you simply don't vote it is more cost effective to play to the loudest outspoken and voting members of your party. Would it not communicate better to your party if you were to vote across party lines. Signaling to your party that current courses of actions will cost them. This may be a drastic measure, but I can't think of another way to show my party that I am not willing to sheepishly follow party doctrine to the detriment of my own values.

Yaakov writes:

I agree, and therefore I vote in Israel by lottery and do not know who I voted for. We have a multi-party system and so I select a few notes of the parties that are closer to my views (those that steal for things I like rather than steal for things I do not want) and I put one of the notes in the ballet without looking at the remaining ones.

I assume that if we move to electronic voting I lose my opportunity to vote. But maybe if there is sufficient demand we can get the voting program to include a random vote option.

Shane L writes:

Expansions in the electoral franchise in history have frequently been bitterly, violently opposed by the powerful elite. Why, if voting makes no difference? They seem to understand that giving all adults the right to vote will change that society, probably in ways that improve life for the masses and undermine the rent-seeking corruption of the elite.

Would the United States really be so prosperous if it was an absolutist monarchy or dictatorship? Surely not.

Phil writes:

makes enough sense to me

I fairly infrequently vote myself, for mostly the same logic as you're using

I think I have a little more tolerance for the messy reality of administrating society, that occasionally I can hold my nose and vote for 1 candidate, or against another

but I recognize that this is mostly personal consumption, that my time doing this doesn't make the world any better a place than the time I spend following the local sports teams (and that actually the quality of consumption is pretty similar, as a means to feel more connected to the community at large, even if the feeling is largely illusionary)

the standard for ways my time doing it could be better spent to actually make the world a better place are shockingly low (watching the game in a sports bar and supporting my local economy probably qualifies)

Peter Schueth writes:

"I don't vote for President" is very, very different than "I don't vote at all". If the latter, shame on you!

Ben H. writes:

The logic here is flawed, for the same reason that always voting "defect" in the Prisoner's Dilemma is a flawed strategy even though it is the Nash equilibrium. The game is played many times, by many people, and your actions affect everyone else's, and everyone benefits from each other's winnings, and if you can figure out a way to get past the Nash equilibrium then you and everyone else is better off. If you decided to vote, and announced that decision publicly, that would matter much more than the casting of your one vote. You would bring many other people along with you. You would start to build a coalition, a voting bloc, that could actually swing elections. Politicians would have to start listening to that coalition and sharing power with it, in the hopes of getting its votes. Note that I'm not disagreeing with your basic claims at all. Politicians are mendacious, callous bullies, nearly universally, and voters are mostly hysterical and innumerate, and the very idea that people's fundamental rights can be determined by a popular vote offends me to the core. But that is all the more reason to get involved in the process. Like it or not, political decisions get made. If you surrender that battleground, you concede the whole battle to your enemy. The logic you express here is, in my view, why libertarians have always been basically powerless and disenfranchised, even though a great many people actually hold very libertarian views if you question them.

Mike W. writes:

Professor Caplan,
Really enjoy your work. Here's my technique, not that you asked, but I find it refreshing. No one will ever know if I vote or not. Going to the grave with that. "That's my business" is what I tell most people who try to stick their nose in my business. Or, like Francisco D'Anconia says, "I never deny anything." I find myself telling people "That's my business maybe 3-4 times a year. It has been an effective way for me to maintain my "bubble," the concept introduced to me by you. Keep up the great work! Sincerely, Mike

Peter Sagan writes:

[Comment removed pending confirmation of email address. Email the to request restoring this comment. A valid email address is required to post comments on EconLog and EconTalk.--Econlib Ed.]

GregS writes:

“I spend my time on many quixotic missions, like promoting open borders. So why not vote?”

Thank you for pointing out the inconsistency. There are a few economics bloggers who spill a lot of ink explaining why they don’t vote and giving the economic reasons for not doing so, the same ones you start your post with. I always think, “Gee, you spend an awful lot of time and energy trying to change people’s minds with clever arguments. If you were as selfish as your argument implies, you wouldn’t bother with all that. Maybe you can take your un-selfishness one step further and vote.”

