Don’t vote (without thinking)

I’ve always believed that “None of the Above” should be a candidate in every election, and, if NOTA got a plurality, we’d have to hold a new election in which none of the previously listed candidates could be on the ballot. Just to provide people with an option, a way to cast a meaningful protest vote.

She has a point. Suppose the government is owned by big business. Your vote can’t change it; all it does is giving legitimacy where none is due. Don’t vote.

Is there some irony intended in that statement?

Hands up everybody who voted for Nixon!

Hunt’s comments are pretty nutty:

people generally find it hard to see anything ethically problematic, ever, in their voting behavior. I have never seen anyone display a twinge of guilt over the consequences of a vote in which they participated, whether the consequences were war, inflation, recession, or the flight of employers from their jurisdiction. But when you think of it, isn’t voting the one opportunity most of us have to do something really evil? How many chances does the average person ever have to participate, for instance, in the deliberate killing of hundreds of thousands of human beings? Only our participation in the state gives us such horrible opportunities. Yet such things, when they happen, are always someone else’s fault. The very act of voting seems to be morally numbing. Somehow, we disconnect our thoughts about things we do to others personally from the things we do to then through the mediation of the state. The distorting effects of this moral anesthesia on the development of the human conscience must be vast and devastating.

If you have never seen anyone display a twinge of guilt over a vote, then you just haven’t talked to very many people about voting. People regret their votes all the time.

But the final sentences are even crazier. From a wild, unsupported generalization — no one “sees anything ethically problematic, ever, in their voting behavior” — he jumps to a “vast and devastating” distortion of the human conscience. But if the problem is that people don’t feel morally responsible for the actions of their states, surely not voting makes that worse, not better. Are people somehow supposed to feel more responsible for the state if they don’t take part in elections? Or is the idea that people who don’t vote (but presumably do pay taxes, obey the law, etc.) really aren’t responsible for the actions of their government, while people who do vote are?

Utter incoherence.

Or is the idea that people who don’t vote (but presumably do pay taxes, obey the law, etc.) really aren’t responsible for the actions of their government, while people who do vote are?

Imagine that everyone refused to vote and thus denied legitimacy to the government. Boycott, voters’ strike. That makes those who do vote scabs. There’s a certain logic to it.

Hunt’s response is just an exercise in nutpicking. Hey, look, I can insert “[sic]” into poorly worded, carefully selected emails. I am teh smrt!

And it’s pretty easy to locate the anger. The denial of franchise is still a powerful tool used against minority communities in this country, and just saying “don’t vote” sets off all sorts of racist alarm bells.

I tend to doubt that McElroy or Hunt intended to invoke such a history, but the nature of language and culture is that they can’t help but.

Imagine that everyone refused to vote and thus denied legitimacy to the government. Boycott, voters’ strike. That makes those who do vote scabs. There’s a certain logic to it.

That’s basically what happens now (i.e. low voter turnout), minus the revolutionary rhetoric. The problem is even more pronounced at the local level, as has been well documented. Yet somehow, legitimacy persists—this is because legitimacy is vested in the system itself rather than in a quantitative measure of the electorate’s participation in it. In other words, the value of nominal “democracy” as the least-bad political alternative has proven remarkably (and detrimentally, as some might argue) robust to the type of protest you suggest.

I’m all for advancing controversial arguments, but you shouldn’t be dismayed to see a controversial argument incite controversy. It may be a little immature to tear down posters advertising the forum, but I’d be tempted to do the same with anything involving Ann Coulter. There’s a point where a devil’s advocate argument is so disengenuous and insulting that you need to walk away to preserve your sanity.

When it comes to this particular argument, I’m interested to hear what she has to say, but I don’t have much hope for it having any intellectual merit at all. She speaker may even honestly believe that checking out of the political process is somehow going to accomplish something, she may even have anecdotes about disenfrachised electorates suddenly being catered to despite their apathy, but I very much doubt it will add up to a convincing argument of any kind. And I’m not at all surprised or distressing that some Americans hold voting as a sacred good that is above criticism.

