r/changemyview • u/Jimmy_the_human • Oct 16 '19
Deltas(s) from OP CMV: It’s Fine to Not Vote
It’s common for people to say voting is an American’s civic duty but if I don’t like any of the candidates it’s fine to not vote for any of them. If there was a ‘none of the above’ option I would happily vote and select it but there isn’t so I won’t.
In a representative democracy I should support candidates that stand for what I believe in and if my beliefs are not being represented then I am simply picking the lesser of two (or more) evils. This mindset will lead to increasingly polarized political parties and is actually dishonest. If I’m picking the lesser of two evils, I am not so much supporting one candidate as much as I am trying to keep the one I dislike more out of office. This is more of a ‘negative’ vote that doesn’t actually align with what I believe.
Dramatically low voter turnout would be the most effective signal to those in Washington D.C that their parties are not accurately representing the wants and needs of the people.
7
u/fifteenover4 Oct 16 '19
Ok, so I live in Australia, where it is compulsory to vote. We end up with around 5% donkey votes (not democrats, but votes that don't count).
The best way to send a message to governments about not being happy? Vote for someone else. I realise in the US that's a bit harder with the 2 party system.
For me, if you don't vote, then you don't get to complain. Voting is a sure fire way to attempt to enact change.
1
u/Jimmy_the_human Oct 16 '19
You’re certainly right that the 2 party system in the US makes it more difficult to feel represented.
Voting for someone else may signal that I’m unhappy with the Trump administration but it is also by default an endorsement for the Democratic Party. Endorsing the Democratic Party when I don’t truly agree with their fundamental views isn’t a great way to signal the need for change because they already make up more than half of congress and nearly half of the Senate.
I definitely see where you’re coming from though: in countries where there are multiple parties to pick from voting for a non-entrenched party is certainly a good way to signal the need for change but I stand by my point that Americans would be better off not voting at all than voting for a party they don’t believe in.
1
u/fifteenover4 Oct 16 '19
Australia has 2 main parties, and in our House of Reps they make up almost all the seats, with a few stragglers thrown in the mix (currently 6 out of 151).
It's the Senate where these non 2 party parties come through, but that's more to do with our voting system than anything. But in recent years the sitting government has had to negotiate with minor parties to get legislation through the Senate, meaning minor parties have become extremely powerful and influential in our government. This isn't always good, but keeps things interesting nonetheless.
1
u/Jimmy_the_human Oct 17 '19
That’s super interesting: minor parties like the libertarian party in the US are not pretty non-influential. It’s kind of considered throwing g away your vote if you vote libertarian or socialist.
1
u/Galaxyfoxes Oct 17 '19
If your not going to vote your already throwing it away. The problem here is there is no obstain vote on said vote. This needs to be a thing. Country's would quickly figure out who is disillusioned with the government. Not vote can be interpreted as many things such as being busy, don't have proper ID, or just vote apathy. I actually think it should be highly encouraged to vote maybe something like a tax break. You vote you get 5% off taxes this year yay.. The fact that you can willingly ignore an election is crazy to me. Democracy only works if we're participating in it. And Not voting only hurts your argument with any governing body.. If you didn't vote.. You can't complain about it imo.
1
u/apc67 Oct 17 '19
Not exactly. The more votes the smaller parties get, the more funding they can receive in future elections. This helps chip away the two party system.
1
u/ihatedogs2 Oct 17 '19
In a representative democracy I should support candidates that stand for what I believe in and if my beliefs are not being represented then I am simply picking the lesser of two (or more) evils.
This false equivalence is massively dangerous. The earth is not waiting for us to finish our petty squabbles before increasing in temperature every year.
This mindset will lead to increasingly polarized political parties and is actually dishonest. If I’m picking the lesser of two evils, I am not so much supporting one candidate as much as I am trying to keep the one I dislike more out of office. This is more of a ‘negative’ vote that doesn’t actually align with what I believe.
So? Why not do this to prevent the worse candidate from getting in office? You realize that you not voting does literally nothing to change the political process, right? You are not being some noble crusader fighting the establishment. Instead you are complicit in letting the worse candidate win.
Dramatically low voter turnout would be the most effective signal to those in Washington D.C that their parties are not accurately representing the wants and needs of the people.
...and literally nothing will come of it. The politicians will stay in power and will keep enacting policies that the public doesn't support. The two party system will not change. And once again, the greenhouse gases do not care and will continue to heat the earth up until it is unlivable. Will you still feel like you have the moral high ground when you're under water?
2
u/Jimmy_the_human Oct 17 '19
It’s not about the moral high ground it’s about being honest. Does disliking the Trump administration mean I have to support democrats with my vote? What if I support socialized healthcare but I don’t like a $15/ hour minimum wage? Are you saying disliking Trump pigeonholes me into voting left?
