| Should People Bother to Vote? |
Bob Rusbasan
March 2, 1999
While reading a political column on the Web today, I encountered the usual wailing about low voter turnout:
[Robert] Strauss warned his fellow Democrats of the ``brutal truth'' of an ``unprecedented disengagement from politics by the American people,'' while [Ralph] Nader said that ``citizens are staying away from the polls in droves because of their disgust, distrust, despair and disillusionment with tweedle-dum tweedle-dee politics.'' And [Rep. Peter] Hoekstra [(R-Mich.)] sounded even more radical: ``Voter satisfaction and participation are at or near all-time lows. Why should a person vote? And what for? Candidates who prefer smear over substance, money over principle and length of service over tangible action?''
Typically, the author blamed low voter turnout on the poor choices voters are given. The author agreed with Nader and Hoekstra that a "none of the above" choice should be offered in elections, presumably to draw citizens back to the voting booth.
Hoekstra sponsored legislation to offer "none of the above" (NOTA) as a choice in federal elections. If NOTA "won", then a new election would be held. The proposal did not pass, and Hoekstra claims it is because of uncertainty: "As we saw in [Minnesota Governor Jesse] Ventura's case, they could go away from the two parties." He plans to offer the legislation again, since, "This is a movement waiting to happen. But the American people will have to demand it."
At this point, your body should be wracked with convulsive laughter. Let me get this straight: Hoekstra wants to solve the problem of the American people not caring about politics. He has a solution. His solution requires that the American people care enough about his legislation to ensure its passage. Ha ha ha -- good luck!
Anyway, this cure is doomed to failure, because the diagnosis is incorrect. The problem is not with bad politicians, negative campaigning, or campaigning financing. There are exactly two reasons why people do not vote:
The people in group #1 are the heroes here. If you don't know what you are voting for, then do everyone a favor and stay home. As Thomas Sowell said on this issue, there is enough blind prejudice in the world without people adding to it in this way. If you do vote, stay out of elections where you do know not what you are voting for.
Now, there are legitimate reasons to be in group #1. Perhaps you simply do not have the time to spend preparing for an upcoming election. Maybe you have no problem with leaving the elections to those who are able and willing to prepare for them. Regardless, you know that you have nothing to add to the election process, so rather than picking neat-sounding names or whatever, you stay home. Bravo, I say.
Everyone else who does not vote, group #2 above, is just plain stupid. This is the group Hoekstra and company are playing to when they say these citizens have good reasons to throw up their hands and give up. I have never been a fan of trying to make people feel better about something they truly should feel bad about, so let's examine the alleged reasons for not voting today:
Politics is so dirty, and politicians so corrupt, that there is no point in voting.
Did I mention that these people are stupid? If politicians are out of control, the very last thing citizens should want to do is to disengage themselves from the process.
A friend of mine informed me that she was going to exactly that, though. She said she had no intention of voting as long as things were as bad as they are. Apparently the idea is that if she, and others, threw a big fit and stopped voting, politicians would start playing nice, and then they would vote again, and everyone would live happily ever after.
If you are absolutely sickened by the corruption in politics, then there is only one way to deal with it: Do some research before voting day, and in each and every election vote for the least corrupt candidate you can find. If every person claiming to be skipping elections out of disgust did this, politics would be almost completely cleaned up in two or three election cycles.
Or those people can sit at home with your eyes closed, indulging in the idiotic fantasy that when they open their eyes, everything will have been magically fixed. Or, and I suspect this is closer to the truth, they can just admit that they can't be bothered.
Another common excuse is that nobody good is running, so why bother?
Translation: No perfect candidate is running. And even if a great candidate is running, he is not emitting a heavenly glow so I can identify him as the anointed one without spending one second of my precious time doing research. So to hell with it!
Everyone that votes is often unhappy with the field. Does that mean you should throw your hands up in disgust and walk away? Of course not. Simply evaluate the available candidates, pick the best ones, and vote for them. If there is some quality that consistently wins elections, the political parties will take notice and begin offering candidates with that quality.
Also, drag yourself to the primaries, so you can have some input into who will be running in the general election. If you can't do that, then don't ask for sympathy when you do not like the parties' candidates.
Democrats, Republicans...it's all the same. What's the point?
First, that is not generally true. The average Democrat and the average Republican hold very different views on many substantial issues.