Voting is a waste of time if your goal is to change the outcome of the election. That’s nutty. But people vote for a lot of different reasons, and apparently don’t feel their time is wasted.

I’m sorry. There may be terrible history here, but “don’t vote for any of these candidates if none of them represents you” is not a racist, sexist or anti-minority statement. On a practical level, voting unpredictably seems to give you the best bang for your ballot, if anyone can see your vote to count it: Sandra Day O’Connor demonstrated that to me. If nobody can see or count your ballot in a meaningful way then it’s just not the right method for political action: not voting is not screaming in the politician’s ear. To do that you have to go scream in the politician’s ear – direct protest, organised action, clear communication of what you want.

This, I think, is the real evil, and the real message, of elections: they’re rituals for limiting the involvement of the populace in politics, invitations to participate in the most minimal way possible, with a single mark, once every several years. It’s almost inconceivable that thinking beings could mistake that for political action or involvement, and yet here we are.

I voted below the line for this most recent Australian election.

That involved working out where my Senate vote was going to go and in which order out of 78 candidates. It was tough figuring out wether to preference the Wifebeater party ahead of the LaRouchies or the Hansonites but I did it. For Edmund Barton.

There are two different arguments: one against activism within the electoral process and the other against engagement in any formal system where your personal interests will be diluted. The first is worth hearing, the second is worth condemning in public in no uncertain terms. The obligations of republican forms of government require indoctrination.

Libertarians should be required to pay no taxes, should pay cash, at a premium, for everything that they may decide they need from government, and be stripped of the right to vote. They should be charged just for stepping out on the fucking sidewalk, maybe even for the right to use the language, and if any two are found to be collaborating with each other, be thrown in jail for hypocrisy.
Shun them.

#20 Me too. Those last 10 spots are always hard to rank, but it’s more fun than just ticking one box.

The studded ones are in the wash

I’ve always believed that “None of the Above” should be a candidate in every election, and, if NOTA got a plurality, we’d have to hold a new election in which none of the previously listed candidates could be on the ballot. Just to provide people with an option, a way to cast a meaningful protest vote.

Not exactly the same, but I’ve actually taken part in an election in which there was only one candidate, and he lost. The vote was for the head of a (small) academic department, and the only person willing to put himself forward was not thought suitable by most of the rest of us for this position. The rules we had adopted in advance required an election, and that meant, essentially, a choice between Professor X and None Of The Above. NOTA won.

I’ve always believed that “None of the Above” should be a candidate in every election,

It is, in every jurisdiction in which spoiled ballots are counted.

and, if NOTA got a plurality, we’d have to hold a new election in which none of the previously listed candidates could be on the ballot. Just to provide people with an option, a way to cast a meaningful protest vote.

A spoiled ballot is a way to cast a meaningful protest vote. (I’ve even done it once.) The only reason it’s not routinely recognized as such is that the number of spoiled ballots is so small. (Similarly, the number of votes for many fringe parties is so small that those votes are routinely considered essentially meaningless.)

Imagine, on the other hand, though, that some large fraction–say, twenty percent–of ballots in some election were spoiled. The candidate with the most votes would still win, but everyone would get the message that many voters are dissatisfied with the available options, and you can bet that a lot of aspiring politicians would work very hard to understand and represent those voters in subsequent elections.

It may be ridiculous sentimentality, but I cannot not vote when women in my country marched and went to jail and starved and died to win the right to vote. I will not disrespect their sacrifices.

Sorry, I just cannot agree. What she should suggest is that other people join her in a new party. Responsible people not voting, just ensures that the least responsible win. It WILL be seen as apathy not protest. Her position is just arrogant, “if they don’t do either what I want, or what they say they will do, I’ll take my ball and go home”. Good for her, but what exactly does it acchieve. Democracy is at least a system that allows change, does she have a better alternative ready?

To organize a new party you have to be H. Ross Perot; IOW: you have to be a billionaire. That’s the whole point. To me, at least.