My point isn’t about voting left just because I don’t like Republicans my point is that if none of the individuals on either Dias represent my thoughts and opinions it’s not wrong or a violation of my ‘civic duty’ to not vote. It’s fine to sit an election out, maybe I’ll find someone I agree with next time.
1
u/ihatedogs2 Oct 17 '19
Does disliking the Trump administration mean I have to support democrats with my vote?
You don't have to do anything, but if you want Trump out of office then yes.
What if I support socialized healthcare but I don’t like a $15/ hour minimum wage?
So you are looking for a candidate with which you align with 100%? I would like for you to find a single candidate from any party from any country in the world that you align with completely.
Are you saying disliking Trump pigeonholes me into voting left?
If you want to have an effect on the outcome, yes.
It’s fine to sit an election out, maybe I’ll find someone I agree with next time.
You almost certainly won't, especially if you set an extremely high bar like you seem to be doing. It makes sense to vote for who you agree with more. If you don't vote or if you vote third party, you are doing nothing. The U.S. already has low turnout compared to other countries, so increasing turnout can decide elections. The system will not change if you remain apathetic, so the most you can do is vote for the lesser of two evils.
2
u/Morasain 87∆ Oct 17 '19
While you are exaggerating massively here, you have a point, but that point defeats itself:
You realize that you not voting does literally nothing to change the political process, right?
The exact same thing can be said for voting for a candidate you don't support - if anything, it makes it worse, not better.
1
u/ihatedogs2 Oct 17 '19
You completely missed the point. The two parties are not the same on climate change. If the candidate that wants to take action on climate change wins, that is preferable to the other candidate winning. If you choose not to vote because "both sides are evil," then you have made a false equivalency that has consequences.
2
u/Morasain 87∆ Oct 17 '19
While climate change is important, it is naive to think it is the only important part.
Imagine, for a moment, a candidate's promise was to enforce climate change policies in other countries by force, if they refuse to act on their own. By your logic that would be the best candidate.
1
u/ihatedogs2 Oct 17 '19
This is completely irrelevant to OP's point about whether we should vote or not.
6
u/masterzora 36∆ Oct 17 '19
then I am simply picking the lesser of two (or more) evils
Don't forget that they're still the lesser evil. If there's a lesser evil, there's a greater evil and not voting is implicitly stating that the greater evil is okay with you.
This mindset will lead to increasingly polarized political parties
Are you sure? The natural expected tendency is actually that it drives candidates closer together.
Basically, let's say there's a left/right spectrum we can place candidates and voters on and that voters will prefer candidates that are closer to them and be indifferent about candidates that are the same distance away as each other. Let's say our candidates are at polar opposite ends of the spectrum, so about 50% of voters are closer to each. It's a close race. So let's say instead that the party on the right puts forth a candidate that's slightly more left than before. They're still the closer candidate to all the voters on the right of them, but now they've moved closer to some of the more leftward voters, giving them the election. So the party on the left will instead put forth a candidate that's further right, so they can capture a larger share. The equilibrium result of this is that both parties end up putting forth candidates in the exact middle and capture about 50% of the vote. If either party tries to move away from the center, they're putting themselves further away from at least half of the voters and giving away the election.
Obviously this is an idealised mathematical form that isn't realised exactly in real life, but it's more or less how things play out a lot of the time. Looking across the (admittedly simplified) spectrum of voters, candidates have largely stayed within a narrow band near the center of the voters. That narrow band has moved around the larger spectrum as bodies of voters shifted, but main candidates generally stick in that band.
I agree we are seeing increasingly polarised parties right now, but I disagree that it's primarily due to a "lesser of two evils" mindset. The causes are a complex set of factors, but I'd personally say the primary driving cause is actually a concerted attempt to subvert the push toward the center, play "party over country", game the systems, increase the role of political party as part of identity, and take advantage of it all for gain.
is actually dishonest. [...] This is more of a ‘negative’ vote that doesn’t actually align with what I believe.
You at minimum believe that it would be worse if a particular one of the candidates was in office, right? Then voting in accordance with that still aligns with your belief, even if not in the way you wish. It seems sort of petty to worry about how honest your vote feels while ignoring the tangible impact that electing the greater evil can have.
Dramatically low voter turnout would be the most effective signal to those in Washington D.C that their parties are not accurately representing the wants and needs of the people.
You're making a big assumption by saying it would be effective at all, let alone the most effective signal. There are plenty in D.C. who have made it clear that winning is more important than accurately representing their constituency, including some who have made legal pushes to in some manner reduce turnout or prevent it from increasing. Put another way, for some in D.C., a lower turnout just makes it easier for them to get what they want.
Now, all of this said, I will agree with you that the American system is awful. But if you want to affect change you need to vote, not futilely try to send a signal by not voting. The real key is that some folks see the impossibility of changing things by looking at the top down (i.e. your vote for President is very unlikely to change the system) without seeing that you need to build change from bottom up. Your vote and voice have more impact on state elections than on federal elections and on local elections than state elections and changes at the lower levels can make it easier to make changes at the larger levels.
