Not Voting Is Voting

Not voting means voting — in absentia — for whomever a majority of those voting choose

Some fictions — pretending something is one thing when it’s really another — deserve to be placed in a spotlight and revealed for what they represent. There are at least two good reasons for doing so. One is that intellectual dishonesty — intended or inadvertent — undermines fundamental expectations of integrity of reason and discussion with or without disagreement. The second is that sometimes individuals think they are being intellectually honest when in fact they are creating an illusion of it while engaging in something that is antithetical to it. Not voting is certainly an example of this.

Now, I recognize that not voting is hardly confined to this country. Indeed, it is such a problem in many democracies that some actually (and quite modestly) fine citizens for not doing so. The effect is to achieve voting rates in the mid 80 percent range, a rather extraordinary achievement given that rates as low as half that or less are not uncommon in some nations or states/provinces. The excuses range from a single vote not mattering to not voting as protest regarding the quality of candidates on offer to voters. But what not voting really does is distort democracy and reduce the role of citizens in their own governance.

Polls consistently confirm that many citizens think government could do more and do it better, that their country is on the “wrong” path or headed in the “wrong” direction, problems aren’t being solved and some are favored more than many others. But then they stay home and pretend voting doesn’t change anything. Actually, not voting doesn’t change anything.

So we find ourselves in a presidential election that magnifies all of this. The truly angry are supporting a candidate who by any rational standard is not only unqualified for the office in terms of knowledge and experience in governance at any level — as in zero, but is a lifelong narcissistic bully who is allowed to lie three-quarters of the time, insult anyone and everyone, and, by both documented history and assertions, is unendingly dishonest/untruthful and a racist — racial and ethnic.

Those who loathe him have an opportunity to vote for a candidate who is everything her opponent is not, but too many voters either believe she is dishonest despite nothing more than accusations and innuendos or favor another candidate from her party and will not forgive his loss of the nomination even as he tells them to support her as he does. Worse, they mistakenly believe that progressive candidates must be far left of center, an absurd expectation that ignores how progressives who are moderate actually accomplish far more because electorate support is greater nearer the political center.

So these immature, inexperienced voters refuse to vote, or at least say they do. They tend to be young, idealistic and naive about politics and governance. They mistake allegiance to values as an absolute despite a real world need to prevent the election of the truly incompetent candidate. They are in turn childish, unrealistic, misguided and completely wrong in that they are simply refusing to vote. Not voting is voting. The Democratic candidate can easily win over the Republican nightmare candidate, but only if millions of younger voters actually vote for her. They are sure their fate is worse by voting than not, but they are completely, absolutely, totally wrong.

Democracy with a small percentage of voters actively participating is doomed to decline because of the dissonance between what citizens find missing from their governance and what they do about it. The issues of economic inequity are far less a result of trade agreements and far more about tax policies that favor some at — literally — the expense of everyone else. The issues of debt from higher education are the result of policies that favor the lenders, not the borrowers. The list is extensive, but what matters is that those who do vote have far more influence than those who don’t. The result are members of the legislative branch who easily undermine and obstruct the president whenever they wish to do so. Voters who don’t vote simply vote these ideologists into office by not participating.

Not voting is more than refusing to support any candidate. It also means not supporting democracy and not supporting government of, by and for the people. It means voting — in absentia — for whomever a majority of those voting choose. And the consequences are real in ways that come back to affect those who failed to fulfil their role as citizens.

When I became old enough to vote I registered to do so and have voted in every election since…and there have been many. That’s what a pragmatist does. He or she grasps the essential reality that not voting is really voting anyway. The difference is that instead of voting for candidates or ballot measures, one is voting in support of those who do vote — regardless of whether their choices would have been theirs. Sometimes I won, sometimes I didn’t, but I was always in the game. When you’re not in the game — voting by not voting, you have forfeited the right to complain and have failed as a citizen.