The above advice to simply vote for the best candidate should suffice here. If, however, you feel the two-party system is a complete travesty, there is certainly something you can do about it. In most elections, there is at least one third-party candidate. There are often many. There is a rich vein of political philosophy represented in the Libertarian Party, the Green Party, the Natural Law Party, the Reform Party, and others. If you are completely out of the mainstream, there is still almost certainly a political party for you. Spend some time learning about those parties and their candidates, and vote accordingly.
I can hear the objection now: But those parties never win! First, that is not true. Second, if you believe that, then the solution is to vote for those parties so they do win, not to make the "they never win" statement into a self-fulfilling prophecy. Third, even when the small parties do not win, when their ideas attract enough attention and votes, the two major parties will often incorporate those ideas. For example, the Republican Party is much more libertarian than it used to because of the current popularity of ideas long advocated by the Libertarian Party.
Many do not vote because they feel that money is all that matters in politics today.
There is certainly some truth to that. Politicians that spend more money on their campaigns tend to do better in the elections. That may be in part true because politicians spend every dollar they raise, and those with better ideas can raise more money. Still, all things being equal, money does influence elections.
So what to do? Obviously, do a little research, and vote for the best candidate. If you do that, then you will be able to say that money did not affect your vote. If enough people do that, then money will become much less important in elections today.
If, on the other hand, you stay home and complain about the influence of money, then you will guarantee that you will not be part of the solution.
If you honestly feel that money is destroying politics, then go to the polls and, in each election, vote for the candidate that spent the least amount of cash.
Another complaint is that principle is tossed aside whenever it will interfere with reelection.
Again, vote for the best candidate, and this will not matter. If you are completely obsessed with this issue, then you can vote against all the incumbents to send the message that you are against all politicians that dare to try to get reelected.
Many people are turned off by all the negative campaigning.
If you feel that strongly about it, then vote for politicians that didn't campaign negatively. If all of them did, then vote for the one that did the least amount of it.
Before you do that, though, consider this: There is a place for negative campaigning. If two people are running for an office, each of them should certainly explain why they are right for that post. Contrary to current sentiment, it is also equally valid for them to explain why their opponent is wrong for the office.
One irony is that people who complain about the seediness of politics are often the same people that complain about all negative campaigning. If you are against corruption, shouldn't you want candidates to point out when their opponents are corrupt so you can vote them out of or keep them out of office?
There is a time when negative campaigning goes to far. When one candidate begins smearing the other over nothing tangible in an effort to sway the vote, then voters should take notice. The irony here is that they have learned nothing positive about the candidate's opponent, but they have learned something negative about the candidate. In effect, the candidate has engaged in negative campaigning against himself.
You like what a politician is saying, then he is elected, and he does something different. So what's the point in voting?
Well, if that happens, make sure to show up for the next election and vote against that candidate. If lying politicians start routinely losing elections, they will wise up. If voters angry about the lies do nothing, then they will laugh their way to the next victory.
Probably the number one reason people claim they do not vote is that their one measly vote will not make a difference. The counter to that is to simply note that if all the people saying that voted in the next election, they could dictate the winners to the rest of us.
Even if you are unhappy with the choice being given to you, at least you have a choice. You can do your part to move things in the direction you desire. You can vote for better (if not good) candidates. You can fight the excessive influence of campaign spending. You can give third-party candidates a boost. You can punish corruption and lying. You can vote in the primaries to influence who will be running in the elections.
All of this, unfortunately, will take some of your time. You will have to pay attention to what your politicians are doing. You will have to research new candidates. You will have to learn what the political parties stand for. If you decide that you can not take the time to do this, then do us all a favor and stay home. Do not go in and blindly vote for those whose names you recognize (who are either incumbents or have spent the most money).
If you decide you want to have your say, then learn what you are voting for, and go in and vote. If things do not go your way, then you can complain all you want. You will at least know that you did your part to make things better. And you will have earned the right to complain (and perhaps influence future voters).
On the other hand, if you have the time and ability to educate yourself and vote, yet you choose not to, then, please, don't complain. If you are unhappy about corruption, money, bad candidates, or whatever, but you did nothing to help the situation, then you really have no right to moan about how things are.
Copyright © 1999 Bob Rusbasan. All rights reserved.