I think that link more or less sums up my view of the whole thing – I very rarely vote in elections these days and the suffragettes, war veterans et al don’t seem to mind too terribly. I tell you who do get terribly worked up about me intentionally not voting, though – MPs and political activists. Which is good, because they’re exactly the people that I *want* to be annoyed.

FWIW I vaguely remember Gore Vidal making an argument for not voting in his essay collection “The Second American Revolution”. The reasoning was that US democracy was a big scam and he pointed to some law prescribing that if the voter turnout falls below percentage x a constitutional referendum or something alike is to be held in order to rectify the situation. Maybe someone can fill us in on that.

Generally, I find absolutely nothing wrong with not voting if none of the candidates represent you on certain key issues. Let’s say HRC gets the nomination and can’t find it in her heart to unequivocally condemn the use of torture in any shape or form – why should an opponent of torture vote for her?

And let’s face it, the whole torture thing didn’t start under Bush – the CIA has been torturing and facilitating torture under every president since its inception, so there are actually good reasons for never having voted. The lesser evil argument is a bit of a cop out really, because one does lend credibility to such things by voting.

“None of the above” is not a protest, you’re still playing their game.

Yes, well, we know democracy’s not your game, Abb1. And let’s face it–the less people like you vote, the better.

I tell you who do get terribly worked up about me intentionally not voting, though – MPs and political activists. Which is good, because they’re exactly the people that I want to be annoyed.

Oh, come on–they’re only one small portion of the very, very large set of people you want to be annoyed.

he needs your vote to be both an expression of your continued support of the system and not one.

If by “the system”, you mean, “the current crop of candidates”, then a spoiled ballot is always an option. On the other hand, if by “the system”, you mean, “the democratic process”, I wonder just what you’d replace it with.

“People have died for plenty of pretty awful things, so presumably you only do things that you agree with, that people have also died for…”

I understand your point, really I do, but I think there is a slight case of apples and pears. The suffragettes protested, suffered and, in some cases, died to give me something , something that the powerful did not want people like me to have. It seems somewhat churlish to refuse that gift.

And no, I don’t suppose the suffragettes would give a rat’s arse if you don’t vote DD – don’t be facile.

“If voting changed anything, they’d make it illegal.”

As of course “they” did, for women (until 1920), for Black people in the South–if not by statute, then by murder and terror–and, in several states in the early years of the Republic, for non-property-holding white men. The rich and powerful always try to limit the franchise, or discourage its exercise; is that because they’re rebelling against “the system,” or because they want to stay rich and powerful and keep everyone else poor and helpless? What some commenters here dismiss as “the suffragettes” has been a long, hard struggle (a general strike in Belgium, the Chartist movement in 19th century Britain, the voting rights movement in the US South), and the women’s suffrage movement here and around the world, for a basic human right. We can choose to be in solidarity with that struggle, or with the nightriders and lynchers who resisted it; as between the two, I know which I prefer.

The rich and powerful always try to limit the franchise, or discourage its exercise

It’s been a while since that was a major problem. It seems to me the rich and powerful have adapted just fine to universal suffrage.

“Those who refuse to vote are not expressing silence. They are screaming in the politician’s ear: “You do not represent me. This is not a process in which my voice matters. I do not believe you.”

Why yes, it’s such a powerful message that it’s entirely indistinguishable from someone who really doesn’t care. That’s why it’s a stupid argument: because it doesn’t make the point you think it makes and it does nothing to change the system. Even with a turnout of 5%, someone would claim victory and go on to lead the country. You need an actual revolution to make the point she wants to make.

You have a point there. Viewed from Europe, though, these stories of voter suppression in the US seem totally outlandish. (I can’t say that it never happens here, but I’ve never heard of such a thing.)

By the way, i wonder how many participants in this debate have actually knocked on doors or phonebanked to convince people to vote?

I have, on at least a dozen elections, and know people who’ve done a lot more. And let me just say, if you imagine “it’s your civic duty! this is how you show solidarity with the suffragettes” is what one says in such a setting, your ideas about why people vote may not be on the soundest footing.

If by “the system”, you mean, “the current crop of candidates”, then a spoiled ballot is always an option.

