RSS
Home
Do Not Vote
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
Most citizens in democracies, such as America, recognize voting to be one of the most fundamental rights. We learned the importance of voting in grammar school, and now we can hardly even imagine a society in which citizens are unable to pick their leaders. Americans crave representation, and what better way to be represented than by electing people who promise to look out for our interests? Long-standing beliefs, such as these, have understandably created a knee-jerk reaction in condemnation of anyone who dares to oppose this foundation of democracy. But the fact of the matter is:
Voting does not serve the interest of the citizens in a democracy.
.png)
Below, you will find some of the most frequently cited arguments in support of voting (highlighted in bold) followed by rational explanations of why these traditional arguments are unconvincing.
First, let me note that this discussion does not propose a new system to replace the process of democratic voting. That is an entirely different matter and will require significantly greater depth than this article offers. However, it does dispel the myth that voting benefits the citizenry and ensures accountability. Unless otherwise specified, it is probably easiest to assume these arguments are in reference to the presidential vote, since most Americans place the highest value on those elections.
Voting is vital to the democratic process.
Why do we assume democracy is the end-all be-all form of government? Hypothetically, the perfect form of government would probably be some sort of all-knowing and perfectly just monarchy. And there are surely other forms of government that would fall in between, but we are unlikely to discover them as long as we continue to romanticize democracy.
Simply put, democracy is based upon the flawed belief that the majority should determine political consequences. But why should we expect one group of random people to accurately determine the best interest of an entire country while we simply dismiss the wishes of all smaller groups? We’ve all heard the adage, “If everybody jumped off a bridge, would you do it to?” Democracy’s response seems to be “yes.” But we all know that just because a group of people say or do something doesn’t make it right.
To demonstrate this point, let’s hypothetically assume men and women were going to vote to determine which sex will be forever banned from driving automobiles. Maybe you are dissatisfied with the amount of traffic and the number of accidents. Surely halving the number of drivers would change these figures. And if you thought about it long enough, you might even be able to come up with some clever reasons to justify your preference regarding who would be banned from driving. But that doesn’t make either choice logically or morally justified, and it certainly doesn’t imply everyone in the country would have reason to support the outcome of such a vote.
As another example, let’s suppose that 51% of Americans voted for a politician who wants everybody with a last name beginning with the letters ‘A’ through ‘L’ to have all their money forcibly taken from them, divided up, and distributed to everybody with a last name starting with ‘M’ through ‘Z.’ Obviously, electing such an official would be arbitrary and selfish, and it would undoubtedly be criticized by everyone that lost money as a result. It is easy to see how the self-interest of individuals does not necessarily translate to a wise or justified political decision-making process.
Everybody’s voice should be heard.
“A wise man speaks because he has something to say; a fool because he has to say something.” * And “it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt…” **
Perhaps you’ve ever accidentally stumbled into the middle of a somber conversation with an inappropriate amount of energy and a big grin on your face or entered the telling of a chronological story without hearing the beginning or without knowing anything about the subject or people being discussed. Generally, when we get stuck in these awkward situations, our natural response is to simply take a limited role in the conversation.
However, when it comes to voting for the leaders of our country, most people have the opposite response. Citizens suddenly become excited to voice their opinions on an array of subjects with which they have extremely limited experience. Many people even pretend like they don’t care who others vote for just as long as they go out and vote. But what advantage is there to having a random cross-section of citizens voice uneducated opinions about remarkably complex topics? And while I am glad to encourage public debate by publishing articles such as this one, it certainly does not imply I consider myself to be an exception.
Fortunately, I accept that I am only wise enough to realize I know very little. Despite my advanced degrees in Political Science, I certainly do not have perfect knowledge of the subject. And though I am glad to share my knowledge in a few very specific areas of the discipline, I am equally glad to abstain from voicing a much less educated opinion in all others.
However, the power of the human ego is easy to underestimate, and the desire to vote is a perfect example.
Vote so your voice can be heard.
Refusing to vote is a stronger statement than reluctantly choosing between two arbitrary candidates. Let you lack of a voice be heard instead.
Vote to support your candidate.
Unfortunately, most people simply choose to support the candidate they find to be the most tolerable. But tolerating something implies that a person is willing to put up with something even though they do not like it. So why should we expect most people to support something they don’t even like?
"Maybe the reason the majority of Americans don’t vote is that the choices are always so pathetic. If you went to a restaurant and the waiter told you, 'We’re sorry, but the only choices we have left on the menu are cottage cheese and fried breadsticks,' you’d leave. Nobody would think you were crazy, lazy, apathetic, or not hungry. Our American political system is like that restaurant. Most citizens don’t vote- not because they’re not hungry to participate, but because they’ve shown up and there’s nothing but crap left on the menu." ***
Voting is your chance to be represented.
