Why do you vote?

BjornAbust · Oct 7, 2012

I've asked this question to many people I know personally, and the only repsonses I seem to get are "It's your DUTY, you un-American jerk!" or "People died to give you the right to vote!" Either that, or they simply look at me as though I'm a kitten-punching terrorist.

I'd like to start by first highlighting my own position on this matter, and would very much like to hear your reasons for voting (or not voting) in this thread.

My reasoning:

I'm not going to vote in November. When one's vote lends credence to a system whose candidates have continually permitted the degeneration of human rights and the murder and exploitation of innocents-- both foreign and domestic-- how can one justify the act of voting? Feeding into such a system while acknowledging its tremendous faults is not only unconscionable, but morally reprehensible. To 'be involved' is essentially to dab up a bit of the blood with one's own hands, is it not?

Obama and Romney are both extremely poor choices for president, and I feel confident that a worthwhile candidate will never again emerge from any of the major political parties, which are rotten to their very core. Even an effective candidate would be hard-pressed to accomplish anything within the corrupt framework of modern American politics.

By witholding my vote and joining the large percentage of the electorate who sits out each election, I hope that, together, we can strip this corrupt government of its legitimacy and work to establish a more functional system that more closely resembles Democracy.

I was pleased to find out that my views on the matter aren't altogether uncommon. I've found a few articles that I thought were very interesting. Of particular interest was this one:

http://fubarandgrill.org/node/1172

Please note I'm merely interested in the opinions of others. I'm not looking to start an argument and I certainly recognize the rights of others to exercise their right to vote. I'm simply curious about their rationale for doing so. Considering the passion and intelligence of many regulars on this board, I look forward to some spirited (though hopefully civil) discussion!

spottedgeckgo · Oct 8, 2012

I vote because I believe that not voting encourages more corruption instead of stripping it as you believe. For this reason I also write to state politicians (not always in my state) and try to participate when I can in my local city government. I wish I could participate more, but I'm not home often and when I am there, I want to spend time with my wife, not at city hall.

I'm not a lobbyist or anything, but I believe when people stand by and do nothing then the system degenerates. Course, by my same logic some of the people with the loudest voices also tend to cause trouble with over-regulation of things that don't (IMO) need to be regulated. The loudest voices seem to be the whiners. If we had more people step up and speak with a reasonable voice, maybe certain silly legislation would not be passed. Just my 2 cents. I'm not going to stick around this post long, but you are looking for opinions so I figured I would give it.

Shadow Dragon · Oct 8, 2012

I have to ask, how does not voting change the system? If only, say, a fifth of the population votes, that'll likely exclude any moderates and the government would then effectively be run by the far right or left (though considering that this is the US and our left is around center for other countries, then just far right). Instead of corrupt leaders, we'll have corrupt extremists. Granted, that's a worst case scenario; though the best case is that we'll just keep the same exact group in power.

The way to change things is by voting and getting others to vote but, and this is by far the more important step, getting people to actually care about who they're voting for rather than just going by part, what a pundit said, or by attack ads. Also to actually vote for the third parties, at least on the state level, to have different types of politicians. Only then will things change.

As for why I personally vote, then at least I can say that I tried. Also, my vote will cancel out one vote by the type of voter I mentioned above.

Kerosene · Oct 8, 2012

I vote because if everyone didn't, no one would take office. You move mountains by carrying pebbles, so to say. I'm just a pebble.

I'll also vote, close to the last minute for the underdog. I'll vote this way, because I don't like neither of the candidates, and never will like the future ones.

I too cannot understand not voting, to correct the system. There's just no use in not doing something, wishing for something to result from it.

Chris P · Oct 8, 2012

I vote because I CAN! I currently live in a country where elections are notoriously corrupt, and although better under the current president my Ugandan friends and coworkers at one time were completely powerless and voiceless. Before I came here, I lived in a state (Mississippi) where elections have their own troubled history. Many of my friends there were at one time powerless and voiceless too.

When I don't vote for a certain post (county road commissioner, etc.), it's because I have no preference for one candidate or the other. For me to flip a coin and vote for one candidate nullifies the vote of someone who feels passionately about the other candidate. So I abstain when I don't care one way or the other.

Therefore, not voting sends no message other than "I don't care, do whatever you want." No politician has ever said "wow, 50% of the people didn't vote. We must be doing something wrong." People not voting is the problem, not the solution.

BjornAbust · Oct 8, 2012

Shadow Dragon said:
I have to ask, how does not voting change the system?

