February 26, 2008
Act Responsibly: Don’t Vote!
Wendy McElroy on why (via Crooked Timber):
Act Responsibly: Don’t Vote! That’s not a bumper sticker you’re likely to see in coming weeks. Instead the ballot will be revered like a religious object and voting will be declared a duty. But what if the ballot is just one more government form to fill out? What if the most politically powerful act is to say "no" by tearing the form in half?
This November, most people won’t "do it" in the voting booth despite attempts to shame them. They will spend the time on activities that enrich their lives: buying groceries, playing with children, catching up on work. Even the recent primary, which was supposed to reflect a galvanized and outraged Democratic Party, drew only about 11.4 percent of those eligible to vote. The Republican primary fared worse with a record low turnout of about 6.6 percent.
If war itself can’t motivate people to put a checkmark in a box, it is time to consider non-voting from a radically different perspective. Maybe non-voters are right.
Posted by Robin Varghese at 07:36 PM | Permalink
Comments
Some non voters are actively boycotting, I suppose, and some don't care in a negatively apathetic way, but I think most non-voters decline to give an opinion because they are pretty satisfied with how things are going, and trust that no matter who wins, their lives will go on as peacefully as before.
Do you know what that means? That means Congratulations! Everybody Wins! Our society is stable.
Think about times and places with high voter turnouts. They are countries or epochs characterized by high poverty, civil unrest, internal oppression, or pervasive violence. I pray that I never have the misfortune to live in a country or time with very high voting turn outs.
Some people like politics. Thinking about and debating policy is either their profession or their hobby. Those people vote.
Other people like fashion. They make clothes.
This is how it should be. I see no use in encouraging disinterested parties to clutter up national discussions with ill-informed or sloppily thought out opinions.
If you like politics, vote. If you don't, don't.
Posted by: Sonja | Feb 26, 2008 8:51:59 PM
On the other hand, maybe we need a little more civil unrest. With a useless war, and perhaps a series of projected wars that will last for another century (according to the candidate who's a military expert), increasing economic inequality, a melting planet, and various other minor inconveniences, why not a little more dissatisfaction with the status quo?
I think a lot of people don't vote because they know very well that there are serious problems facing the country, but the candidates who manage to get nominated won't actually do anything to solve them.
Posted by: JonJ | Feb 26, 2008 9:35:13 PM
JonJ--
Systems very rarely commit suicide, and any thing that threatens them will not be allowed in a position of influence. No one is going to be "elected" who is capable of seriously disrupting the health of a political arrangement from within the framework of the electoral process.
That is why reformist politics very rarely change anything.
All major political change comes in the form of revolution outside of the system.
Voting often just legitimizes a corrupt and unjust regime.
Posted by: Dave Ranning | Feb 26, 2008 9:50:15 PM
lets not forget that elections in the US are quite possibly rigged (and quite definitely rig-able)
Posted by: eli | Feb 27, 2008 1:33:59 PM
Bush "seriously disrupted" the status quo of before and made things noticeably worse. Voting therefore has a measurable impact on everyday people's lives. The idea that (considering Bush's impact on US foreign policy) the choice of president is equivalent to one's opinions in fashion is offensive!!! "Revolution must come from outside the system"?! Do you not see enough difference between the choices "inside" the system? Drop the armchair theory, please!
Posted by: Barkley | Feb 27, 2008 8:22:03 PM
Sonja, what about moral responsibility for others not as well off as you? This is hardly a matter of "liking politics" or "clothes"; This is a complacent middle/upperclass with internet access!
Posted by: Barkley | Feb 27, 2008 8:31:45 PM
Bark--
Yes, Gore would of had different policies--
Stronger on women's rights, the environment, workplace issues, and respect internationally.
However, the economic system that needs to change for species survival would of stayed in place or, possibly would of strengthened.
This is what the system would not tolerate, and Gore (insert anyone "electable") would of been another Captain for the Titanic from the established elite.
Suicide is not possible. All major change (revolution in US, France, Russia, Vietnam, China, Algeria, etc did not come about through reformist action)
Posted by: dave Ranning | Feb 28, 2008 1:23:03 AM
Sorry, for various reasons (including a heated debate on a very similar topic I had just come out of) I used a few more exclamation points than I should or otherwise would have (and I may have seen Sonja in a harsher light than was fair, though I still strongly disagree with her remark), but the article touched a nerve. I see such a strong difference between what a Gore administration could have been relative to our Bush one, and this difference to me is very much worth voting for. This simple point makes it worth voting in spite of your point, Dave.