What are you – 5 years old?
Btw, candidates don’t matter, that’s a common mistake. Political parties, institutions, organizations, movements – yes. Candidates – no.

I hate to get all Edenbaum-y here, but the conflict between a purely individual sense of self and the rationality of collective action is an argument against the former, not the latter.

but surely this is just walking straight onto the other horn of the dilemma – in as much as voting makes me part of a “collective”, then it makes me part of a collective which tortures people and starts wars, and therefore include me out.

hahahahaha, this is absolutely ridiculous.

DD has spoken! Like a true member of a once-disenfranchised group. Oh no, hang on a sec…

Like a true member of a once-disenfranchised group

as a piece of political philosophy and analysis, this is right up there with “eat your greens because there are children starving in India”.

If the government won’t play along with my charade, why the heck should I play along with theirs

Because their charade is not one. An actual person will be elected and will do things.

Enthusiasm is not required.

“I went on the anti-war demonstration five years ago. It achieved not a thing.”
Oh c’mon dear, the only difference is that you weren’t on the podium, like you are every time you write at Comment is Free.
It’s the eccentricities that make you more readable than anyone else here but sometimes… Oy.
I’ll just shut up now. We’re all better off with you being inconsistent. I’m not willing to risk it all in the name of truth.

ciao

Because their charade is not one. An actual person will be elected and will do things.

but now you’ve pinballed back onto the first horn of the dilemma. My personal vote has a negligible chance of having any effect on which person gets elected, and even less on what things they do (as anyone who voted George Bush in 2000 in the expectation of getting the advertised “we don’t do nation building” foreign policy will tell you).

I have some ideas knocking about on this topic, but I don’t know if I actually believe any of them. So I’ll toss them out and see what people have to say.

1) If the purpose of the franchise is to provide an oversight role to the populace, then not exercising that power would not provide an escape from any moral responsibilty that comes with it. At least, that is not an argument I would accept from someone with any other kind of oversight responsibilities.

2) One of the arguments I’ve seen regarding the importance of international diplomacy is that refusing to deal with people who do reprehensible things does nothing to stop reprehensible things from being done. Perhaps this insight may have value when applied to dealings with political parties.

back for one more
“My personal vote has a negligible chance of having any effect on which person gets elected,”

That will always be the case, even in a world populated by creatures more responsible than those we have here (politicians being representative in more ways than one). Opting out of participation in electoral politics in this society at this point in time is hard to distinguish from doing so out of disgust that your personal desires will end up diluted by those of others. THAT’S the problem. But claiming solidarity with dead brothers is a little like the arguing for community and “spiritual value” and warm fuzziness (or fuzzy warmth) and against cold atomizing reason. Those are the arguments for community of those who want to defend it but don’t really understand it themselves.
Voting and public address are all parts of a deliberative politics. Voting is a public acknowledgment and affirmation of the reality of the community in which you live, which is in fact the community that made you. Your vote only counts as part of a larger group of those who agree with you on the issues you’re voting on as individuals. But voting takes place at the end of a long debate, which you involve yourself in DD more than most. The question is whether non-voting is a non-social activity or a social activity against the powers that be, but the powers that be in a republic are still the people (cynics about this are mostly cynics regarding those other than themselves). The people aren’t very smart, but it’s a tough call when and how to show your disrespect; and it’s tough to know when your disrespect is no different than their apathy. Maybe you are the people.
Non-voting sets a precedent, and that’s a kind of inertia that should worry us, even if the act itself is for what we consider noble reasons.

What you get is the opportunity to plainly say that you love your master.

So you told my master what my vote was?

It doesn’t matter who you voted for, it is the act of voting that counts as a pledge of allegiance.

A pledge of allegiance to…

… to the electoral system and thus

No thus, and there’s no pledge to the electrical system either. If I make a house I’m not pledging to it with a hammer, I’m using a hammer as a tool.

One more point, regarding Katherine, dsquared and voting rights. Katherine said:

why is it so terribly gauche to suggest that perhaps the members of a group historically denied the vote might feel differently about its exercise than a member of group not denied it?

