It's been far too long, and I'm going to make up for it by abusing this blog as the soapbox it, despite my best efforts, often manages not to be. For while you may not be aware that for me it's midterm season — which is how I'm currently justifying “it's been far too long” — you know all about election season. Many of you will even vote next week. I won't, and this time it's not because of midterms.
I'm open to changing my mind, if you can point out something I haven't thought of. So let me explain as briefly as I can, with the hope that you'll be likewise open to my line of thinking, and then I'd very much like to hear your comments right here at the end of this post. With thanks to Brooke, who was the first to ask, here goes:
None of the presidential candidates want government to do what I want it to do — in fact, rather the opposite — and if one of them were somehow in the ballpark, they wouldn't be able to make much progress toward the goals that I consider important. If I were forced to vote, I'd have to choose at random, which hardly constitutes good citizenship. Thank goodness it's still a free country (sort of) and nobody's being forced to vote (not yet, anyway). So if I want to change how the country works, which I do, I'm free to seek other means by which to change it. Turns out telling conscientious, educated people I've never registered to vote leads to pretty intense intellectual conversations, which add up to a tiny impact in the grand scheme of things, but still way bigger than a vote (especially a random one) could possibly be. Same goes for other political offices.
Really short version of what I want government to do: Why is it necessary that, in order for gay people to be allowed to get married, we have to pass or repeal laws? How could it possibly not have been legal all along? I'm not suggesting we should have been smart enough to get it right the first time. But the mistake was magnified because marriage is something government does. Imagine if it weren't.
That's not a complete argument by any stretch, but it's a good place to start discussing. Please, comment away! (If you're reading by email, first follow the link to the web version of this post.)
P.S. You might think I should vote for the Libertarian Party candidate. He's a kook. In fact, the Libertarian Party is full of kooks. Not that it matters: my argument has very little to do with attributes of particular parties or candidates.
Brief, related thoughts from the 2004 election:
Why I didn’t vote
More on not voting
My original response, to his 3rd and 4th paragraphs:
This sounds familiar. I’d rephrase as “I prefer to spend my energy on directly changing the world, and I don’t see voting as a good way to do that, and not voting actually helps me do that”. Is that about right? I can live with that. In counterpoint, though, I can say that I choose to vote because I want to outsource my world-changing, and I am willing to live with the crappy consequences of outsourcing, so I vote to try to get the least-crappy consequence.
Then, guessing about your ideas of what you want government to do, why not vote libertarian?
Then, guessing that your answer is “because a libertarian vote doesn’t do any good”, I agree, and that’s why I think we need to change the way our voting systems work.
One counter-point, though: ballots usually have bits where voters are asked to pass or reject proposed laws. Why not vote against (or for) those? That’s a way for you to directly impact the laws, rather than rely on someone else.
I’ve never voted for a Democrat or Republican candidate for president before (this being the 3rd Presidential election I’ve voted in).
I’ve always gone in and voted third party because I’m sick and tired of only having two options. (I choose the third party candidate I vote for based on which one will generate the highest percentage grab.)
I just want to lend credence to the viability of having more than two major parties.
Yep, it was always a protest vote. And if we could get more people to do it, we might be able to create the atmosphere to allow the emergence of another (or many other) viable political part(y|ies). How else would it be accomplished except by generating enough noise with ballots cast?
That being said, in this election, I did vote (for the first time (like I said)) for one of the “major” candidates.
Nathan, your rephrasing is certainly clear and concise to me and represents the sum total of my opinion just fine. You and I already understand each other, though. To many other conscientious, educated people, voting appears to be treated as a moral imperative whose value is not often questioned. For those readers, I figured we’d get better thought-exercise by first doing some light stretching around that trouble spot.
The idea of outsourcing your world-changing is amusingly illustrative and very nearly seductive to me, because Lord knows I’m not a specialist in world-changing either. If we follow that line of thought, then my position leaves the outsourcing to the people who do vote — in effect, outsourcing the outsourcing. But that’s not really my angle; if it were, I’d choose my subcontractors rather more carefully!
A Libertarian vote doesn’t do any good for me for many more reasons than just the voting system. As previously mentioned, a whole bunch of them aren’t much aligned with me. But supposing there were a party of only my kind of folks and a candidate to match and a chance to win? Still no good. What could our candidate hope to achieve while in office? Well, if she really had a chance to win, that means there are a whole bunch of Americans I’ve already persuaded to my way of thinking, in which case conditions are pretty different from the current ones and it’s time to reconsider my position.
