Should Anarchists Vote?
I got to thinking about this topic after my friend @seanmclellan posted this great piece: A mathematical explanation how voting third party in 2016 is the only vote that counts.
Should anarchists vote in national elections?
Sean makes a good argument that a vote for "none of the above" would send a signal to the nation about the population's lack of support for the two-party system. He also suggests voting for an existing third-party candidate, which I'm not as onboard with, but I also see the value of voting in someone like @adamkokesh or Ron Paul who (I believe) would actively work to diminish the influence of rulers within our society.
I also think participating in the process validates the very chains which bind us. This comes back to transformer verses reformer thinking. Should we transform the existing system or do away with it and completely reform it from the ground up? I lean towards reforming, myself.
So instead of voting for a third party, what if we voted for no rulers?
(If you want more awesome images like this, check out http://www.incitetees.com/)
I think the non-participation rate in national elections is an important signal to society to invalidate the supposed "consent of the governed" idea, but I also agree with Sean's perspective that very few are not voting out of protest but more so out of complacency which implies the impact of "non voting" may not be as effective as we might pretend.
At the same time, the motivations for not voting may be irrelevant. If, as an example, 90% of the population don't vote, how would that impact the average citizen's willingness to comply to rulers when only 10% of the population agreed to be ruled? I like the "none of the above" idea, but I prefer a "no rulers" vote in that it clearly states, "I not only reject the options offered to me, but I further reject the idea that humans need to be ruled at all."
So maybe anarchist should vote after all. Maybe we should all vote for:
No Rulers
as a write in. That, combined with the non-participation, might send an important signal and clearly communicate the current system of the monopoly on the use of force within a geographic region that is government is archaic and primitive.
We can do better.
P.S. Go give @seanmclellan a follow. You won't regret it.
This is such an insightful post, well done and kudos! Basically everything mentioned here is precisely how I've felt about our "system" (using the term loosely obviously) ever since I was in high school. As soon as I stopped listening to and soaking in what society has fed me as an alternative to the truth, and started searching for answers myself, I had begun to question why we even have a voting system when our votes technically don't even count. Then it hit me.... who says we need to vote at all???? At the time, I didn't know what to call this realization I had, because I was still under the impression that Anarchism meant chaos and disorder.... suffice it to say, I was still a bit brainwashed. Then I spent years simply avoiding the matter altogether and living my life the way I saw fit to take care of myself and those I loved (which, in a way, was living like an Anarchist without realizing I was one!). Then about a month or so ago, a good friend and coworker of mine (the same one who introduced me to Steemit, @derekareith) posted some things on here that led me to revisiting the whole concept.... it was history from there. Personally, while I do agree that writing in "no rulers" in the ballot would certainly make a potential impact, I still feel that refusing to participate at all would make a bigger one, especially if at least half the population did so. The simple truth is, all we have to do is stand up and refuse to participate in their little game, and it would simply end, since there wouldn't be enough people to cloud up others from their corrupt truth.
Anyway, thank you for this post, it was very astute and it really allows the reader to put this whole concept into a brief perspective! Very well done!
Cheers.
Thank you! I love this quote:
Reminds me of "The Dot" video by @larkenrose. If you haven't seen it, check it out on YouTube.
I am loosely familiar with @larkenrose on here, but I have not seen the video, I'll check it out! Thank you. :)
All of his YouTube videos are fantastic. I also highly recommend his book The Most Dangerous Superstition.
Thank you for the shout out!
I actually prefer your "no rulers" write-in suggestion over my "none of the above" suggestion.
The only thing I will add is this:
"If, as an example, 90% of the population don't vote, how would that impact the average citizen's willingness to comply to rulers when only 10% of the population agreed to be ruled?"
I think it's a mistake to assume that voting is an agreement to be ruled. If it were, then not voting could (by default) be seen as not agreeing to be ruled. However, the average person isn't even aware of the concept that having no rulers could be a viable option, and therefore without a mechanism in place to spread and voice that idea (such as writing in "no rulers") then the average person does and will continue to see non-voting as simple apathy... which does not at all translate to opposition to having rulers.
I think there's a large portion of society which simply does whatever everyone else is doing. It's not about opposing having rulers as much as it's about the revelation that the "consent of the governed" is not factually accurate. Clear numbers representing how many didn't vote would help bring that idea home, IMO.
Would "the coalescence of the governed " be more accurate?
Why would someone who doesn't want a ruler vote for one? Or support a system by participating in it which encourages rulership participation?
Exactly. :)
Well maybe because government is a leach. Governments don't get smaller on their own. If small government/no government individuals don't vote because they don't like the system it will get larger without being opposed.
I have decided I will no longer vote. However, I have to admit as November gets closer I started to bounce back and forth as to whether to vote. I considered only voting on local issues and bonds. Or, as you mentioned, write in "None of the Above".