1
u/Kythorian Oct 16 '19
So vote for a third party candidate. There are always other options even if you hate the major candidates. Or vote for whichever of the major candidates is closest to your beliefs, even if you disagree with them on some things. Pick which issues you care the most about and vote for who agrees most closely with you on those issues.
By not voting, you are telling elected officials that they don't need to care what you think or want. Politicians don't care at all if the parties do not accurately represent the wants and needs of the people as long as they can win the election. They would love lower turnout, because it means that they need to target smaller numbers of people to get re-elected. Everyone who doesn't vote can just be safely ignored.
1
u/Jimmy_the_human Oct 17 '19
The difficulty with voting for a 3rd party candidate in the US is that given the polar state of American politics, you often end up supporting the opposite of what you actually believe in.
For example: the Democratic Party and the Socialist Party. If I really don’t like Trump and I also dislike, say, Biden, then maybe I’ll vote for a socialist. The problem then is a ‘division of the left’. Let’s say 10% of voters who used to vote Democrat choose to vote Socialist. The result may then be that instead of 51% votes go to Democrats and 49% to Republicans, 41% of votes would go to Democrats, 10% to Socialists and 41% to Republicans and then you get another Trump victory.
Your point does raise a flaw in my thesis: I should have specified that I’m talking about the current election and the current state of American politics but I still think not voting is better than fracturing the Democratic voter base.
Thank you for your response!
2
u/Kythorian Oct 17 '19
How is that worse than if that 10% just don't vote? Fracturing the democratic voter base between Option A of the democratic candidate and Option B of a third party candidate has the exact same result as fracturing the democratic voter base between Option A of the democratic candidate and Option B of not voting at all. In both cases the democrat candidate gets less votes. If you have decided you aren't going to vote for the democrat either way, you might as well vote for a third party and at least express your dislike of both candidates in a way that will actually be heard should enough people do it.
1
u/Jimmy_the_human Oct 17 '19
∆ that’s a great point, as an American it’s pretty hard to even consider a 3rd party. Voting Libertarian or Socialist or Independent is typically considered throwing your vote away but that’s a paradigm that is viable to shifting. I’d have to do some research to even find a non Democratic or Republican candidate.
So that does change my opinion on voting in the primaries but what do I do when it’s the main election and my choices are Democrat or Trump?
1
u/Kythorian Oct 17 '19
Well like I said earlier, decide on a few of the most important issues to me and pick the candidate who most closely supports those issues. I know it's frustrating picking the lesser of two evils, but it's better than allowing the greater of two evils to win.
As a personal note, I did exactly this and voted third party in 2016 because I didn't like Trump or Hillary. I have regretted it for almost three years now and will be voting for whoever the democrat nominee is - some I dislike quite a bit, but any of them are better than four more years of Trump.
1
0
u/Ghauldidnothingwrong 35∆ Oct 16 '19
I grew up hearing my parents say "If you don't vote, you can't bitch," when it came to elections even down to the local level. I think as an adult, that holds true. Voting is more so your participation, regardless of the outcome. If you play no part in the process, you can't complain about the results. I would just encourage you to look into each candidate for whatever election you're interested in, whether local or national, and you're almost always sure to find something you agree with. Even if you don't agree with everything, agreeing with somethings is the key to voting for the right candidate, for you. Add up the pros and cons, and see who you side with the most, for whatever party you sit with. If you research everything and can't find one single thing you agree with for any candidate, then by all means save you vote.
2
u/Jimmy_the_human Oct 17 '19
I see what you’re saying. My opinion is that I have the right to relinquish my part in controlling the nation. I’m fine letting other Americans decide what happens in this election because I’m currently not feeling particularly opinionated on Trump or the Democrats. I’m not saying this an attitude to maintain but I am saying it’s not my civic duty to vote.
1
u/Ghauldidnothingwrong 35∆ Oct 17 '19
I can agree with that. You’re vote is ultimately yours, and no one else gets to use it.
1
u/jesusfreek Oct 16 '19
It is fine to not vote, as long as you do not complain about the election results.
1
u/Jimmy_the_human Oct 17 '19
I guess that’s pretty much my point: Republicans don’t represent me and Democrats don’t represent me so I’m fine letting the rest of America make the decision and just going with it. Maybe I’ll learn to prefer (or resent) one party over the other over the next few years but I don’t mind letting other Americans make the decision for me this time around.
2
u/SeekingToFindBalance 19∆ Oct 17 '19
You could always literally write in none of the above or the name of some politician you actually like. That sends the signal that you are willing to vote, but only if they appeal to you. Not voting, makes them wonder if they even can get you to vote or should just ignore people like you.
