Why I won't vote

[jackelgull]

I'm going to be able to vote for this presidential election, but after considering it for a while, I think I'll choose not to exercise this right. Before I can get into why, I should explain my beliefs on governmental legitimacy.
The consent of the governed grants a government its power. I think this fact is pretty obvious. If no one followed the orders of the US government, then it would have no power and thus would cease to exist as a government. Therefore, a government must constantly prove its legitimacy, or right to rule, to the people. The basis of a government’s right to rule, its most powerful argument, is monopoly of force. The argument basically boils down to, “Obey us or we can hurt you”. Self preservation is a powerful motivator. The problem with this, is that arguments for legitimacy are things that must be constantly proved. If a government says “We have the force to back up our words”, then it better damn well expect to be challenged on that. So the government should provide other arguments that reduce the need to resort to violence, ones that can be proved in less troublesome ways. This includes economic self interest, nationalism, protection of rights and privileges etc. One of the arguments the American government has for its own legitimacy, is the “You voted for us”. That’s why I won’t in national elections. That would mean I accept the government that results’ argument for legitimacy. I don’t. Both the Democrats and Republicans are bad, and voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil. I know that in the end, this will really only be for my own self satisfaction. The government society chooses to accept can still force its power over me. Still, I think it's like the decision Walter made in the Raisin in the Sun, to not sell his house. Sure, his neighbors can take him to court, and find some bogus reason as to why he should be evicted from his house, but by refusing to leave of his own volition, he refused to be made an inferior. This does not mean I won’t vote in local elections, just why I won’t vote in national ones until the situation changes.

So what do you guys think? Any counter arguments? Do you believe I should vote?

 

[Tahuti]

This is exactly why I am a non-voter too. Couldn't have worded better myself.

 

[Hygro]

Or you're just tacitly endorsing every result as sufficiently worthy of governing you.

 

[Tahuti]

Voting is an assent.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I relented once and voted for the vastly lesser of the two evils. And George Bush still won the election.

The two party system in the US is a complete joke.

 

[Tahuti]

I relented once and voted for the vastly lesser of the two evils. And George Bush still won the election.

While I am not an American and hence you should take my perception with a grain of salt, I doubt Al Gore would have made much of a difference. No Iraq II may be a major plus, though something like the Patriot Act could have conceivably appeared in a Gore presidency.

 

[Formaldehyde]

It was actually John Kerry. George Bush had already proven he was completely unfit to lead a country, yet enough of the American public still voted for him to win the 2004 election.

Even today, a third of the country still thinks he did a great job when he actually belongs in prison for the rest of his life.

 

[Kennigit]

Your local elections are probably more likely to be a complete joke [of noncompetitive environments, shady practices of denying or accepting some signatures necessary to place a measure onto a referendum, some areas are corrupt jokes, etc]

depending on your state's rules or whatnot, in a super theoretical sense I would encourage participation in the federal election with the write in candidate of your choice, be that Mickey Mouse or Scooby Doo or Ficus for Congress

a major critique of the US election cycles are the low participation rates, which if you want to distinguish yourself from indifference you can participate.

 

[illram]

This is basically saying "I refuse to make the bare minimum effort to participate in governance in our society." You should be going in the opposite direction. "My vote is not enough, I should do more." Not "my vote is not enough, so I am going to do nothing and simply let the system happen to me."

 

[schlaufuchs]

The least you could do is write-in.

 

[BvBPL]

This is basically saying "I refuse to make the bare minimum effort to participate in governance in our society." You should be going in the opposite direction. "My vote is not enough, I should do more." Not "my vote is not enough, so I am going to do nothing and simply let the system happen to me."

Damn straight.

 

[CavLancer]

At least write in your own name. If everyone suddenly decides not to vote, you'll win.

If I were to win it would be on the Pizza platform, free pizza for everyone!

 

[Formaldehyde]

The least you could do is write-in.

Yeah. That will certainly be noticed.

When was the last time you saw a news report of a US election where they even told you about all the people who showed up and intentionally threw away their vote?

 

[BvBPL]

Last week.

 

[Joecoolyo]

Vote or die.

More seriously. Sure, it sucks to be governed by monopolized violence. But it sucks even more to be governed by monopolized violence you have no control over. At least in this case you can change things (and yes, your vote does count, even more so if you get active and get other people to vote too).

It's the best of a crappy situation. If you want anything to blame, blame the fact that there's just way too many humans to be left to govern ourselves properly without some sort of mediating power.

 

[CavLancer]

In the US you have 2 parties who represent whoever gave them money to get elected, and of course their space alien puppeteers. You might have noticed that nowhere in there are the people who voted, so why bother.

