Jed Pressgrove is a graduate student in sociology. He can be contacted at [email protected]. Without personal conviction, voting – or not voting – becomes a puppet or mime action. If you vote or refuse to vote for anything but personal conviction, the freedom to choose doesn’t do you or society much good in the first place.
Having established this simple principle, it is discouraging to see many voters and fellow nonvoters urging others to perform puppet and mime actions. In fact, I was once guilty of telling people that voting was wrong.
More than three years ago, I wrote an article detailing why one shouldn’t vote in presidential elections. Although there are several valid reasons not to vote, I no longer hold the pompous notion that others should follow my example.
In the end, these ideas of democracy and anarchism shouldn’t matter as much as the individual’s own choice, a decision driven by personal conviction, because what good is democracy if citizens are moved to vote by means other than their own reasoning and conviction? And what good is anarchism if those who refuse participation simply follow the wishes of other disgruntled citizens?
Before moving on, I am not suggesting people only vote for the idea of democracy or that all nonvoters have intellectually rejected compulsory government. However, in general one could say voting is in line with democracy and not voting is in line with anarchism.
Many modern voters claim you can’t be a good citizen if you don’t vote. When they make this claim, however, they are making two assumptions. First, they assume voting is a necessary condition for being a good citizen. In other words, if you don’t vote, then you can’t be a good citizen. And second, they assume the system which we support by voting is worth the trouble.
This first assumption is misinformed. Voting isn’t the only way an American can participate in politics and, therefore, exercise citizenship. Citizens may form interest groups and go to government meetings, for example, and influence policy.
Another important fact to remember is you can vote for horrible men and women, and in turn these atrocious politicians can make life harder and worse for many Americans through inane and malevolent policies. So perhaps not voting is a political cry against these incompetent officials and therefore the mark of a good citizen.
The second assumption is also problematic. Our system is based on checks and balances, but there’s no reason to assume these checks and balances will be carried out by flawed individuals.
Our system also fosters a two-party dynamic. This doesn’t suggest a citizen can’t vote for an independent. However, one could reasonably conclude that voting independent is a meaningless endeavor because of biased media, rigid tradition and the fact that Republicans and Democrats generate more money, the “lifeblood of politics.” Most discerning individuals will admit the vote is futile if not cast for a Republican or Democrat.
But the independent vote could become relevant. A movement could occur. That’s fine. This argument doesn’t discredit my central point: Voting or not voting without personal conviction is a puppet or mime action.
It would be better for all Americans if we would stop emphasizing our own political decisions as superior to others. Instead, we should demand quality information (i.e., the media giving equal attention to independent candidates) and not demonize others for voting or not voting if those in question have exercised reason and personal conviction.
Of course, we can still criticize those who elect detestable people. My argument specifically addresses the philosophy behind the very act of voting or not voting; however, I don’t claim voting for idiots and liars should be respected or tolerated.