When you vote for a candidate, you are essentially voting for everything he or she thinks, has done, or ever will do. We don’t vote with conditional statements, and we don’t get to pick which positions a candidate will support. Sure, you can try justifying your vote to yourself or others, but it won’t ever change the numerical impact of the ballot you cast. As far as the polls are concerned, you either support a candidate 100% or 0%. Voters are unable to quantify how strongly they support or oppose individual issues and actions and have no way to communicate how important each of those things is to them. Therefore, voters have surprisingly little impact on how candidates will think or act. The “all or nothing” nature of elections makes it nearly impossible for individuals to be accurately represented. Even if this were not true, and there were only two competing sets of beliefs (where every citizen agreed with one set 100% while completely disagreeing with the other set), what is it that should determine who gets to be represented? Males and females each make up roughly half of the nation’s eligible voting citizens, but if one group voted in slightly higher numbers, would that mean the other group should not be represented? At the very least, this would make voting a selfish act.
Voting is based upon the principle that everybody is equal.
There are obviously some people who know much more about politics and economics than others. Why do we assume everyone should have an equal say?
Most people know someone who has voted for a candidate for purely superficial reasons or because they did not understand several key issues. Why should that person have the same say as a highly informed voter?
Every vote counts.
The fact that every vote holds the same value is not necessarily a good thing. Since everybody’s votes are weighted equally, they have the same say whether or not they really care. If you think your preferred candidate is absolutely perfect and fully agree with every single thing they’ve ever said, you get one vote. Conversely, if you absolutely despise both of the major candidates but feel ‘Candidate A’ would perform slightly better because you only disagree with 90% of what he says – whereas you disagree with 95% of what ‘Candidate B’ says – you still get one vote.
Every vote matters.
The statistical probability that your individual vote will actually swing a national election is obviously incredibly low. However, let’s say exactly 100 million people voted for ‘Candidate A,’ exactly the same number voted for ‘Candidate B,’ and you were the one to cast the final vote (this scenario also assumes this is America’s first perfectly-executed election without any problems such as poorly formatted ballots, hanging chads, miscounted or miscalculated results, fraud, etc.). Would your vote matter then? –Almost certainly not. Why? Because unless you live in a swing state, the odds are still very poor that the number of votes cast in your state would also be perfectly split. Even if all the votes in the country were evenly split, and all the votes in your state were evenly split, and you lived in a swing state… your vote still would not make a difference unless the candidates split the cumulative number of electoral votes in the other 49 states by a margin slimmer than the number of electoral votes your state has.
And even if all these factors somehow combined to create the perfect situation in which your vote would actually decide an election’s outcome… What exactly is so democratic about having voters in a couple random states potentially determine the outcome of a 50-state election?
Every vote would matter if the electoral system were reformed.
In the incredibly miniscule likelihood the popular vote was ever actually split within the margin of one vote, approximately half of the population would call for a recount. And whose votes ultimately determined the outcome the last time something like this happened? – the U.S. Supreme Court. That’s right; a group of nine, non-elected officials who were appointed at irregular intervals specifically for the purpose of casting prejudicial votes along biased party lines ultimately determined the fate of 2000’s presidential election recount.
Voting is symbolic and whether or not your candidate wins does not determine the importance of your vote.
Voting is only symbolic in the sense that it reaffirms the legitimacy of democracy. However, the goal of voting should not be to pursue perfect democracy; it should be to pursue good governance. And since most people lack the knowledge that democracy requires in order to create good governance, the demand for highly-informed voters should greatly supersede the goal of full participation. While voting may be the easiest way to feel like everybody’s opinion matters, it usually doesn’t and frequently shouldn’t.
The voting system is flawed, but there is no better alternative.
How can we ever know that without trying something else? It would be rather naïve to accept that humans have already achieved the pinnacle of political excellence by successfully executing the principles of democracy.
What would happen if nobody voted?
Then we would be forced to come up with a better system of ensuring good government.
Instead, we have inadvertently created monsters through our implementation of voting as a self-fulfilling prophecy in which most people only vote for candidates they expect to have a reasonable chance of winning. This has helped politicians gain a cynical reputation of being self-righteous, mud-slinging hypocrites who lie, cheat and steal because that’s what it takes to get ahead in politics.
Vote to cancel out someone else’s vote / If you don’t vote, someone else will.
You could achieve the same result more easily if neither of you voted. So instead of wasting your combined efforts, you both might as well save your time and agree not to vote. Besides, it's probably easier to convince someone not to vote than it is to convince them to change who they vote for. Even if you specifically targeted the people who disagreed with you and decided to convince them not to vote, you'd still be helping to condemn a broken political system.