Being a Briton, dsquared could make a claim to be a member of a disenfranchised group which would be only a little more historical than Katherine’s claim. According to Wikipedia, as late as 1867, 60% of adult males in England and Wales were still without the vote.

Isn’t it clear that the legitimacy (and thus much of the power) of elected rulers relies on the fact that a significant proportion of the citizens indicated that they are their preferred rulers (among available options)?

It certainly isn’t clear that they can claim all votes for everybody else as endorsements of their selection.

I think that you voting for your candidate and then claiming that someone else who got more votes is illegitimate would be considered hypocritical by most people.

So what?

But even leaving this point aside, let’s at least agree that voters legitimize those whom they vote for. That in itself should be enough to put in serious question the tactic of voting for the lesser evil.

That’s swell in the abstract, but folks die more when the greater evil gets in. That should put in serious question the act of not voting.

Change doesn’t start in the voting booth, that’s just where the accounting takes place.

Witness at the civil right movement; change starts in the minds of the people and translates into political reality. Look at how the right-to-lifers and ‘family values’ groups do it. If you really believe radical change is needed, you should be leading a movement to the polls on election day, or at least participating in one. If you just want to impress your ‘intellectual’ friends, stay home and blog about how ‘the system’ makes your vote meaningless.

Bubba (79), if you indeed build a house for yourself, then there is no problem whatsoever.

But what if, in fact, someone else built that house for you, with their own plans and materials and according to their interests. They then give you a toy hammer and say: here, sucker, knock gently on the walls, imagine that this is the house you built for yourself and move in. Be proud of your knocking on the walls with this toy hammer and remember: if you don’t like the house, there’s no one blame but yourself and your fellow citizens.

“According to Wikipedia, as late as 1867, 60% of adult males in England and Wales were still without the vote.”

Yes, Sortition, I am aware of that. But the reason for that disenfranchisement was property, not gender. As soon as a man reached a certain level of wealth/property ownership, he could vote. There was no argument that men, per se, were incapable and/or unsuitable to wield the franchise. I would submit that the two things are substantively different.

92 – sure. If this is how you feel you definitely should vote and I’m sure you do. In fact I usually do too, so there you go.

Isn’t it clear that the legitimacy (and thus much of the power) of elected rulers relies on the fact that a significant proportion of the citizens indicated that they are their preferred rulers (among available options)?

That’s not clear at all. I would say that the legitimacy of elected rulers relies on the fact that the citizens believe that the outcome of a vote is a valid method of selecting a leader, rather than the absolute percentage of voters supporting the winning candidate. Local elections are the perfect example of this. Turnout in our county rarely breaks the 20% mark. If any significant percentage of the people who didn’t vote thought that the elections were illegitimate on that basis, the county would be ungovernable. And yet, they don’t, possibly because it’s more difficult to make the case that voting for a county commisioner makes you complicit in foreign wars.

Reminds me of vaccine denialists and pasteurization-eschewing raw milk rebels. Unacquainted with the risks before vaccines or pasteurization, they fetishize freedom from these things.

Withholding your vote is an act of social emasculation, and that’s all. If you want to change the system, support primary challenges by candidates you can support, and vote for them.

Not voting is just *lazy*.

sortition wrote: “Should we swear allegiance to King Richard or should we denounce kings altogether and risk having King John now in the hope of delegitimizing and thus toppling the monarchy in the long run? Depends on how good is Richard and how bad is John.”

What are you, one of the Montana Freemen? Have any liens out on judges?

At least, the very least, in the US they should demand a system with proportional representation. The “winner takes all” model, especially in combination with gerrymandering – that’s just too much of a farce. Really. C’mon people, you know it, you’ve gotta.

Richard (51) writes:
Why yes, it’s such a powerful message that it’s entirely indistinguishable from someone who really doesn’t care. That’s why it’s a stupid argument: because it doesn’t make the point you think it makes and it does nothing to change the system.

This seems key. Wouldn’t it be much more effective to write in the name of someone you would support than to send the very ambiguous message of saying nothing?