I'm not so naive as to think that Obama could get rid of the 'titanic' corruption in politics, but I think he could make a difference worth voting for. I think it's also worth bearing in mind that a lot of the things that require major change now are recent innovations that themselves occurred within the system (like the rise of insurance companies). I think considerable change can arise through the system given enough public interest and passion (which the nation has shown on occasion).
But any "boycott" (which to me seems an excuse to justify apathy and selfish laziness by those who are not poor)... any boycott that gave us the consequences of 8 years of Bush is an immoral one. People should not just be told to vote (as ignorant voters are no help--you're right on that, Sonja), they should be educated and then inspired to vote. That can cause change. If people stop voting and what claim we have as a functional democracy withers, we will be left far worse off than we can imagine. Voting can prevent that. A boycott is just what the powers that be would want.
Posted by: Barkley | Feb 28, 2008 4:52:27 AM
Bark--
I think your intention is right, and may even be appropriate for strategic action, but history and observation does not support voting as influencing major change.
This isn't a matter of ridding the system of corruption, it is changing is basic economic and social organization for species and system survival. We don't have that much time. Look around-- are things getting better?
Posted by: Dave Ranning | Feb 28, 2008 10:18:30 AM
Is voting worth it? I agree with those who say Gore would have been better than Bush and that it is therefore important to vote. I also agree with those who point out the absurdity of individuals wasting hours in lines when no individual vote can possibly make a difference. The individual would truely be better off working or just relaxing than going through an empty exercice. Politics has nothing for the individual; it is only concerned with mass man. I would not want to urge millions not to vote, but your single little vote really does not matter.
Posted by: Jared | Feb 28, 2008 10:54:23 AM
Dave,
It may be true that revolutions rarely (but do occasionally) happen from voting--I'm not disputing that--I'm just saying that what voting can do, such as choose between a Gore and a Bush, is nonetheless highly significant.
Are things getting better? Depends on what you look at. For many things, absolutely. But such victories are precious and fragile, which is why one always has to fight for them.
And Jared, what are millions of votes if not the sum total of single little votes? Still, best to vote by mail (no waiting in lines that way).
Posted by: Barkley | Feb 28, 2008 11:47:10 AM
Bark--
Yes, the difference between Gore and Bush on micro issues is immense, and Bush and the neothugs are a uniquely despicable and ethically challenged bunch.
But from a macro level, it is pepsi and pepsi light- same program, just a different driver.
Voting sometimes empowers people, but this is double edged, as it masks the needed action for change.
Posted by: Dave Ranning | Feb 28, 2008 12:50:09 PM
Voting makes a real difference only if there is a real choice. If the US had a pro-worker social democratic party offering single payer health care as a right of citizenship rather than as a consumer good to be purchased from a health insurance company, then voting would be important. If it had a party willing to challenge the power and greed of the military industrial complex, voting would be important. If it had a mass media that discussed the full range of policy options available rather than one wholly owned by corporations that simply distracts us with the personal characteristics of candidates, then again, voting would be important.
Posted by: Jared | Feb 28, 2008 2:37:28 PM
As long as there are people in other countries giving their lives for the right to vote, I will vote even if the only difference it makes is one of solidarity with those people. As long as every member of the Armed Services is prepared to die to protect our right to vote, I will vote even if the choice of leaders is a poor one, which it often is. Using your right to vote for what is closest to your point of view, and using your right to free speech to seek radical change to the very system your vote seems an almost meaningless part of are not contradictory but allied actions -- if only because bringing about real change will take the exercise of every right you have been guaranteed.
Posted by: Elatia Harris | Feb 28, 2008 4:03:18 PM
The fewer the people that bother to vote, regardless of whether the choices are meaningful or potential for improvement is small or smaller(I for one believe that had Gore been elected we would now be stuck in a quagmire in Iraq, but that's just me), the more the pols realize our collective inattention and the more they will try to get away with.
Vote!
Posted by: Carlos | Feb 28, 2008 5:42:12 PM
Carlos: Shouldn't that read
"I for one believe that had Gore been elected we would NOT be stuck in a quagmire in Iraq ....?"
Professor Lester Hunt of Univ. of WI, Madison, received hate mail after announcing Wendy McElroy's Don't Vote forum on campus.
For a sample of the e-mail messages Prof Hunt received, see here.
Posted by: Ruchira | Feb 28, 2008 7:25:48 PM
Yes, the difference between Gore and Bush on micro issues is immense,
People are dead who would not be dead if Gore had been president. That's not micro.
Posted by: lara | Mar 2, 2008 3:01:46 PM
Post a comment