I think you should swallow your pride and vote. I know a lot of economically literate, libertarian-inclined people who don’t vote. I imagine I’m in a room with them all and I’m saying, “If we all vote, we’ll be a meaningful voting block and get more libertarian policies.” And each person says to me, “Yeah, it would be nice if we all voted. But see all these other people? I can only decide if *I* vote, I can’t stop them from shirking. Since my vote is such a small piece of the electorate, it doesn’t matter if I vote or not.” Each one responds to me with this “shirking” argument, and I keep trying to say, “No, I’m talking to all of you at once. And if we all vote at once, we’ll be a meaningful voting block.” It’s like being in a firm where we can’t get people to work because everyone realizes their own shirking won’t affect the final outcome, even though everyone recognizes they’d like the result if everyone else stopped shirking. We don’t have the tools available to a firm (like punishing, firing, or rewarding certain “workers”), but we have moral suasion. We can tell these non-voting libertarians they should vote because it’s the right thing to do. I don’t know how you think policy will tilt in the libertarian direction if you and people like you refuse to vote. As a prominent libertarian, your example might persuade a lot of people. A single vote might not make much difference, but if you persuade 100 others with similar politics to vote, that can be significant at the state, county, or city level.

That’s the great thing about being economically literate. You can spot market failures but still decide to do the right thing anyway. Economics might teach you that it’s rational to be lazy/selfish and not vote, but it also teaches you that policy analysis and informed voting are public goods (since voting is like a common pool resource). We should try to learn the second part of that lesson a little better.

GregS writes:

Ben H.'s comment was not visible when I posted my comment, but I see that he's made essentially the same argument as me. I'm glad to see I'm not alone in thinking this way.

Pajser writes:

Maybe there is no need to go into prisoner's dilemma, only to take value of the outcome in to calculation, not only probability of influencing the outcome.

If ones chance to influence election is 1/200 millions, and value of difference between candidates is 1% of GDP at GDP 15 trillions, it makes expected value of his vote 600 trillions divided with 200 millions, i.e. 3000. Unless one is completely selfish or very wealthy, he rarely has a chance to help to other people so much with so little self-sacrifice as with voting.

Pajser writes:

Small error in last comment. Value of difference between candidates is 600 billions. Everything else stays the same, expected value of one vote is 600 billions divided with 200 millions and it is 3000, well worth voting.

GregS writes:

@ Pajser
Unfortunately, I think you’re calculating the social benefit of your vote, not the private benefit. The private benefit is going to be your $3,000 / (population size), a fraction of a penny. You’re right that voters should care about the social benefit of responsible voting, and I’d like to encourage that kind of thinking. But someone who says, “I don’t vote because I’m selfish” really is correctly in estimating that the benefit of his vote to himself is very small. Bravo for pointing out that you should consider the value of the outcome, not just the probability of swinging an election. For some reason most people who argue about voting leave this part out. The probability of swinging a vote scales like 1/N, but the social benefit *given* a swing vote scales like N. So the expected social benefit of your vote scales like N*(1/N)=1. It doesn't drop off as the population grows, as some arguments imply.

Not sure how you’re getting 600 billion out of 1% of a $15 trillion GDP. Did you mean $150 billion? Is there a time-value discount step that I’m not seeing? One with a 25% (!) interest rate?

gda writes:

I look upon voting as a societal necessity.

Politics is a dirty business, so I tend to operate on the "throw the thieving bums out" rule, which holds that no party should have more than 2 consecutive terms in office (though 1 term is often sufficient to maximize damage).

In their first term parties can sometimes be so busy putting in place policies designed to enrich themselves at the public's expense, that they may not have the time to efficiently achieve that goal. However, in their second term they will have fine tuned those policies so that the "tiefing" has become rampant and unconscionable.

At which point its time to start the whole cycle over again.

It's that time.

MikeP writes:

While I would never berate someone for not voting, there may also be a misunderstanding of how little effort is required to vote a straight libertarian ticket. Just as most people believe raising kids takes more effort than it actually does, you may believe voting for positions that directly challenge mendacious, callous bullies takes more effort than it actually does.

