Respond to a column by senior Bill Flanigen:
“Not playing along – hoarding your vote as you might hoard food, money or your dignity – can make a strong statement not of apathy, but of informed dissatisfaction with the system. That statement is just as strong as a “protest vote” for a third-party candidate, a write-in for Richard Petty or Edmund Burke, or a “none of the above” vote. In fact, the only detectable difference between protest votes and non-voting (assuming that, like me, you don’t actually support any “protest candidates”) is that protest votes kill trees and waste time.”
Read the full column here.
Dear Bill,
two comments on your text:
You are arguing for the validity of your standpoint that it is democratically legitimate to abstain from casting a ballot in case none of the offered options appeal to you. In the process you come to dismiss the concern that this kind of attitude towards democratic elections is misguided on empirical grounds (Quote: “Obviously, with two out of three potential voters having cast ballots in Tuesday’s election, everyone isn’t thinking that way”). I find it telling that you (again: obviously) seem not to be confident enough as regards your standpoint to grant it some kind of general validity. Essentially, you are making a normative claim that it is okay not to vote. At the same time you seem to dislike a situation in which everyone would be doing so. But it is okay if you do. That sounds a bit unjust, don’t you think? Any sound normative claim must be held against a standard of universal (not singular) applicability. Otherwise, I fear, it becomes something more like an exercise in self-justification than in discovering what is morally right and what is not.
There is also another problem with what you write, beyond the lack of a morally responsible generalizability of your claim. It implies that a non-vote is an unequivocal political articulation, equally capable of conveying a political message. You write: <>
Again, on only somewhat closer inspection already, the argument does not hold true. The problem is that a decision not to vote is a much more ambiguous symbolic action than it is to cast a ballot. In short, there is a plethora of reasons not to vote, and it is impossible to infer from the mere number of those who didn’t what their motives might have been. You mention some yourself like laziness, apathy and ignorance and those already cannot be distinguished from your “intentional non-vote”. Even more to the point, you can (and political scientists do) interpret non-voting the exact opposite way of what you suggest, namely, as an expression of general satisfaction with the way things are running in society (“If all the options on the ballot serve me equally well, why should I vote then?”).
That’s what lends a wholly different quality to a “none of the above” protest vote, in terms of political expression, than to a vote not cast.
In that sense abstaining from your democratic right to vote is not only hardly the morally right thing to do if you think that having a working democracy is desirable while at the same time conceding that it would not work without anybody voting (see above). (I’m inclined to call such a behavior something like “democratic parasitism”).
Additionally, it is also a self-inflicted surrender of the political symbolic capital you are being granted by virtue of your status as an equal citizen.
And I don’t think that any politically aware and engaged person can have a true interest in that.
Sincerely,
Eike
well said! I am not very vocal about the fact that I too dont vote, mainly for the endless amount of criticism i would receive especially at an institution like GW. but, like you said, it is a well-informed choice that is anything but based on apathy. Aside from my dissatisfaction with the polarization of american politics, I believe that the pursuit of something such as a legal education will eventually lead me to create a much deeper impact than simply writing down want so-and-so to be pres. while it seems to me that the fact that others dont maintain this belief keeps the system running, its nice to see that others share in this belief.
Dear Eike,
two comments on your text.
First, It seems that you are taking for granted the fact that people like myself who do not vote for the reasons stated above are finding alternative ways to directly participate in America’s democratic process. Finding such alternative means of participation is anything but a “self-inflicted surrender of the political symbolic captial” and is a different means of expressing the same thing one expresses while voting: the we support for the legitimacy of american government. The difference is that participation in public institutions goes beyond expressing ones beliefs and fosters more tangible results. Certain people who manage to make such a difference in government on behalf of the others with the same convictions who may not have the interest/time to do so help push forward the agenda of those disenchanted with the political system. These efforts help ensure legitimacy and increase incentives from the disillusioned to vote.
Second, if voting in a democratic republic is based on the premise of selecting a representative who best suits one’s own interests, it is consistent to abstain from voting and to support the votes of others if a candidates suits the majority’s convictions but not your own. In this respect, it is clear that selecting a representative who does not adequately represent your principles would require a compromise of those principles. You cannot say that abstaining from voting is “hardly the morally right thing to do” if it entails a compromise of one’s own morals! Given that one’s vote is grounded on the expression of moral convictions, it is not morally inconsistent to support the votes of others and not your own. Not voting because of one’s own convictions is not a normative claim against our nation’s voting processes. It seeks the most accurative, DEMOCRATIC representation. Moreover, holding this opinion and participating in the process through alternative means ensures that one’s own voice is heard and produces results.
sincerely,
Alejandra
what a loser