The thought is that, by not voting, the electorate can show its disapproval and strip the government of its legitimacy. When the major candidates are no longer our only option and our elections aren't bought and paid for by giant corporations, true progress might actually be possible.

During the last election, I actively campaigned for Obama. I really believed in change and hoped that I could do my part to steer the country towards a brighter future. I notice that a lot of you feel that your vote has the potential to affect change.

Since becoming president, Obama has supported laws that strip us of our rights (NDAA, Patriot Act extension), has launched countless missions of questionable legality (Osama Bin Laden raid, drone strikes that often result in the death of innocents) and has continued to support Israel despite their provocative and obnoxious sabre-rattling. Is this the sort of change you're all hoping to affect with your vote? Because it's not at all what I wanted. Having voted for the man-- having given him my consent through voting-- I feel at least somewhat responsible for some of the terror he has perpetuated during his term as president. I can't in good conscience support such a thing again. Also, both Romney and Obama would continue these same policies I so vehemently abhor. For me to vote for either of them would be not only unconscionable, but morally reprehensible.

Shadow Dragon · Oct 8, 2012

Then, vote for someone else. Sure, they probably won't win but if other parties can at least have a good showing, it'd help.

BjornAbust · Oct 8, 2012

Shadow Dragon said:
Then, vote for someone else. Sure, they probably won't win but if other parties can at least have a good showing, it'd help.

I would be thrilled to support an independent cause. There are some problems in doing so, however. The biggest is that the system will still be in place. The elections will still be bought and paid for, and the two major parties, which have all of the pull, will continue to hamper the attempts of alternative candidates. Even worse, considering how foul the current political landscape is, a third-party candidate wouldn't likely be able to accomplish much of anything even if they managed to win.

Like you said, they probably won't win. And even if they do, they're still stuck with modern American politics. Something needs to change-- and it's not just the talking head at the top of the government ladder. I believe that, if enough people were to withold their vote, it would amount to a large-scale, non-violent protest, through which we could convey our tremendous displeasure with the government, similar to what Iceland did.

Don · Oct 8, 2012

BjornAbust said:
I would be thrilled to support an independent cause. There are some problems in doing so, however. The biggest is that the system will still be in place. The elections will still be bought and paid for, and the two major parties, which have all of the pull, will continue to hamper the attempts of alternative candidates. Even worse, considering how foul the current political landscape is, a third-party candidate wouldn't likely be able to accomplish much of anything even if they managed to win.

Like you said, they probably won't win. And even if they do, they're still stuck with modern American politics. Something needs to change-- and it's not just the talking head at the top of the government ladder. I believe that, if enough people were to withold their vote, it would amount to a large-scale, non-violent protest, through which we could convey our tremendous displeasure with the government, similar to what Iceland did.

Withholding one's vote has zero impact on whether the system of some people demanding that others live in certain ways can continue or not. They'll continue making their demands and locking people up for disobeying whether you vote or not.

Not voting is not the only way to not participate. I vote, even though I find the whole concept reprehensible and go back and forth about whether to vote or not. I figure every vote for a non-Republicrat, regardless of the third party I'm voting for, sends a message.

As for other modes of non-participation that are more likely to have an impact, I'm a firm believer in local action for impacting the community around me, barter and cash in financial transactions, and improving one's skill sets in ways that increase self-sufficiency and participation in the local economy, at the same time lowering the requirement that one put resources in the hands of violent morons who will spend those resources committing crimes in my name.

I'm even one of those senior citizens that take every opportunity to dine at the public trough, figuring that every penny of government money I consume is one less penny that can be spent locking up kids for smoking herbs or remotely bombing families in their home a half-world away. I figure everybody with their hand out is a fellow traveler in that particular war of attrition. The dollar is doomed, might as well help it cross the river Styx.

"Starving the beast" has a nice ring to it, since "shrugging" has such a bad rep thanks to Ayn Rand.

Although "suppose they gave a government and nobody came" makes a similar point, and has deep ties to my rebellious 60s past.

Chris P · Oct 8, 2012

Serious question: Does anyone know of a voter strike that, by itself, resulted in a fundamental change in how a government--any government--does business? I like to think I'm well read in history but I can't think of one.

Another way to look at the impact of your question is that one of the first things a repressive government does is limit access to the ballot box. To limit your own access voluntarily seems a backwards way to protest a government you think is repressive. [ETA: Sorry, didn't mean to put words in your mouth Bjorn. It seems you think the government just doesn't work versus being repressive.]