It's actually much less than an hour:

1. Vote for the Libertarian Party candidates. Ignore all other parties' candidates.
2. Do a quick check of the state and county LP websites to see if they recommend any nonpartisan candidates. Vote for them. Ignore all other nonpartisan candidates.
3. Read the propositions. Vote for or against any that actually have direct bearing on individual rights. You can use local LP recommendations as a guide. Ignore all the other propositions.
4. Vote absentee if you are trying to minimize effort. Go to the polling place if you want to enjoy the tragicomic experience of marking your sad little ballot among a whole bunch of your neighbors who believe government is a legitimate means for them to enforce their poorly thought out preferences on you.

I live in the Bay Area, so the LP usually has a good presence on the ballot. That has of course been greatly reduced due to the travesty of the Top Two primary. And, being California, there is usually some proposition to vote for or against. But I can easily envision walking into the polling place, getting my ballot, and just putting it in the ballot box unmarked. The tragicomic experience is still the same.

ColoComment writes:

It's so much more fun to sit in judgment over voters than to vote oneself, isn't it?

That way, one gets to criticize the outcome with no responsibility therefor, and to feel superior to those who either triumphed or failed to achieve that outcome.

SOMEONE must be chosen to run the country/ state/ county/ city/ HOA. You can throw up your hands and shout, "Not my circus, not my monkeys," and leave the outcome to those you consider ignorant and/or ill-informed, or you can accept the burden of citizenship and take the few minutes to vote for the offered individuals and issues that come closest to your preferences, like the rest of us do.

OTOH, then you'd have to accept at least SOME personal responsibility for the outcome, and we couldn't have that, could we?

Sorry for the snark, but non-participation is naught but a cop-out.

PedroS writes:

I do not think the low probability of a single voter affecting the final result is enough for Bryan to assume that voting is irrelevant. In a polity with a 1000000 voters and a 1 in a million chance of affecting the result, the probability that NONE of the voters is decisive (assuming independence) would be:


There is therefore a 63% chance that at least one voter would be decisive. Of course no one can know whether they are one of those lucky few, but why should we only decide to "play" if we were assured that we would have a key role in the game?

PS: I do not think that voting, per se, is a moral duty, and I believe that voting "tribally", i,e, without a sincere effort to evaluate the major platforms and their likely effects is morally blameworthy, but that is not what Bryan is claiming here.

PPS: Another possibility for my vote to be decisive would be if I could convince EVERYBODY that their votes are useless, so that turnout would be zero. Then I would enter the polling station as the single voter and decide the election ;-)

MikeP writes:

...(assuming independence)...

This is exactly what you can't assume.

Your vote's being the deciding vote is entirely dependent on the difference between the two leaders' counts as generated by every other vote.

Musca writes:

The voting/not-voting choice is not the critical decision.

Most thinkers who disparage voting - Prof. Caplan is not alone in this - are quite correct that an individual's vote is effectively irrelevant to the final outcome.

But Prof. Caplan identifies the real issue in his first paragraph where he says, "I spend my time on many quixotic missions, like promoting open borders".

Promotion of an idea is not the same thing as casting a single vote. It's a greater time investment, but has greater benefits. Were one to spend the time used to vote instead writing letters to the editor, posting blog entries, or talking to 2 or 3 voters at a time (or even writing a book about voter irrationality), the influence of one's opinion is magnified.

Voting alone in a booth is equivalent to being silent. "Vote loud" by convincing others -- preferably many others -- of the right opinion long before Election Day.

Pajser writes:

GregS, Yes, I agree. 600 billions - I assumed four years mandate of a chosen candidate.

austrartsua writes:

I ask a simple question: Does Bryan Caplan think democracy is a better option than competing systems of government such as dictatorship?

Mike Sproul writes:

I would rather have the Einsteins of the world spending their time on science, instead of spending their time deciding who to vote for.

William Kiely writes:

This explanation for why Bryan doesn't vote seems accurate to me.

My question is: Does he *want* to feel extreme disgust when he imagines himself voting?

