I wasn’t all that surprised by the overwhelmingly negative reaction to my article on voting. But I was surprised at its ferocity. I must have been insufficiently clear that I am not categorically against voting. Just that I gave the matter careful thought and decided against it this year.
Different people weighing the same arguments I did can easily come to a different conclusion. And that’s exactly why I put them out there. Not so people will do as I do, but to help them think for themselves and make the choice that’s right for them.
Then again, people do have an ingrained straw-man reflex. It often pops up when one’s sensibilities are offended. This easily happens with issues concerning democracy. Instead of taking seriously an idea you don’t like, just build a man out of straw that looks kind of like that idea, then knock it down and feel good about it.
That’s all well and good, but it’s hardly conducive to a civil exchange. It’s also a way to avoid having to take on the arguments that were actually made. I’ll just have to keep making them, then.
The math argument speaks for itself. Rep. Moran won re-election by 45,169 votes. I have one vote.
The expressive voting model provides a powerful reason for voting — for many people, much more powerful than the math. If I do vote in a future election, it will be for expressive purposes. After all, I’m not a categorical non-voter.
But I am mindful of alternative uses of my time. Voting is far from the only form of political participation. If I feel like I could be doing more good with the time I spend voting by doing something else, well then I’m going to do something else. If not, then I’ll vote. Different people will come up with different answers to that question. But one can’t assume it away, no matter how much one would like to.
There is only one argument people have lobbed at me that bothers me. It is that people who don’t vote lose the right to criticize government policies. That argument holds less water than a thimble. It also violates any reasonable notion of free speech, which is actually more important for democracy’s health than voting. As John Carney writes:
I’ve never understood this weird part of pseudo-democratic theory. It certainly isn’t part of the Constitution of the United States, which preserves the rights of free speech, free press and petitioning the government even for non-voters. If anything, the opposite should be true: by voting you are tacitly agreeing to abide by the outcome of the vote. By not voting, you are doing no such thing.
Inertia Wins! 
“Different people weighing the same arguments I did can easily come to a different conclusion. And that’s exactly why I put them out there. Not so people will do as I do, but to help them think for themselves and make the choice that’s right for them.”
i just got the impression that you were trying to convince others that it was pointless to vote this year.
“The math argument speaks for itself. Rep. Moran won re-election by 45,169 votes. I have one vote.”
you do realize that in EVERY election, you ALWAYS have one vote? Whether it’s moran’s election, or any other election? why specify this one election as if in other elections you have more than one vote?
and you do also realize that those 45,169 people also have one vote each? and they could have sat it out like you because they think their vote didn’t count much? but because they chose to vote with their one single vote, they got moran re-elected.
“But I am mindful of alternative uses of my time. Voting is far from the only form of political participation. If I feel like I could be doing more good with the time I spend voting by doing something else, well then I’m going to do something else.”
yes, there are lots of other things you can do, such as go door to door, make phone calls, pass out flyers, put out signs, etc. writing a blog too. XD
also there is voting.
if you can’t decide whether to vote or do all those above things, here is an idea: you can vote AND do those other things! you can arrange voting into your busy schedule. it is possible…
“There is only one argument people have lobbed at me that bothers me. It is that people who don’t vote lose the right to criticize government policies. That argument holds less water than a thimble.”
wow really?
“It also violates any reasonable notion of free speech, which is actually more important for democracy’s health than voting.”
okay, no one is saying that people who don’t vote should be thrown in jail as soon as they speak their opinion, because they just lost their 1st amendment rights. but we are saying that if you don’t like a particular candidate, and you don’t vote, and then that person wins, why complain about that candidate when you could have voted for the better candidate? after all, the bad candidate only won because not enough people voted for the better candidate.
“As John Carney writes:
‘If anything, the opposite should be true: by voting you are tacitly agreeing to abide by the outcome of the vote.'”
not sure what he means by “abiding by the outcome,” does that mean people who voted for the better candidate have to accept the bad candidate as the winner if they win? well yeah, i mean like it or not, they’re the winner, no point in denying it. (unless there are voter fraud allegations???!)
or is he saying that people who voted for the better candidate are showing their SUPPORT for the bad candidate if they win? no, those people still aren’t supporting the bad candidate’s bad policies.
conclusion:
here’s what you SHOULD have done: instead of writing blog entries about how it’s not really worth it to vote this year, you should have written blogs encouraging people to vote. you only have one vote but if you encourage others to vote then that number increases. if a lot of people were encouraging others to vote for a better candidate then that’s a big boost for that candidate.