Does everyone have to vote? (A political rant)
Once I met a guy online who was fuming against agnostics: "Make up your mind, already! You either believer or a non-believer." To his likely disapproval I should say that the position of agnostic isn’t equated to the absence of an opinion, but, actually, is a definite and a responsible position stating that it is impossible to know whether God exists or not.
I think the same attitude is applicable to voting for a political candidate. In other words, if you don’t vote, it doesn’t mean you cannot make up your mind. Rather it means that you don’t approve of either candidate and of the political forces that they represent.
My personal conviction not to vote was formed in the seventies of the last century during the first election I had to be summoned. There was only one candidate on the ballot and the country of the winning socialism wanted to make sure that he will be elected with 99.99% of votes.
To me, this is still a secret why they needed to do it this way, because if they wouldn’t hold the elections, and just appointed Brezhnev to the position of the General Secretary of the Communist party, it would have been easier on everybody. As if anybody cared or was able to object? My guess this was done for the purpose to show off in front of the Western World. See, we also have elections, just like you, guys.
I recall that I forgot about this silly election and the activists came to my apartment and made sure that I would go and vote.
Thus, when I came to the US, I considered “not voting” to be my privilege. I already live in the US for a while, and my position didn’t waver. Surely, here a person has the choice of picking theoretically between many different parties and practically between two. But if you really get down to it, one, basically, still has only one choice, the choice of the powerful political group that pays candidate’s bills.
Pays his or her campaign expenses so that later to demand payback in a form of needed them legislations, tax breaks, and government orders. To that powerful political and financial lobbies, it makes no difference, which of the two parties comes to power for they keep both of them on the financial leash.
But there is another important reason why I don’t feel I should vote along with the great majority of other people. I don’t think I am qualified. I don’t follow politics closely, barely hear the candidates and am not familiar with their campaign promises, let alone understand what part of these promises will come true. It’s like asking me to pick a specialist for a brain surgery.
There is no way I will pick such a specialist just because he has a presentable appearance, or because if we pick this candidate I will let the surgeon cut my skull just because it is the first time in the history of brain surgeries that it will be done by a female. Especially, I wouldn’t recommend making such a decision people who are completely uneducated, currently on drugs or have some mental disease.
The other concern is the media. If a lie would be repeated over and over, eventually people believe this is true. Therefore, whoever is in control of the media has much better chances of convincing people to "democratically" vote for a candidate.
Thus, I feel that not all the people deserve to vote. The demarcation line shouldn’t be certainly drawn on color, gender, sexual preference, etc., but by education. Perhaps a group of prestigious universities should design a test in the US and World history, government, economy, international policy, jurisprudence and maybe by something else. I am obviously not qualified to even determine these criteria. The exam should be free and paid by the government. Also, a candidate should be very limited in private funding. Instead, they should be given funds from the government budget. This might seem like a waste of money, but I think for a long run it will save much money to the treasury because in this way there are fewer chances that the future government official will be bought and will promote decisions based on the direction of a powerful financial group or a foreign power.
I agree that it is perfectly reasonable not to vote if you don't approve of any candidate. However, the fact that you said "both" is somewhat telling. Many people fall into this self fulfilling belief that only one of two candidates can win. There are often 3rd party or independent choices that are much better. You may not lIke these either but all candidates should be evaluated before you decide to vote (or not). And anybody whose life is affected by their supposed leaders has a right to have a say in who those leaders are.
Dear @darth-azrael,
Thank you for a thoughtful comment and being not indifferent.
I think I mentioned that, theoretically, the US has more candidates to vote for. However, correct me if I am wrong, but it never happened in the US history that any other party besides Democrats and Republican won the election. So sure you can vote for the other party. That can be viewed as a civil statement if this is what you are after. However, in the end, your vote would be wasted and the efficiency of your gesture would be basically equal to zero.
I don't see how not not voting is less of a waste or a more efficient gesture than voting for a 3rd party. When Abraham Lincoln won the election the Republican party was a 3rd party. And while a 3rd party hasn't won a presidential election since then they have won other elections (e.g. Congressional seats). There is absolutely no reason a 3rd party can't win except for the fact that people think a 3rd party can't win. To me the point of voting for someone is to vote for who I think is best for the job, not who I think is going to win.
Independents and Green party seem always gaining some kind of votes. So some people, apparently, including you, see that their voting make some kind of sense.
I would go to vote for an alternative party only if I see a real chance and some kind of momentum - somewhere in the range of 30%. Other than that I still see it as a waste of my time and such voting only as some sort of symbolic gesture.
And that line of thinking is why 3rd parties don't have more of a chance. How can a party have 30% support if everyone is waiting for it to have 30% support before they support it? Not voting for a 3rd party because you don't support their positions I completely understand. Not voting for them because you think they can't win doesn't make any sense to me at all. 3rd party failure is like a self-fulfilling prophecy. People think they can't win so they don't support them yet they can't win if people don't support them. I don't think any 3rd party can suddenly jump to 30%. That support can only build over time but it can only build if people are willing to support them before they actually get to that point.
I think I already explained my position and I understand your position. We have a different approach when it comes to a decision making. To you, voting is a principle matter, to me it is not. It only makes sense when my effort contributes to something else and there is a possibility to actually win. There are ways to estimate what type of impact one or another candidate can have, even before actual votes are count. You might think that the estimate is not worth considering and the odds can be beaten. I see it the other way.
More importantly, if in the US the new party is going to have a momentum then it will be given the same consideration by the ruling class as for the other two parties. I don't see any way out of it. If you do, the more power to you.
To me voting is only a principled matter in the sense that I want to vote for someone who supports positions and policies reasonably close to what I support, period. This is the only value, principled or not, that voting has. To just vote for someone because you think they are going to win is pointless. If they are already going to win, your vote doesn't matter and it isn't helping to achieve anything. If they don't largely support the same positions you support then it is obviously counterproductive. Of course odds can be beaten and this happens all the time (just look at the nomination of Trump to be the GOP candidate). Polls are obviously a terrible way to estimate who is going to win. They were wrong in this election and they have been more wrong that right in other recent elections. Often, they don't even include 3rd parties. Media coverage is also a poor metric as media coverage is often biased.
Having said that, I understand that it was pretty obvious that the Libertarian or Green parties weren't going to win the presidential election by the time election day got here. But it isn't about winning it all at once. The Libertarian party performed better in this election than any previous election. This kind of thing got them more recognition and more awareness of the party that they can build on in the future. I think it is worthwhile to support a 3rd party if they more closely align with your values even if they don't yet have the support needed to win. Support is built over time, it doesn't necessarily come all at once in a single election and voting doesn't take much of an effort.
Don't get me wrong. I fully support your right not to vote. I just think that any reason other than not supporting the positions of any of the candidate isn't necessarily a good one. If everyone who thought like you decided to go out and vote for a 3rd party, they would have a much better chance but everyone's mind won't change at once.
As you said, it was pretty obvious that Libertarian and Green parties were not going to win. Their percentage was somewhat 1% or so. Under these conditions, I won’t vote. It’s like a high school basketball team playing against an NBA team. Their odds of winning are almost negligible and to put my bet on them is silly. It doesn’t have to be a sure win, but, at least, some hopes of winning. If their chances are 1% to me this makes no sense of voting.
If you think that your vote will be counted towards future, that’s fine. Maybe it will. So when I feel that that contribution is significant enough to make their chances reasonable I’ll go then I’ll jump on the bandwagon. Until then it makes no sense to me.
In other words, if I see that this party is gaining momentum from election to election and their chances in this election someone 25-30 percent then I will vote