 

[Leoreth]

This is basically saying "I refuse to make the bare minimum effort to participate in governance in our society." You should be going in the opposite direction. "My vote is not enough, I should do more." Not "my vote is not enough, so I am going to do nothing and simply let the system happen to me."

Damn straight.

I am generally of the opinion that voting is preferable to not voting, but this attitude has always seemed rather unfair to me.

It basically boils down to the accusation that if you don't vote, you don't care about the political process. While that may be the case for many non-voters, it is definitely possible to become a non-voter as an informed choice out of participation in the political process. Even if the procedures of most elections don't translate it into how we are governed, not voting is a legitimate way to express a political opinion.

As for the argument that those people should become politically active, why should this be an obligation to them? Why are people who are content with the options presented to them by their political system allowed to get away with casting a ballot once in a while, but people who don't immediately have to found their own party or something for their position to be legitimate? Most people just cannot or do not want to become politicians, that does not mean they are forced to give their assent to what they can vote for. This does not make them any more lazy than those of us who vote like once a year.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Last week.

I see the notion of a red herring is still apparently a mystery to you.

Vote or die.

More seriously. Sure, it sucks to be governed by monopolized violence. But it sucks even more to be governed by monopolized violence you have no control over. At least in this case you can change things (and yes, your vote does count, even more so if you get active and get other people to vote too).

It's the best of a crappy situation. If you want anything to blame, blame the fact that there's just way too many humans to be left to govern ourselves properly without some sort of mediating power.

If you think that the Democratic or Republican parties are "monopolized violence you have no control over" then voting has no effect whatsoever in the US. It hasn't since the very first presidential election which was the only one that didn't have political parties influencing the outcome, and it likely never will again. The fix is in. The US is a pitiful excuse for a real democracy. And it was done intentionally.

Again, what we have is barely better than the one-party systems the vast majority think are so reprehensible. The US should have a half dozen viable political parties instead of two. People who are actually socialists or communists should not have been made into pariahs for having the courage to merely vocalize what they believe in a xenophobic country that literally hates anybody who thinks differently than they do.

It basically boils down to the accusation that if you don't vote, you don't care about the political process. While that may be the case for many non-voters, it is definitely possible to become a non-voter as an informed choice out of participation in the political process. Even if the procedures of most elections don't translate it into how we are governed, not voting is a legitimate way to express a political opinion.

It is far worse than that. They think we are delegitimizing what they hold so wonderful and sacred by practicing our right to not vote for one of their two clowns for president who are so similar in most every important way. And they are right. That is exactly what we are doing. We are calling attention to the fact that the US political system is an international joke, and they are an active part who largely see nothing wrong with it.

Granted, a sizable portion of those who don't vote are just apathetic. But a sizable portion are anything but apathetic. We just refuse to take part in this pathetic scam.

What is ironic is that I used to hear the very same rhetoric back in high school when student elections were quite obviously nothing but a silly popularity contest. Some people just can't help but spread the same propaganda they were fed when they were children for the rest of their lives. Australia even enacted it into law in what has to be one of the most hypocritical gestures ever conceived in a supposed democracy.

 

[BvBPL]

The democratic process relies on the citizenry engaging with the public to craft a representative government. Without involvement from new voices we are left to an endless parade of Clintons, Bushs, Kennedys, and Pauls; political dynasties that bely the historic meritocracy of American society.

The absolute easiest means to engage with the government is through voting. It is not the only way. Letter writing, meeting with representatives, speaking at town hall meetings, demonstrating, and running for office oneself are also ways to influence the government. People don't have to vote to engage, but people who do not engage at all have vacated their right to demur.

There are valid ideological reasons not to vote, but most people who do not vote do not share those convictions. The people who do have strongly felt convictions about not voting are more likely to engage in other means. However, most people who do not vote are simply slothful. It is a shame.

I see the notion of a red herring is still apparently a mystery to you.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Do you have one for intentionally posting an article that clearly has nothing at all to do with what I stated, or even the topic under discussion?

<crickets>

And you are actually accusing someone else of ad hominem attacks in this forum?

Without involvement from new voices we are left to an endless parade of Clintons, Bushs, Kennedys, and Pauls; political dynasties that bely the historic meritocracy of American society.

There is no "historic meritocracy of American society".



And you actually believe voting changes this in any way?

What is ironic is that you are one of the very last people in this forum who even want to effect any political change. That is other than to make things even more authoritarian and conservative than they already are while doing everything possible to maintain this nonsensical status quo. Just look at who you picked as the worst potential presidents due to their "dynasties".

Picking the lesser of two evils is not voting. It is just a sad attempt to try to make things slightly less bad than they already are, while even legitimizing the process which created this mess in the first place.