And not voting for third parties on the assumption that third parties will never get elected is a self-fulfilling prophesy. This is going back more than 150 years now, but there used to be just Democrats and Whigs. No third party at the time had a chance. The Whigs fell apart over the slavery issue (among other things), and many former Whigs joined the newly formed, third party, Republican Party and others became a faction within the Democrats. The Republicans began sweeping elections (i.e., people voted for them) nationwide and the hold out Whigs were no more. I don't predict that the Dems or Republicans are going to go away any time soon, but they sure as shootin' won't if nothing changes (which is what not voting means--"nothing changes and I'm cool with that").

We will always have political parties. The US started out as a non-party system (they're not in the Constitution, but aren't prohibited either) and parties formed from factions within 10 or 15 years. The Confederacy was officially a non-party system, but factions had formed and it would have had parties if the CSA had survived. Political parties are what we have to work with.

_Sian_ · Oct 8, 2012

There's not really an option here - voting is compulsory. That being said, if I had the choice, I would still vote.

I like to think that the more people that vote, the more centralist the parties become, just mainly because the radical votes cancel each other out and you're left with the majority which aren't hard liners one way or the other. That's why I don't donkey vote, which is the only real option for not voting here. I like to think I'm contributing to government that serves the majority of the people in this country, and not facilitating the election of those who represent a few.

That being said, once a government is elected, it's elected. If you wait around for the next four years to show up, and don't engage yourself in the process of writing letters and communicating with your representative, then I think you've lost half the battle.

BjornAbust · Oct 8, 2012

Chris P said:
Serious question: Does anyone know of a voter strike that, by itself, resulted in a fundamental change in how a government--any government--does business? I like to think I'm well read in history but I can't think of one.

An excerpt from the article I posted in the OP:

South Africa endured many years of violence under the Apartheid regime. Many people and countries worldwide boycotted Apartheid, but the US government insisted on supporting the Apartheid regime, saying that while the US abhorred Apartheid, the regime was the legitimate government of South Africa. Then the Apartheid regime held another election. No more than 7% of South Africans voted. Suddenly everything changed. No longer could the US or anyone else say that the Apartheid regime had the consent of the governed. That was when the regime began to make concessions. Suddenly the ANC, formerly considered to be a terrorist group trying to overthrow a legitimate government, became freedom fighters against an illegitimate government. It made all the difference in the world, something that decades more of violence could never have done.

In Cuba, when Fidel Castro's small, ragged, tired band were in the mountains, the dictator Batista held an election (at the suggestion of the US, by the way). Only 10% of the population voted. Realizing that he had lost the support of 90% of the country, Batista fled. Castro then, knowing that he had the support of 90% of the country, proceeded to bring about a true revolution.

In Haiti, when the US and US-sponsored regimes removed the most popular party from the ballot, in many places only 3% voted. The US had to intervene militarily, kidnap Aristide, and withhold aid after the earthquake to continue to control Haiti, but nobody familiar with the situation thought that the US-backed Haitian government had the consent of the governed or was legitimate.

A voter strike by itself may not be effective, that's true. But with other forms of protest, I don't think it totally impossile for such a thing to happen in the US.

sianshan said:
I like to think that the more people that vote, the more centralist the parties become, just mainly because the radical votes cancel each other out and you're left with the majority which aren't hard liners one way or the other. That's why I don't donkey vote, which is the only real option for not voting here. I like to think I'm contributing to government that serves the majority of the people in this country, and not facilitating the election of those who represent a few.

The throuble with this, I believe, is that the elections are already bought and paid for (at least, in the US). I'd like to believe the same-- that my vote could serve a good purpose. When you consider the system's rampant corruption, one's vote counts for far less than they would have you believe, however.

_Sian_ · Oct 8, 2012

I think the issue that's illustrated in your south African example is that there's only so many ways you can bring about a change of government. Revolution can happen intimately (one person of the ruling elite deposing of another) or as part of a popularise moverment, but if you're not going to change power via a populist vote, then it's really the only other alternative. And I don't think it's a substainable or attractive one.

There's a very legitimate quote along the lines of democracy not being the perfect method of governance, but it being the best of a bad bunch. I tend to agree.

ETA : if corruption is your bugbear, than I would look at ways of tackling that. While not voting, or throwing your vote may be a symbolic gesture, I'm not so sure it does much about the actual corruption. All IMHO of course

Filigree · Oct 8, 2012

I vote because if I don't, my voice never has a chance to be counted. When reasonable people stay home from the polls, America gets things like Prohibition and the Tea Party.