Direct access to vote for or against proposed laws doesn’t help me much when my objection is to the government having power to enforce whatever the particular law might be. Even if I’m the deciding vote against a law I don’t like, it doesn’t solve what I perceive to be the underlying problem. And like with software development, sometimes it’s better to leave a rough edge unsanded so you don’t forget there’s something wrong there.
I think it’s a terrible logical progression to say what government ought to do by describing what it ought not to do. Anything else it ought not to do? You never say what it actually ought to do, and there is nothing that says why voting will keep that from happening or, at best, be such a wash as to be not worth the time it takes to cast your vote. What I think you are saying is that you want less government, but there are things that must be decided somehow so that we can agree on them and count on them to be true tomorrow. I wonder how you’d feel if the interest rate on your student loans went up a thousand percent because the bank is failing and needs more money. You signed a contract? Oh yeah, who’s going to enforce that? Really, the State of New York? Holy shit! Unless…are they federal loans? Holier shit! I bet you don’t like having student loans at all, but you are willing to take them to accomplish your goal of going to school. Why isn’t that construct enough to convince you that, though you don’t like government, you should participate in it because you already use it to accomplish your own goals?
And puhleeze, if you really have interest about changing the way the country works, let’s see it in some form that’s not just discounting the current system. In that light, your ‘interest’ is just as crumbly as your statement of what government ought to do.
My last raving point is that I think it’s unimpressive to cite gay marriage as a hands-off-government! issue, certainly when talking to conscientious, educated people. I bet most to all of the people who reads this would want unfettered gay marriage, government sanctioned or not. An example closer to the line of general acceptance for government control, such as food quality assurance, might be a better example of something you want to be deregulated.
Sorry to be so vehement.
Amitai:
Write in a candidate. Pick a Norweigan who has outrageously similar political views as you. Wear a button. It will throw people off their argument, and they’ll be less likely to think you’re inferior. Which doesn’t matter so much except your views may give them greater pause. And therefore make you a more effective nonpartisan.
I agree completely about gay marriage. I’ll send you an email shortly asking that you donate to the No on 8 campaign in California. Watch for it.
Jeremy, I don’t mind having two major parties. Of course, there’s no way in hell only two party lines on who should be allowed to do what in which aspects of their lives can possibly represent everyone — certainly neither represents me — but the only reason that’s a practical problem is that we elect to give certain people power to actually enact some of those beliefs into law. A government that didn’t hold that sort of power could keep the same two dumb major parties, if for no reason other than old time’s sake, and my life (and, I believe, American life in general) would be better.
Kurtiss, there is definitely frustration, but don’t worry, it lies elsewhere. With regard to weighing the candidates’ merits, I’m convinced it’s simply not possible to calculate with any certainty which of them would make my life less frustrating. (We can’t know for sure in any rigorous way after the fact either, because only one gets to be president under the conditions.) But even if I could know, I still think I can do better for myself (and for the country, and for the world) by talking to people about ideas rather than by anonymously punching a piece of paper. It so happens there’s an interesting interaction between the two, wherein I get to do a whole lot more of the former by advertising that I’m not doing the latter.
Hanko, don’t be sorry. This is an emotional issue (for me, too) and that’s a big reason why my outrageous stance works (when it works) as a conversation-starter. If I didn’t want emotionally fueled responses I’d have to take up a less inflammatory position.
You’re right that I didn’t write much about what I want government to do. That would be an interesting discussion, and we’re sort of heading in that direction, and it may be that the particulars of my vision of American governance inform (or should inform) my proselytizing tactics. But the original question I was trying to answer was a different one — why I, in good conscience, don’t vote — and the answer needed to be short and sweet enough for people to feel like reading and maybe even replying.
If we need to discuss what I want from government in order to determine whether my not-voting-in-order-to-engender-discussion is a valid approach for my chosen ends (I suspect we don’t), we can do that. However, your government-loan example is poorly chosen: I couldn’t possibly pay for school with government loans, which are a drop in the bucket compared to private loans, which also suck because hey giant wad of debt! But I can accept that suckage as part of life. I don’t accept your contention that my use of government services means I have to agree that government ought to provide those services, because it’s not a question of hypocrisy or expedience on my part: precisely because government-provided services tend to crowd out market offerings, the sort of tasks government ought to perform are the rare ones citizens shouldn’t be allowed to opt out of (yo). Like enforcing contracts, maybe. (I dunno, I haven’t thought about the specifics in a while, since the generals are so urgently in need of attention.)