Recently, I read an article from FEE entitled "Reject the Violence of Voting". To summarize it, the author asks that by voting are we approving of the governments actions. That is I am allowing the initiation of force and violence on my behalf. This bothers me a lot. Am I participating in our government's atrocities, even if I vote against it? Is my active participation giving it credibility?
In my mind, the answer to the questions above are yes, by voting I am participating to something I think is wrong. I will not be voting. And I will continue to speak out against the wrongs government has perpetrated against humanity.
Well said. Those are my thoughts as well, but I also want to keep an open mind. We need a plan to go from here to there.
If small government/ anarchist minded individuals don't vote the government will get larger and unopposed. Yes the system is rigged and corrupt but its best to at least try and slow it down. Even more so when we have a candidate who laughs about killing foreign leaders, destroying Iran and picking fights with the Russians with literally no evidence.
Part of thing bugs me about voting (besides the crappy, usual choices) is the whole electoral college. All that says to me is -- "we're going to elect whoever WE want and screw the population." That's my 2 cents. CHEERS!
Thanks @macksby. As much as I dislike the electoral collage, I also recognize the failures of direct democracy. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner.
My preference: no rulers. Adult human beings work through conflict via voluntary interactions without a justification for the initiation of force.
All I want is a "non of the above" option to vote on so new candidates can be drawn. Atleast that would be a start to reform. Bet we'd see more participation than!
Yeah, but it also implies, "None of these rulers... but if you get a ruler I agree with, sweet!"
Why would you like more participation?
I feel that I should always vote; however, I wish the campaigning didn't take so long as I feel it is a negative for the country.
Why do you feel you should vote? What do you feel your vote accomplishes? I won't condemn or shame you, even if I disagree, I'm genuinely interested in your perspective. Thanks!
I'd been contemplating something similar, but hadn't come up with anything I liked until this. Thanks!
Glad you liked it!
I just want to say, that not voting, or voting, what's the difference. I mean, don't get your hopes up that you are gonna do anything with your tiny little, probably neutralised vote anyway. Since it doesn't really make any difference, nonvotes out of protest and nonvotes out of complacence really are the same.
It's more the sense of self-satisfaction of not wasting your time on an irrelevant activity.
I think voting 'no rulers' is probably the best option if you end up in a ballot box, but I think it's still worse than ignoring it.
I agree that lack of voting gets mixed in with apathy and kids having a soccer game etc and doesn't clearly express itself as a protest. But do you have to protest something to defeat it?
I think it's forces outside the state (how you connect with people, how you treat children, your economic activity) that defeats the state, and any energy you give to it is less ideal than what you would have otherwise done.
I disagree with this. People like Ron Paul serve a function for the state. It provides a softer landing, where people who realize the ruse of it all will still be lending their energy to the state, which is less threatening than actually behaving like anarchists.
And it polarizes people against these ideas. There would come a point where somebody needs to talk about deficits, wars, etc or it's increasingly obvious that important things are being hidden. So when you can package it in one extremely principled candidate and then defeat him, it dignifies the status quo and saves the mainstream candidates from having to move a little closer to the sane rhetoric.
What's in Ron Paul's heart, who knows of course. But I don't think it's any different than other politicians, where it should be safe to assume his political career is his top priority. He just had a different angle for gaining traction than other politicians.
I understand this position and it is true, but it's also not all of the truth (IMO). Anarchists are often criticized for seeing everything in black and white and not seeing reality is it is. I see you left out commenting on Adam's bid for president in 2020 on a platform to peacefully dissolving the federal government. Is he also just serving a function for the state? As for Ron Paul, how many more anarchists/voluntaryists exist today directly because of his influence and the platform given to him by the State? People like him are not just serving the State, they are also supporting their world views which include peaceful, voluntary interactions. If they were just about politics, they would have made different decisions to be more successful at politics. Instead, from my perspective, they stayed consistent to their principles over many decades.
We as anarchists should be rational about our goals and the best approach to reaching those goals. There are very real emergent properties of several hundred thousand human beings living together in cities which few anarchists offer solutions for seriously other than "it will just work out." My Statist friends need more than that. We could, for example, go through the entire federal budget line by line and explain how each item has at least 10-20 voluntary solutions which would not need to be funded via taxation and enforced via coercion. The world needs practical, pragmatic solutions for very real problems. If the only thing we have going for us is our moral superiority and all-or-nothing thinking, we will remain sidelined as an irrelevant minority for much longer (IMO).
And what if you have 10 principled candidates? 20? 100? I think change involves many angles. As I said in my post, I'm more of a reformer than a "change it from the inside" transformer, but I also recognize the evidence of the influence these people have our on society, and I'm thankful for their existence.
Entirely agree with you. Ending up in a ballot box is a proof of obedience. Some states even have compulsory voting, like Belgium. People not attending the ballot receive a fee.
All the power our rulers have is given by the people, and can easily be taken back.