Bob Rusbasan
November 1, 1998
The elections are just two days away, so I thought I'd pitch in with everyone else and do my best to encourage each and every one of you out there to make sure you take the time to vote.
Yes, I thought I'd do that, momentarily, but I'm better now.
Not one major election cycle goes by without us being inundated with the VOTE-VOTE-VOTE message day after day. It's our duty as citizens to vote, we are told. It is a crisis that in non-presidential-election years the number of people voting is way down, the news anchors scream at us. Please, we are implored, drop whatever you are doing on Tuesday and head for the polls!
If you were not planning to vote, but that endless message has you feeling a wee bit motivated, I am here with a different message for you: Don't bother.
That's right. You read correctly. Don't bother.
Is it our duty as citizens to vote? Don't make me laugh! What a quaint, antiquated notion in these liberated times! For one thing, everybody knows that your vote is meaningless. So many other people vote, you see, that your particular vote is very unlikely to actually make a difference. This wasn't understood until recently because, well, to be frank about it, people back then weren't nearly as smart as we are now. Also, we have recently come to understand that every piece of trivia about our favorite celebrities affects us much more on a day-to-day basis than the decisions made by our politicians. Finally, and most importantly, doesn't the very term "civic duty" sound somewhat fascist? Who do these people think they are? How dare they imply we have a "duty" do do anything? It's like they are trying to run our lives!
What? Are you still reading this page? Why? It's about politics! What a waste! Anyway, I hear something new is going on with Brad Pitt or the Spice Girls, so you had been get out of here now and move on to the important stuff! Hurry! Go! Quick!
What, still here? You mean you actually believe that it really is important in a democracy for its citizens to vote?
Well, you are wrong. America has a lot of problems, but not enough people voting is not one of them. Quite the contrary, one of the major problems is that too many people vote.
Oh, I get it, you're probably thinking to yourselves, he's going to unleash some more of that sarcasm.
No, I am not. I am quite serious: One of the major problems with America today is that too many people vote. Allow me to explain myself.
It is not necessarily your duty to vote. This is, after all, a free country, and you can choose to vote or not to vote. I do maintain that you, as a citizen of a democracy, have two duties, and they are these: First, if you vote, you have a duty to inform yourself about what you are voting. Second, if you do not inform yourself, then you have a duty not to vote.
It is not in the best interest of America for every one of its citizens to simply vote. Democracy is not made stronger by the sheer percentage of people that pull the lever in the voting booth. Rather, democracy is strengthened when its citizens first inform themselves and then, and only then, vote.
If you have followed the issues and taken the time to understand both sides, then, by all means, please do vote. We need more people like you.
If you have not followed the current issues, but you understand well the principles of the political parties and wish to support the candidates of one of them, then that is also valid. Just be sure to check in now and then to keep track of what the various parties are advocating.
If you have no idea what is going on (except for maybe one or two issues), but you feel obligated to vote, then stay home. People like you do a disservice to our country.
To be blunt about it, if at this point you are merely thinking of voting on Tuesday, then you are almost certainly in the third category. Please, don't bother. Stay home. I'm not going to fault you for not paying more attention to American politics. You have your priorities, and I have mine. If you, despite not paying attention, go ahead and vote anyway, then I will fault you. People that do not know what is going on but feel obligated to vote have caused countless problems.
For example, many years ago someone was voted the Democratic nominee for vice-governor of the state of Illinois. He turned out to be a wacko associated with a bizarre, somewhat fascist fringe group. After he won, his supporters were shown singing victory songs in German, apparently not caring about the Nazi connotations. How did he win the election? Because people who had not paid attention to this race felt obligated to vote, and this guy had a good "American"-sounding name while his opponents all had "ethnic"-sounding names. The Democratic candidate for governor was saddled with this fool, and he was soundly defeated in the general election. If you do not know anything about anyone in a particular race, then please leave the decision to those of us that do.
How about campaign finance reform? Don't you think it is atrocious that people are allowed to "buy" an election by spending an ungodly amount on advertising? I don't. What I find atrocious is that advertising is so effective. If the people that voted in a particular election took the time to ensure that they understood what they were voting for, advertising would have no effect at all. So why does advertising work? Because people that do not really know what is going on but feel obligated to vote will often have nothing else to guide their decision. If you want to really reform campaigning, then please do not cast any vote based solely on the advertisements you have heard or seen.
Generally, if you do not have a party affiliation and have not actively sought out information on this particular election, then you have not formed an opinion worth registering in this election. Just yesterday, I spoke with someone on this very point. Apropos of nothing, he mentioned that he thought Rush Limbaugh talked too much. Trying to be humorous, I pointed out that Mr. Limbaugh had a talk show, so talk is what he was expected to do by his employers. This person then said that he didn't have a problem with Rush talking, but he did have a problem with Rush, and anyone else, talking about politics. I responded that I guessed that with that attitude he did not vote in elections. This person responded that they normally did not, but they wanted to vote in this election. Why?, I inquired. It turned out that he was outraged that people felt he should care about what Bill Clinton did in his private life, so he wanted to register his lack of caring by sending a strong message to the Republicans. The problem, of course, was that he didn't care enough to find out for sure whether he was still registered to vote or not. Despite the fact that I am a Republican, I automatically started trying to help this person determine whether he could vote or not. Then it suddenly hit me: What was I doing? If this was someone that had studied all the issues and resolved to vote Democratic, then I would do whatever I could to help them. This was, however, someone that probably felt, based on a few short media soundbites, that Ken Starr had spontaneously taken it upon himself to examine Bill Clinton's sex life. I decided to let them fend for themselves.
I am not "thinking" of voting in this election. Nothing could discourage me from voting this Tuesday. I am informed on the issues, and I know how I should vote. In fact, I feel obligated to vote. I certainly do not need any media personality to motivate me. Do you feel the same way? If so, then nothing I could say is going to keep you out of that election booth. If not, then please do you civic duty: Stay home.
Copyright © 1998 Bob Rusbasan. All rights reserved.