Voting is a Constitutional right.
Just because you have the right to do something doesn’t mean you should. I have the right to make out with my grandmother, but that doesn’t mean it’s a good idea.
Voting is a privilege.
Just because you have a privilege doesn't mean you should exercise it. I have the privilege to use my credit cards on things I don't need with money I don't have, but that doesn't mean I would benefit from doing so.
Voting is your duty as a citizen.
The only duty any citizen really has is to obey the rule of law. If voting were truly intended to be a duty, there would be a law requiring mandatory participation.
Our forefathers fought and died for our freedom / right to vote.
Generally, the “freedom fighters” people are referring to when they use this argument are simply Americans who fought to limit oppression. It’s just that voting happens to be the easiest way most people think today’s average citizens can make a difference. But the truth is that there are many better ways to limit oppression than by voting. After all, if there weren't, then how did so many disenfranchised groups acquire the right to vote in the first place?
When you vote, you are essentially approving this as a valid form of decision-making. Arguing that groups should vote because other people fought for that right actually cheapens the impact that generations of disenfranchised objectors had.
If everyone had hypothetically agreed slaves in the 19th-century South had no reason to complain as long they were able to vote in state elections, the beneficiaries of slavery would have just made sure to keep a democratic majority in order to maintain control. But this obviously would not have been a fair compromise. Though it is clear that slavery is not consistent with the intention of democracy, the loosely regulated practice of universal suffrage does very little to ensure equality. At best, it simply discourages unpopular ideas. But the founding fathers frequently made references to the “tyranny of the majority,” and it is pretty safe to say that most would have rather had a righteous king than a corrupt president.
If you don't vote you have no right to complain about what elected officials do or don't do.
This statement is based upon a circular pattern that proves exactly why the traditional democratic voting system is flawed.
Politicians essentially just do what they think will get them elected, and voting only encourages this behavior. In fact, the reason democracy does not work as well as it could is precisely because it encourages the wrong people to vote for the wrong reasons. Citizens elect representatives they think will work for them at the cost of others, but then these representatives often end up voting based largely upon the influence of special interest groups and political action committees (PACs) anyway.
Voting limits corruption.
The acts of actually getting elected and then passing future votes are generally what corrupt politicians in the first place. In this way, the pursuit of power and the desire to maintain it breed more corruption than having actually having the power. Besides, politicians are usually indebted to so many people and organizations by the time they are elected, they would be foolish not to take advantage of questionable tactics such as gerrymandering once in office.
If any elected candidate fails to fulfill their duties or acts in an inappropriate manner, they can always be impeached.
Candidates never do exactly what they say they are going to do (we all should have learned this in grammar school the first time we elected a class-president). So since we basically enter the voting booth with the knowledge that we are being lied to, how can we expect to kick out the people we elected into office for doing what we knew they were going to do?
Furthermore, if candidates actually do get impeached, fairly arbitrary processes usually end up determining their replacements anyway. In 1974, Gerald Ford became president after Nixon resigned in anticipation of his impeachment following the Watergate scandal. However, Ford was never even elected as vice president. Instead, Nixon basically handed him the presidency after Spiro Agnew resigned due to criminal charges.
And usually, the people calling for impeachment would not like the logical replacement anyway. Aside from Nixon's criminal vice president, it's pretty safe to assume most of the people who called for George W. Bush's impeachment would not have preferred Dick Cheney as his replacement.
Re-elections would not work out much better. In 2003, this created a frantic run-off to replace California's governor with notable candidates such as Arnold Schwarzenegger, Larry Flynt, Gary Coleman, and Gallagher.
Even if the Presidential voting system is flawed, you should still vote at the Congressional level.
Voting for a Congressional district representative is inherently damaging to the national political system. Follow along:
1. A politician cannot do his or her job unless they are continually elected.
2. They get (re)elected by making their constituency happy before the next election.
3. Therefore, Congressional representatives are more concerned about the people in their districts than they are about the country as a whole.
4. This causes them to try securing jobs and federal resources for people in their districts with little regard to the rest of the nation.
5. This results in bloated federal spending and higher taxes for everybody.
Result: Congressional representatives habitually make bad decisions for the sake of re-election.
Quotes:
* commonly attributed to Plato
** commonly attributed to Abraham Lincoln
*** probably the only time I will ever quote Michael Moore
For a well-researched lecture regarding voter rationality, please view Brian Caplan's speech below:
For a vulgar satire regarding the perversion of voting, watch this episode of South Park in which a skeptical boy is forced to choose between a 'giant douche' and a 'turd sandwich:'
www.southparkstudios.com/episodes/103888
Related Articles:
Comments
.jpg)