BjornAbust · Oct 8, 2012

sianshan said:
There's a very legitimate quote along the lines of democracy not being the perfect method of governance, but it being the best of a bad bunch. I tend to agree.

I certainly agree; for all its flaws, Democracy nonetheless has potential.

The US government provides us only with the illusion of Democracy. Most citizens are blissfully unaware of just how corrupt their government really is, eating up everything they see in the mainstream media without a second thought and voting in accordance with the values of an established party. I'm finding, more and more, that independence of mind is a very rare thing.

The elections have always come across to me as theatrical displays that the masses can't help but obsess over.There's ample, readily-available evidence of widespread election fraud and the meddling of corporate interests, but most people don't seem to care.

Filigree said:
I vote because if I don't, my voice never has a chance to be counted. When reasonable people stay home from the polls, America gets things like Prohibition and the Tea Party.

Once more, with all of the corruption and tampering that takes place at the highest levels of our government, how can anyone truly feel as though their vote makes a difference? Furthermore, the platforms of both Obama and Romney are virtually the same, save for some superficial flourishes. A vote for one is a vote for the other, essentially. Reasonable people would know better than to participate in such a ridiculous, futile exercise, methinks.

EDIT: I just stumbled upon this article. If you have the time, I suggest you read it. It's a very interesting take on the no voting strategy, and offers other interesting tidbits as well:

http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2012/08/2012-us-elections-obamney-vs-rombama.html

Teinz · Oct 8, 2012

BjornAbust said:
During the last election, I actively campaigned for Obama. I really believed in change and hoped that I could do my part to steer the country towards a brighter future. I notice that a lot of you feel that your vote has the potential to affect change.

It almost sounds to me as if you feel betrayed. Don't you think you had your hopes up a bit too much, four years ago? After all, Obama is just a politician and not The One who is able to magically transform our world into a more just society. He is just a man and just as confined by the framework of politics as any other politician is.

Furthermore, I'm sure democracy as a system has its drawbacks, but what else is there?

BjornAbust · Oct 8, 2012

Teinz said:
It almost sounds to me as if you feel betrayed. Don't you think you had your hopes up a bit too much, four years ago? After all, Obama is just a politician and not The One who is able to magically transform our world into a more just society. He is just a man and just as confined by the framework of politics as any other politician is.

Furthermore, I'm sure democracy as a system has its drawbacks, but what else is there?

Proper Democracy, where votes matter and corporations/special interests can't meddle, is what I'm interested in.

Perhaps I did feel a little betrayed. My feelings on the matter are a great deal more complicated than simple betrayal, however. No, Obama went above and beyond betrayal when he authorized the NDAA and an extension of the Patriot Act. Launching drone strikes that have killed many innocents, etc.

I feel more ashamed than anything. Ashamed that I was foolish enough to be preyed upon by such a rotten system, and that I gave a man like him my consent to do such things.

By not voting however, I feel that I'm essentially saying: "No more." I'm withdrawing my consent and refuse to grant it once more to anyone who comes out of this same twisted establishment.

Chris P · Oct 8, 2012

BjornAbust said:
Most citizens are blissfully unaware of just how corrupt their government really is, eating up everything they see in the mainstream media without a second thought and voting in accordance with the values of an established party. I'm finding, more and more, that independence of mind is a very rare thing.

I think you are being very discourteous to the average person on the street, and are forming a strawman argument. I have not found many individuals who are so snowed by the media or by the parties. I think what you're up against is that many people vote the lesser of multiple evils, weigh the options of what they will get against the likelihood of it happening, and accepting that they will have to put up with things they don't like in order to get other things they do.

Either way, how does not voting distinguish you as a protester from other people who don't vote out of apathy, ignorance, or accepting corruption as the way things are? There is no way to know what the X% of the population who won't vote believes.

And I agree with your earlier reply that voting strikes by themselves do very little if anything at all. It must be followed up by concerted action based on a set of widely held ideas by those in the group. Which is how political parties get started in the first place.

Anninyn · Oct 8, 2012

The problem with not voting as a form of protest is that everyone who does it is deliberately removing their voice. If all of those people voted for one of the people they thought would 'never get in' perhaps they would.

The problem with thinking 'one person can't change anything' is that several million 'one person' are also thinking the same thing.

I think it's a bit different in the UK, as there are a number of parties you can vote for as a protest vote as it were (though the problem with that is when a lot of people vote for the same protest party, parties like the BNP gain seats).

