A neighbor of mine recently mentioned to me that after witnessing the past presidential election, he will never again "throw away" his vote on a third-party candidate. At the time I heard my neighbor say this, I immediately concurred and thought it a wise choice on his part. But later on I had the chance to speak with Nick Gillespie, editor of Reason.com and Reason.tv, which are Libertarian websites. I mentioned my neighbor's comment to Mr. Gillespie and asked him his opinion about it. He said something very interesting that I've never fully considered before. He mentioned that voting is a symbolic act that expresses one's beliefs. One vote will not decide who becomes elected, nor does Mr. Gillespie see a lot of differences between many Democrats and Republicans. Rather, he feels his vote for a third-party candidate matters to him personally and also that it demonstrates that there are more than two options for political orientation.
Taking Mr. Gillespie's answer into consideration, I came to the conclusion that if I were to consider voting for a third-party candidate, I would be making a choice between two things: 1) to vote for the Democrat or Republican whom I want to win, or 2) to decide that I am willing to give up my one vote for someone who has a chance at winning and vote for a third-party candidate, because it is more important to show that there are other options besides blue and red in the political spectrum.
I have also talked to individuals this election season, who openly admit that they will not be voting. It was interesting to hear their reasoning: from “I don’t really care about the election” to “my chosen candidate lost in the primaries” to “I don’t see any difference with anyone who gets elected.” I encourage everyone to vote, but at the same time I can’t force anyone to vote. Should we vote even if we lack conviction for a particular choice?
On the other hand I have also heard some this election season call voting a “duty” or “responsibility” or “obligation.” This is quite different from “the right to vote,” which I’ve heard most of my life. Should we consider voting more than a right? Is it a duty?
Another interesting idea about voting that caught my attention in 2006 was the Don’t Vote Campaign initiated by the AARP. Using a bit of reverse psychology, the campaign’s message is all about being informed when one goes to vote. In other words, Don’t Vote (until you know the issues and candidates’ platforms). It is a more thoughtful message than simply, “Go vote!”
All of this philosophy on voting has caused me to think about why I am voting and what it truly means to me. I have to admit that I’ll be proud to sport the “I Voted Today” sticker on November 4th, but at the same time if I don’t go and vote, it probably won’t change the outcome of the election.
What do you, dear reader, think about voting?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
While they appear to have opposite stances on many issues, democrats and republicans represent a very narrow central perspective within the spectrum of politics. For this reason, I fully support third party candidates within our elections. The point of democracy is that everyone should be able to hold his/her own view and every idea should be represented. This means the necessity of third party opinions in decision making. Germany and France both use a multi-party system (although not perfect, because there are still two dominant parties).
ReplyDeleteAmerica is in a tricky place, because most of the predominant third parties fall under liberal categories, meaning they’ll take away only democrat votes. This is where ‘throwing away’ your vote comes into play, but I don’t really see it that way. How often do you hear if everyone who thought their vote didn’t count voted, they would make up a huge voting block? Maybe the same is true for people who think they’re wasting a vote by voting for a third party candidate. Maybe there are tons of greens and libertarians out there, but they feel like they have to vote for either a democrat or republican because everyone else is doing it. A lot of current ideas aren’t working, and I would personally love to see more diversity in American politics. I think if people started actually representing themselves instead of settling, there would be a lot more diversity.
While no one can force anyone to vote, I kind of do see it as a duty. Ideally, the US was set up so everyone would get the same amount of say in politics (while that is obviously not really true) but because there are so many people who don’t want that say, others have to take the responsibility for them, thus, the electoral college. I do not think that people should go into the voting booth with no information about the candidates, but I think another part of being a voter is the duty to know about politics in order to properly represent oneself and act in one’s own self interest. Basically, as my high school history teacher said, “If you don’t vote, don’t bitch.”
It's interesting that in ann's comment, she mentions the fact that many European countries have multi-party systems, representing a spectrum of political beliefs. I'm wondering if this has something to do with the fact that European nations are stereotypically more liberal than conservative. Perhaps this cultural lean to one particular side translates into an ability to have a political system where the choice needn't simply be, "either, or."
ReplyDeleteFor example, the U.S. two party system in many ways thrives on national polarization. Each dominant party tries its hardest to snag potential third-party voters which could better identify with their candidate over the other. The most obvious example is evident in the Democratic Party's fury over Ralph Nader running for president in both '00 and '04.
This means that while we may be more ideologically-diverse than a country such as Germany, our actual political choices are significantly more limited. Apparently, our cultural priority of "freedom" does not carry over into election politics.
What's the solution, then? On the one hand, voting for one of the two major parties limits your freedom to choose a candidate which best represents your specific individual ideology. However, if you do vote third party, you run the risk of electing a major candidate who is fundamentally opposed to your beliefs.
Therefore, in my opinion you must weigh each election contextually to assess what's at stake for the country. If you would be majorly depressed if the Republican or Democrat you like least were elected, then I'd say vote major party every time. If both candidates appear decently capable, then vote with your heart. Perhaps if enough people do vote third party, eventually we can see the much needed reshaping of our bimodal political spectrum.
Voting certainly is not a right, especially not a 'natural right' as defined by Lockean theory. Life, liberty and property are the God-granted rights and the vote is an avenue through which to preserve these rights.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that voting is a duty or a civic obligation in of itself either. It is the duty and obligation of citizens to education themselves on the candidates and issues being discussed in the political arena. If only as a tribute to those who have fought for our freedoms and liberties, American citizens should feel obliged to educate themselves and then they should voice their opinions by voting.
I disagree with Mr. Gillespi's claim that voting is primarily a symbolic action. Risking the chance that I may be grouped in with conspiracy theorists (or worse, be seen as naive to the true process), I think that the public does not know all that happens behind closed doors or under the table to elect people or pass laws, but I do think that the action of the vote does carry significance. Some say that the popular vote is useless since the electoral vote decides the election. I say that the electoral vote could not be counted without the popular vote. The popular vote could not be counted without the vote of individual citizens. Thus, each vote counts in its own right and symbolizes the opinion of the citizens.
I also concur with Dan's comments above. People must use their discretion for each election year to determine which party and which candidate they want to support. There are multiple ways to use one's vote to manipulate the election (as discussed above), but I would venture to say that mainstream America votes for themselves and not to screw their opponent (this is my opinion and I could be totally off kilter). I know that I vote to support my candidate/party of choice and for myself.
I really don't know what I would do or what I think should be done in the instance of voting for a third-party candidate. I don't think it's throwing away a vote because it is still an expression of opinion (hopefully an educated one) but it almost hurts the cause more by taking votes away from the mainstream candidate with a similar platform. I guess I've yet to happen upon a third-party candidate in which I believe. I'll let you know how I act when I do... until then, I'm voting mainstream to support my candidate of choice, a candidate I've decided on after much research and deliberation (aka education).