I can definitely understand why he feels the disgust (I felt it myself for a few years, before I became emotionally indifferent to voting), but I'm not sure why he would *want* to feel that disgust.

If he doesn't actually want to feel the disgust, then maybe can learn not to feel it and come to be a person who can vote without feeling traumatized or experiencing any other negative emotional reaction.

This could be desirable for him if there is ever a case where voting is an effective way to achieve his values, or if becoming this sort of person who is emotionally indifferent to voting rather than disgusted by it would have a beneficial effect on his readers (e.g. perhaps it would help them change in a similar way which could lead *them* to become voters who have a positive expected effect with their voting on whatever Bryan cares about).

William Kiely writes:

A second comment:

I think that Bryan may be more altruistic than he gives himself credit for.

It seems to me that Bryan enjoys seeing himself as a person who is extremely honest to the point that he gets pleasure out of saying that he is selfish due to knowing that the vast majority of other people won't admit that they are selfish and instead desire to try to signal that they care about others more than they actually do. It's like he's saying "Other people won't admit they're selfish, but I'm better because I will!" or "Other people misrepresent themselves as being more altruistic than they actually are, but I'm better because I actually admit how selfish I really am."

All of this is said with great respect for Bryan.

William Kiely writes:

A third comment:

Reflection provoked by a Robert Wiblin Facebook post about the expected value of voting for Clinton this election persuaded me that voting for Clinton in my home state of New Hampshire has greater expected value than whatever else I would probably do at that time, and as such I plan to register to vote and vote this election.

Note that I don't believe that I get any pleasure out of signaling this, but perhaps I do get some pleasure out of seeing myself grow (keyword... note that I didn't say "change") from a person who used to have a negative emotional reaction to voting into a person who is emotionally indifferent to voting and can analyze whether voting has positive expected value for my chosen values and act on whatever conclusion I reach.

Sean Leal writes:

"I know the probability of voter decisiveness is astronomically low"

The probability of your vote making the difference in any contest other than tiny town elections is actually, demonstrably, zero.

How? For your vote to be the one to make the difference, the end count would need to declare a winner by one vote out of many thousands or millions.

But if the vote were that close, there would be a recount, which would certainly yield a different (i.e. win-by-more-than-one-vote) result, thus making your vote unnecessary.

Your vote is literally lost in the noise of process.

MikeP writes:

But if the vote were that close, there would be a recount, which would certainly yield a different (i.e. win-by-more-than-one-vote) result, thus making your vote unnecessary.

If the vote were at all close -- e.g. within a few hundred out of a few million, like Florida in 2000 -- that would induce a recount. After all the recounts are done and all the ballots are included or not included, the final certified recount could still end up with a zero or one vote margin between two or more candidates. So, indeed, your specific vote or not vote would in that case decide the election.

GregS writes:

The prospect of a recount doesn’t appreciably change your chances of swinging the vote. Consider that there is a recount margin, say half the votes +/- 10 (or +/- 50 or whatever margin you like). And suppose that the vote count is so imprecise that a recall gives each candidate a 50/50 shot at winning the final count. You affect the outcome if you 1) push your candidate into the recount margin from just below that margin, increasing their chances of victory from 0 to ½ or 2) push your candidate out of the recount margin from the top of that margin, increasing their chances of victory from ½ to 1. The chance of landing near the recount margin is not appreciably different from the chance of a perfectly tied election (play around a bit with some binomial distributions representing thousands of fair coin flips to convince yourself of this claim). Call the probability of a tie p; it is roughly equal the chance of landing on either end of the recount margin. If there’s no recount process for the election, your probability of swinging the election is p. If there’s a recount, your contribution is ½*p + ½*p = p, summing the contributions of the two ways you can affect the election.

Of course, maybe the recount margin is fuzzy and not a legislatively mandated number like “half the votes +/- 10”, but the same reasoning still applies, I think, if your recount margin is stochastic.