BjornAbust · Oct 8, 2012

Chris P said:
I think you are being very discourteous to the average person on the street, and are forming a strawman argument. I have not found many individuals who are so snowed by the media or by the parties. I think what you're up against is that many people vote the lesser of multiple evils, weigh the options of what they will get against the likelihood of it happening, and accepting that they will have to put up with things they don't like in order to get other things they do.

I can't tell you how many times I've read stuff like "My vote is as red as my blood" on my Facebook feed over just the last 24 hours. My family refuses to acknowledge the various atrocities Obama's permitted during his first term and are willing to vote for him simply because he's a Democrat. Other family members are voting for Romney because they "don't want the gays getting married".

It could be that I'm simply surrounded by ignorant people. My impressions of the electorate aren't especially rosy, however. I think they may be at least a little more ignorant, as a whole, than you give them credit for. Agree to disagree on that however, as it may just come down to a matter of perspective.

As far as the voting for a lesser of two evils goes, I absolutely detest such thinking. A vote for a lesser evil is still a vote for evil. Voting for a candidate when you consider them evil in any capacity is not only unconscionable, but morally reprehensible. You're essentially giving someone your consent, helping them become president, knowing all the while that they don't have the best interests of the electorate in mind. Anyone who votes in this way ought to be ashamed of themselves, in my opinion.

Filigree · Oct 8, 2012

I'm not happy with Obama, either. I wasn't that much of a hero-worshiper to begin with. I think his debate performance matched most of his tenure, in that he was disengaged and conciliatory. He and the Dems would have accomplished more if they'd borrowed a page from Dubya and said 'We won. Suck it.' They've spent the last three and a half years trying to play nice with people and groups who vowed obstruction from the start.

However, having seen the Republican Party mutate over the last 30 years, I do not want Romney in office. He's not a strong enough candidate to stand up to the fringe special interests who will be controlling him.

Even though my vote may count as only a tiny fraction, it is still my vote. If I withdraw it, I'm not a principled patriot making a stand for true independence. I am merely enabling the people who will work against my best interests and the future of my country.

Celia Cyanide · Oct 8, 2012

The presidential election is not the only one happening in November, you know.

BjornAbust · Oct 8, 2012

Filigree said:
Even though my vote may count as only a tiny fraction, it is still my vote. If I withdraw it, I'm not a principled patriot making a stand for true independence. I am merely enabling the people who will work against my best interests and the future of my country.

The platforms of both candidates are, as I previously said, eerily similar, save for some superficial differences. They both support many of the same heinous laws and policies. It doesn't matter who you vote for, in the long run. Whether you vote for Romney or Obama, the country will head more or less in the same direction. The same corporate interests have a stake in them both.

So, congratulations to the real winner of the 2012 election:

Goldman Sachs.

_Sian_ · Oct 8, 2012

If my options are truly that horrible, I'll vote for a third party. We have a preferential system here, so if the party I vote for doesn't have the votes to win, my vote passes onto my second preference and so on and so forth. So my objection is noted, but I'm still technically "choosing the lesser of two evils"

As for that still being choosing evil - I'd call that harm minimisation. On my part it's a recognition that everyone else will be voting, and I will probably find one position more reprehensible than the other. If we're using slippery slope analogies, I'd rather pick any party less likely to go down that slope than not vote and have another party voted in that's more likely to go down that slope.

It's not even about certainty when it's the choice of lesser evils. It's about fighting something even when it seems inevitable. To me, personally, not voting would be like giving up.

Hope that made sense

Williebee · Oct 8, 2012

I encourage everyone to vote. Not voting doesn't tell anyone why we didn't vote. And when the action of casting a vote becomes a habit, so might paying attention to what we are voting for.

I'm working on the theory that involvement breeds interest - whether that is interest with approval or disgust, it is interest. Enough interest spurs action, and action beats apathy most every time.

soapbox/
We took a long time, as a nation, to slide into apathy. It will take even longer to climb back out of it. But that's how nature works. Just look at laundry. A split second to get it dirty. Another split second to get it wet. Not full seconds, but minutes into hours to get it clean and dry again. /soapbox (oh look, he punned... again.)

Why do you vote?

Da Gecko

Your Pixie Queen

Likes metaphors mixed, not stirred

All Living is Local

Likes metaphors mixed, not stirred

Ooooh, pretty lights and sirens :D

Ooooh, pretty lights and sirens :D

Mildly Disturbing

Back at it again.

Likes metaphors mixed, not stirred

Stealing your twiglets.

Mildly Disturbing

Joker Groupie

Ooooh, pretty lights and sirens :D

Capeless, wingless, & yet I fly.