I didn’t vote in 2010, and since then, I’ve been weighing it all; voting vs. not voting, voting vs. activism, voting for Obama vs. voting for a third party candidate, etc. And on this issue of voting, and the choice of withholding your vote as a way of robbing the system of any legitimacy, Phil Rockstroh deserves a hearing:
People who turn a blind eye to those things that evoke a sense of discomfort within them — who habitually ensconce themselves in numbed-out comfort zones or behind bristling fortifications of reflexive denial — become monsters. Withal, they transform themselves into agents of the very things that they live in fear of e.g., progressive types who, by the act of lesser-of-two-evil voting, co-sign those actions that they claim to find abhorrent when undertaken by Republicans.
By voting in a sham republic, they are not engaging in freedom of thought, expression nor conviction. In reality, they evince the opposite, by submitting to the compulsion (no matter how bolstered by tenuous rationalizations) to act out of fear. “Life moves on, whether we act as cowards or heroes. Life has no other discipline to impose, if we would but realize it, than to accept life unquestioningly. Everything we shut our eyes to, everything we run away from, everything we deny, denigrate or despise, serves to defeat us in the end. What seems nasty, painful, evil, can become a source of beauty, joy, and strength, if faced with an open mind. Every moment is a golden one for him who has the vision to recognize it as such.” ~Henry Miller
Once when I was in my early years waiting tables, I had an older black dude, whom I greatly respected, tell me that he never voted. I launched into a screed, and the older guy looked on and said, “in all the years I’ve never voted, nothing much has really changed based on the outcome of any of those elections.” Life goes on.
"But, I would argue that the category of “not voting” is over-represented. We already have enough folk doing that. That base is covered." Some would argue that non-voters aren't represented enough. There are people who believe that voters who go to the polls are legitimizing a sham. I'm still on the fence about that part of it, mostly because I'm looking for alternatives. "If you want small parties to gain a decently high profile, and if you ever want them to have a chance to actually get in there and help shake things up, then you have to vote for them." I agree with this point. And this year - with Gary Johnson, Jill Stein, and Rocky Anderson - there are three alternatives. Not all are on the ballot in every state, but where they are, voters have a choice. And I have been pleased with the third party debate and efforts made to bring these candidates front and center. But yes, I've already decided to vote this year, and I'll probably be voting third party, but the debate in my mind will rage on. I still have some angst about legitimizing a rigged system...
re: non-voter under/over representation Thanks for the reply, Yvette. Wiki suggests that "voter turnout" in the US averages about 48% (55% in General Election years, 40% in off years). That means, on average, better than half the eligible voters stay home in any given election. How much higher would that number need to go before the legitimacy of this rigged system is universally recognized and some consequence was derived from that recognition? I would submit that "our betters" would simply come up with some "Amendment to the Constitution" (or, other device) that would limit voters to "property owners" (or, some such) to make the turnout appear to be more legitimate. And, those non-voters who fit the allowed criteria would make it a point to demonstrate their willingness to hang on to the franchise - whatever those criteria turned out to be. If one doesn't like the numbers represented in some category, one really can define the problem away by redefining the category. I'd argue that with 50+% of eligible voters staying home - on average - the legitimacy of the system ought to be already in question. But, nothing happens. And, I sincerely doubt anything would, even if that number went as high as 70-75%. Anymore, the only thing I see holding 3rd parties back is simply the number of voters who are willing to shuck the "viable candidate" argument. And, I'm beginning to see the "viable candidate" argument as a socio-culturally enforced myth. Julian Sanchez did an interesting - possibly difficult - discussion in response to Matt Yglesias. The final couple of paragraphs are, I think, worth the price of admission.
re: “in all the years I’ve never voted, nothing much has really changed based on the outcome of any of those elections.” I get this. And, truthfully, I'm grateful that there is a certain dependability that the sun will come up, and the world will turn, regardless. But, I would argue that the category of "not voting" is over-represented. We already have enough folk doing that. That base is covered. What is sticking with me this election season is a comment another person made in a thread at salon.com (not Stoller's). [quote] "Third parties" need votes far more than major parties do, because they typically need to exceed a certain percentage of overall votes to qualify for official support, ballot recognition, public funds, and so on. Theoretically, if about twice as many people had voted Green in 2004, Stein would have been included in the debates this year. If you want small parties to gain a decently high profile, and if you ever want them to have a chance to actually get in there and help shake things up, then you have to vote for them. [end quote] So, not unlike Lar's tangential reference to Stoller, I'd encourage you to think about a third party vote. It matters to those folks in ways it doesn't matter to the duopoly of Democrats and Republicans. And, if enough of us were willing to eschew the "viability" claim, the "wasted vote" assertion, the "vote for Romney by proxy" accusation, the "Nader 200!" freak out, we might actually be able to make a dent in this system. Also, like Lar, I'm in a swing state, and to the extent my vote counts at all, it was cast for a 3rd party candidate. If not Gary Johnson, if not Jill Stein, if not Rocky Anderson... at least one third party candidate deserved to be in the debates just to raise the issues Obama and Romney felt no need to raise (because they largely agree on them?). there's only one way to get them there.
I feel you, Yvette. I didn’t vote in 2010 either. Casting my vote for Obama was never a leaf on my decision tree; however, I did struggle with the options of voting for an independent candidate, under-voting, or parking my vote on the couch. I decided to cast my vote for Green Party candidate Jill Stein, because her values and position on a number of issues most closely matches mine. (Tangentially, I like Matt Stoller’s argument for voting independent in his Salon essay, “The progressive case against Obama.”) As I went through the process, I realized that what was important to me in this election is that I define my vote on my terms, rather than having the Democratic party ascribe one that suites them. When the party performs its post-election analysis, I want them to know that they lost a likely Democratic voter. And casting my vote in a swing state makes my decision all the more delightful.
I agree that what is most important is that we frame the issue for ourselves, and not allow others to frame it for us. Once others have framed it within the Left v. Right, lesser than two evils paradigm, then we're really only responding to conditioning, and not making a true choice. It's coercion, really.