Anthony writes:

Bravo Byran! Not that you need validation in "your" personal right to make personal decisions, but I find your honesty and unwavering commitment to effective small victories refreshing. This day and age group-think is prevalent and the individual is lost cowering in a dark alley somewhere. You probably don't read the comments, I know I wouldn't, but if you do please find comfort in standing up for what you believe in. A vote of NO is definitely a vote.

dede writes:

Another good reason not to vote is that it is usually better when your candidate is not elected : thus you cannot be blamed for having helped electing the monster in power.

Last time I voted against a candidate, the one who got my ballot got the seat as well : I really do not feel good about it!

Last but not least, the more voters turn up, the more the politicians feel they have some legitimity, not that they care much about it but still better not to be responsible for that.

Dede writes:

Obviously, I meant "legitimacy", not legimity: excuse my French!

David O'Rear writes:

Dear Mr Caplan,

Thank you for your deep trust in my politics.

I take the responsibility of voting on behalf of myself and on behalf of those who choose not to vote very seriously. While it is certain that those who do not vote do not share all of my preferences, it is indeed humbling to carry the responsibility of voting for them.

By not voting, you increase the value of my vote.
For that, I thank you.

Holly writes:

Sometimes honesty isn't the best policy, you sound really arrogant and elitist, but the highly educated usually are, so not surprising.

Ron Johnson writes:

Principled non-voters are the purists who keep libertarian ideals from being watered down into some grotesque version of conservatism or liberalism. I look at Gary Johnson and I see great harm being done to the libertarian brand with his various unprincipled positions, from foreign interventions to forced vaccinations. A libertarian non-voter says to the world: Not Good Enough. By choosing to not participate in validating tyrants, the non-voting libertarian helps the core ideas of libertarianism from being hopelessly corrupted in the future.

I have always voted, and I have only once voted for a candidate that actually won. The candidate I voted for was the "lesser of two evils" in my book. However, she is still in office 12 years later and she has been a economic and civil liberties disaster. it is the one vote I have always regretted.

This will be my first non-voting year, even though I have some reason to believe Trump may be slightly less tyrannical than Hillary. Once elected, there is no guarantee that will remain true. Look at Nixon...anti-Communist cold-warrior who significantly decreased tensions with China. Look at GWB with is "humble foreign policy" who launched wars that have killed hundreds of thousands.

With the power granted to politicians today, it would take an angel to avoid becoming a tyrant.

Nathan writes:

When people say Trump is lying, do they mean he is not telling the truth, or that he knows he's not telling the truth? Because lying implies he knows, and it's a very serious accusation.

Harold writes:

Oh these desk jockeys with too much time on their hands to think. Move to Ohio if you want your vote to matter, and add ammunition to that list of things to stock up on.

GregS writes:

Suppose that by not voting you’re setting a bad example for your audience. A number of young, impressionable people see your talks or read your blog and are convinced by your arguments. But they are then put off by your refusal to vote. Some of them remain fully convinced of your arguments, but you persuade them not to vote. And some decide that you’re just not serious if you’re not putting forth the tiny effort required to vote, so you lose them completely. I want to ask how many such people would there need to be to convince you to vote? Is there a number? A single vote is small, but a room full of voters could sway an election, particularly at the local and state level.

In this same vein, consider “Don’t vote but tell people you do” as an irrelevant third option, one of those tricks from behavioral economics where nobody really wants the third option but it makes the chooser flip their selection. (The other options being “vote and tell people you vote” or “don’t vote and tell people you don’t vote.”) You’d nudge policy in the libertarian direction if your “example” convinced a few hundred libertarians to vote, but I suspect your conscience would nag you. I think you’d like to have the example-setting benefits of voting along with the “trauma”-sparing benefits of not voting, but your conscience wouldn’t allow you to be that dishonest.

If you’re an influential opinion leader, voting isn’t just about your single vote. It’s about setting an example.

Max writes:

The lesser evil always also depends on perspective. Hitler was seen by Hindenburg as the controllable lesser evil. It turned out that the lesser evil was only that in his perception and not in the absolute sense.

So there is also some justification for absolutism over relativism.

Anton Maier writes:

You already invested all the time in forming an informed opinion. Those are sunk costs, just go for a walk and put your vote down.

Comments for this entry have been closed
Return to top