Finally, agreed, my gay marriage example is not so bold as suggesting that something more controversial be deregulated. The example was an artifact of the origin of this post, which was originally directed to someone in a gay marriage. But again, I wasn’t initially trying to make a particular point to her, or here, about my view of government, merely to explain enough of it to support my case for not voting.
Adam, that is a terribly interesting idea. I have no qualms with voting per se (though it does feel a little strange to make a mockery of it like that) as long as I get to have the same sort of substantial conversations with people about what I really think, and it’s possible that my participation in the vote AND the public discourse (as opposed to participation in only the public discourse) would make interlocutors more amenable listeners. Or less. As with trying to choose a candidate for serious, we can’t test objectively whether your idea would work better than what I’m currently doing, which has served me fairly well over the years, so I’m hesitant to change streams just now. If you remind me, though, I’ll gladly give it a whirl in 2010. I’ll need a really wide button to show my sympathies in the debate between Snorri Sturlebrødhjarlefiskson and Jorma Kekkasakkamolainen.
Amitai, I’ve taken up this cause with you because I appreciate that you recognize this is an emotional issue. For the sake of argument, I’m willing to concede that the system is effed, and even that any given vote makes a miniscule difference to the overall outcome. This concession leaves voting as purely a symbolic act. Even thus, I propose to you that it is a worthwhile symbol, because the right to vote still represents the most progressive ideal of government ever: there is no such thing as authority unless it is backed by the people. Most people in the world don’t even get the chance to vote. Personally, I still believe voting matters, and therefore I vote politically. Even if I did not believe that, I would vote symbolically, especially for non-mainstream candidates in whom I actually believe, if only to preserve the right to vote itself.
People who write me emails full of crappy grammar and spelling mistakes come across as uneducated to me, regardless of the actual meaning behind their words. Folks who do not vote come across to me as ignorant and apathetic, regardless of how well thought out their arguments are. I apologize for my prejudice, but the signal is the same: not voting is a serious blow to your credibility. I’m not trying to threaten, simply saying that by not voting, you negate your own well thought out position amongst those of us who DO vote.
A few brief thoughts before I start composing a less-brief response:
Jeremy, the problem with your plan is that our current voting system reinforces the two-party system. Given the current system, your third party will never have any value, until it is one of the two majority parties, at which point there still won’t be a third party
See Duverger’s law and the disadvantages of plurality voting
Amitai, I also find that I generally agree with Libertarian principles, but don’t trust actual Libertarian people, because so many are kooks, as you pointed out.
Also, Adam’s idea is brilliant. You lose a lot of of your audience, before you even state your argument, because they think you’re a kook. And I think that’s a reasonable thing for them to decide. But if you voted for Snorri, that would show some positive effort and intice more people to listen to you.
Also, I think it is important for you to describe your beliefs. Isn’t that the point of this whole post? If your goal is just to point out that the system is broken, I don’t think you’ll find many dissenters, and you don’t need to be inflamatory (by not voting) in order to get that point across. I assume your goal is to get people to think about better ways, and to strive for that change – but you haven’t proposed any better way, and that seems lazy. Yes, this post could just be about “why I don’t vote” – but the answer is “so people listen to my ideas” – and this seems to be a crowd who is pretty primed to listen. I’d suggest you take advantage of it.
What a compelling, brave, truly American narrative. I salute you! Over the past few months I have been reminded of my similar philosophies because of the childish, often ignorant banter in this country, and in places such as Italy, and China. My aunt even tells me that Obama propaganda is being sold at a stand in the serengeti, Africa. Your position is your right as a human, and an American.
I am registered to vote because at Buckeye Boys State I managed to make a difference in the mock government we created (1994 at BGSU). That year we uncovered systemic corruption, arrested, and tried the actual governor of Ohio, who was granted that authority for 24 hours by George Voinovich. The student governor was given his position by the veterans who produce the event, thereby violating our rights both as citizens, and students learning about Ohio’s government. It was a unique and inspiring learning experience, and I represented the state, having recently passed the ‘bar exam’.
Reality is a little different, but the systemic issues are remarkably similar. Many actions could change this pattern significantly.
One question: what, aside from good conversation, are your actions in contributing positively to our federalist republic? It is both a privilege, and a responsibility to take action in upholding, protecting, and contributing to our mock democracy. These are some of the principles behind the voting system that we defend with our lives.
Our union is not a true democracy, but is increasingly resembling a socialist system for the rich/powerful. Do what you must; do the right thing; do schmonzy shtickel.
Amitai, while voting and understanding issue are important to me, I’m sorry to be vehement because I’m mad at you, not about this issue. YOU are my emotional issue. You can do better than the specious arguments you are making. Government options crowd out market choices? Really? Prove it. Furthermore, my example wasn’t gov’t loans, it was about interest rates and the need for reliability. I don’t care where the loans come from. But more than that, you DO use gov’t loans so maybe you should vote for candidates that will improve the parts of government you actually use.
I also find it hard to believe that you hadn’t thought of writing in a candidate, but word up Grauer for suggesting it. Another step further is for you to look at the ballot (as close as I could get: http://www.smartvoter.org/uvote4/uvote4.cgi?addr=2960+broadway&zip=10027&date=) and vote just in the races that you think you can. You can leave as many as you want blank, so vote for some county commissioners, judges, or school board members you can. Or write in for these too, whatever.
Of course, all this is moot since you aren’t registered to vote, at least not in New York county (I checked).
Good luck on midterms. Seriously, I mean that.
No candidate has come close to supporting what I’d like to see happen in government since the first Presidential election to receive my vote in 2000. In 2004, I voted Libertarian. Having years afterward been wracked with such guilt (in Ohio, where it mattered the most), I came to favor a present, concrete good over my future, abstract ideals.
A catch-phrase I’ve grown fond of: “just because I’m on your side, doesn’t mean you’re on mine.”
While ranking one candidate over another can be frustrating when both are so far from being representative, I hope that frustration doesn’t play in to your calculations of the importance of the task. To your point that the conversations you’re having are a greater concrete good than your vote, I would suggest and hope that such conversations are not predicated on this one viewpoint.
Until I’m out of the academic woods and can reply meaningfully, here are a few opinions with similarities to mine (I haven’t read these terribly carefully, but at a skim they look sort of like my ideas).
Rock the Non-Vote (and Part 2)
A Vote For Not Voting
Not Voting and Proud
Not voting because you don’t agree with either candidate completely (or, I suppose, even a little), still seems an unfortunate waste.
If your political views don’t overlap much with either US party’s platform & talking points, you can still support the one that overlaps the most with your views. The more support some views have, the more mainstream they become, and the possibility for more fringe candidates more likely to agree with you on more issues becomes more feasible than it had been before.
Libertarians are typically fairly fringe in the US, but the more support small government Republicans get, the safer (politically) it is for other politicians to start leaning more and more libertarian. The same is of course true of socialism on the political left.
Even if you don’t like either candidate, it’d be a shame not to at least vote in the direction of your political preferences.
Amitai,
I completely understand your stance. To all the haters out there, hate away, but non-voting (intentionally) is a hugely important political stance. Obama has based his entire campaign on getting non-voters, people who are disenfranchised, to actually register and vote. You had yours, so let me have my soapbox (and include asides about Libertarianism):
I work in a 99% black school; literally, there’s like 4 white kids and two of them are related. Most of my kids get free lunch (too much government, says Amitai) and most of my kids are very poorly educated (because of public schools which wouldn’t be failing in private hands, Schmonz?!?). They love Obama, but have no idea who Biden is or the platform on which the ticket stands. They hate McCain, but only have a passing knowledge of Palin. They have no idea that 3rd parties even exist, but I tell them every so often when I explain my choice of Nader in 2000 and 2004 (socialist, yes, but a non-interventionist).
The problem is this: their parents typically don’t vote. Because they don’t vote, they don’t serve on juries, they don’t familiarize themselves with issues and they learn political apathy. Laws are made underneath their feet which punish them more severely for crimes based only on the color of their skin. The judicial system, meant to be objective (in any form of government), is sentencing by skin tone in Cuyahoga county as the Plain Dealer recently exposed. Basically, because of prejudiced lawmaking for decades, there is a huge population of blacks who do not vote because, for them, it is not representative.
To NOT vote, as a demographic, is a tremendously powerful statement. It says that I would rather lose my voice than participate in what I see as a backwards system (yo, Yareev). It allows one to be disconnected from the “majority” culture and proclaim that, until government starts working for me, I won’t work for it. When intentional, non-voting is an incredible driving force.
Just think: slightly more than half of the registered voters usually vote in any particular election. There are millions more, like you, who have not even registered to vote … ever. It’s an amazing well of support to dip into, and Obama has done just that. He is doing what some have said is impossible, which is mobilize the black vote. He and others saw that there were dissatisfied people who needed a reason to go out and vote. Win or not, do you know what’s going to happen?
If Obama wins, there will be more and more white supremacists who hatch plans to kill him, start protests and riots, incite hatred against blacks, and generally wreak havoc. They will be in the minority, and most people will come to see that as a marginal attitude at best. Black oppression will be more widely understood, but there will still not be equality. If McCain pulls off the upset, there will be riots. There will be anger and hatred for those who pulled real or imagined strings. This election will not be peaceful.
But afterwards, when the smoke clears and people realize how truly political and pandering our next president inevitably will be (yes, I actually agree with you), there will be a new, huge group of black voters who have a stake in what has happened, have a new voice in government, and a new generation to pass on to that desire to be heard. They will demand, and get, better representation of their needs and desires. By NOT voting and sitting on the sidelines in protest, a candidate has come to find them. In this case, not as much by way of policy but by way of a common experience, but a candidate has found a group that did not vote before.
My point, which has taken a while, is that I have voted for Obama. I agree much more with McKinney and Nader. The change that Obama sells is not very big. I shudder at his militant pro-Israel policy (Jews unite, ays), support of $700B without “preconditions”, lack of support for gay marriage and much more. But I marvel at the fact that my students will suddenly care about the world outside of their community and will have a real chance of feeling able to lift themselves up.
When a candidate who tickles your intellect comes along, I hope that they also activate the millions more who are in your position.
I think you still haven’t answered the question: What thing(s) would need to change in order for you to start voting? Or is there no circumstance in which voting is compatible with your views? Either way, how should things be?
The third article (A Vote For Not Voting) did get around to stating a goal, although it did so obliquely. (The gist of the situation is that limited, constitutional government is nonexistent and no politician can be trusted.) I can agree with that – but you haven’t said if that’s really your goal. And if it is, why not vote for Ron Paul?
I’m curious how many adamant voters responding here vote regularly in non-presidential elections.
One more thought on all of this. I hold a firm belief about how to solve organizational problems that I don’t directly control: show the pain. I learned that rule the hard way – by fighting and fighting for change, and never having it happen, until I gave up and some outside force made it happen. After that happened a few times, I noticed that the outside force was almost always some real consequence, felt directly by the person who had the power to actually effect the change. Once they felt the pain, change happened. Until they felt the pain, everything stayed the same. No matter what else I did.
That gave me a whole new perspective on my previous experiences. I realized that I had been struggling mightily to mitigate the problem, thus masking the pain from the key person (usually my boss), because I felt that I was doing my part to make things better, and then I’d explain all about the problem to them. But to them, the problem didn’t really exist – because I was mitigating it! My actions were actually helping to perpetuate the problem!
So, now, whenever I see a serious problem that isn’t directly in my control to fix, I have two rules:
1) Figure out who can fix it
2) Make them feel the pain of the problem
That invariably leads to the problem being fixed. (Note that there are subtleties here that are important, but that I’m not addressing now because they are tangential to the point.)
Speaking from your point of view, then, I would guess that the answer to (1) is “the voting population” (or maybe “the people”) and the way to do (2) is “make things worse, as fast as possible”.
In other words, if you really think the whole system is broken, you should vote for whichever candidate will do the most damage. Otherwise, you’re just helping to perpetuate the problem. I truly believe that.
Now, speaking from my point of view, I have to decide if I think the whole system is broken. I’m certainly close to that point, but I’m not there yet.
As an example of this, look at the 2004 election. It was obvious that Bush was an idiot, but most people weren’t feeling the pain of that yet, so he was re-electable. Now that, in 2008, most people feel the pain of his idiocy, he is unelectable. But, if you believe that the whole system is broken, then you should have voted for Bush in 2004, because that was the surest way to make the most people feel the pain of a broken system.
To Russ – I vote in every presidential election, and in any election that has an issue that I particularly care about. That means I vote in about half of the elections I could vote in.
I don’t usually worry about congressional elections, simply because there isn’t usually a person who represents my ideas, and/or who I trust.
But presidential elections matter more (to me) – the president is the chief executive, and that person’s judgment and ideas have huge influence over the way the whole country operates. So even if there isn’t one candidate who matches my beliefs, that doesn’t matter so much, because I’m voting more about their intelligence and judgment. I believe it to be the most important election that I have a voice in.
I also usually vote in gubernatorial elections, for similar reasons.