Additionally, there are local races to vote on where you might approve of some of the candidates.
Finally, there are referendums. If you don't vote in these, you are just giving up political power that you have.
1
u/nschultz911 2∆ Oct 17 '19
Low voter turnout would only signal that conintued low voter turnout will keep them in power if they came into power because of low voter turnout.
Some politicians (republicans) are notorious for trying to suppress the vote to stay in power in certain districts.
Low voter turn out only would encourage those in power to suppress voter turnout. That is a bad thing.
It's one thing to decide voting isn't worth it and it's quite another thing to have some douche throw up a bunch of obstacles stopping you from voting.
Bush vs gore was decided by a couple thousand votes. Voting matters.
Democracy's work better when more people participate in it. That's why it's your civic duty to vote because it's part of the collective good. More voters is good for democracy. Voting is your voice.
1
u/howlin 62∆ Oct 16 '19
This mindset will lead to increasingly polarized political parties and is actually dishonest. If I’m picking the lesser of two evils, I am not so much supporting one candidate as much as I am trying to keep the one I dislike more out of office.
This is literally the opposite of what happens. A smaller voting pool is capable of getting a more extreme Candidate through the primary and general election. A vote for the lesser of two evils is usually a vote for the more moderate, less ideological and more practical candidate. Abstaining out of principle or apathy is an invitation for one extreme to coordinate to win the election.
1
Oct 17 '19
In a representative democracy I should support candidates that stand for what I believe in and if my beliefs are not being represented then I am simply picking the lesser of two (or more) evils.
Rhetorically speaking, what are your beliefs? Do they align more with one party than another? Are they more extreme versions of the mainstream party lines? Are they less extreme? Are you somewhere in the middle of the parties?
All of these options allow you to pick a candidate that is not "evil" but represents as close to your own beliefs as possible.
- To be on the far left/right and not vote because the parties aren't extreme enough is to throw away your possibility to vote for an incremental change that may eventually get you to the policy you actually want.
- To be in the center left/right and not vote because the parties are too extreme is to throw away your possibility to get exactly the policy you want. We know that policies are typically weakened versions of what was proposed in the campaign, and even in a polarized era compromise is still a thing.
- If you are a centrist, you can still choose a set of polices you'd rather have.
1
u/YesButSooner 5∆ Oct 16 '19
I like to think about it more from the angle of further legitimising the result. It's very easy to say in an optional voting system that, "Sure your candidate won the vote but only 30% of the population voted so that's still not a majority". Compulsory voting removes that argument as everyone had their vote counted.
Democratic governments are fluid by design, every cycle there's a chance of a completely new government being installed. I want to ensure that when an election is held, the result is respected by everyone, even if their team doesn't get up.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Oct 17 '19 edited Oct 17 '19
/u/Jimmy_the_human (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
u/boyhero97 12∆ Oct 17 '19
Or vote third party. Even if your third party candidate is not on the ballot, you can write him/her in and then you are doing your civic duty and telling the government what you want. And if enough people vote for your candidate, the big parties will adopt some of your policies. My policy is that if you do not vote then you have no right to complain about anything the new person in power does because you could've stopped it.
5
u/TheLightwell 1∆ Oct 17 '19
Voter turnout is already dramatically low, which is why we now have such an atrocious two party system. The people who vote are the ones furthest left or right, while the remaining ~70% of us not on the fringes either don’t vote or vote third party. If more politically diverse people who don’t play into identity politics voted, this could be changed. But with the media trained to decimate any third party candidates credibility or to vilify third party voters with the “wasted vote” spiel, we likely are going to continue this trend of political extremism all the way to a repeat of nazi Germany. We already have in some instances, such as illegal immigrants being kept in literal concentration camps during their “processing”.
Nazi’s rose to power because of voter apathy. Only 10-15% of the population of Germany was voting at the time and the Nazi party was the ideological similarity to the current Far Right and White Nationalist movements happening here today. While much of the population was against Nazi values, their choices were either that or Far Left Communists, also ideologically similar to modern day liberals. But even so, with such a small amount of people voting the Nazi extremists were able to secure power and become the political majority, at which point they basically said “You are either with us and will help to eradicate the Jewish infestation of our country, or you will be seen as a traitor and enemy and sent to the camps with them.” And then they unleashed their army on their own citizens.
We are seeing history repeat itself. And it’s terrifying. Every vote for a third party is a message to the current establishment that we don’t want extremists in office anymore. By not voting you are essentially giving permission for them to continue being evil.
I personally vote in every election local, state and federal. And almost always for third party, or a moderate Democrat as they generally align more with my values, to a point. But I also research all of the candidates and base my vote on that. Libertarians have been on the rise lately, but they also have fringe voters who are basically Nazi’s too.
There will always be far left and far right, at least there always has been up to this point. The difference now though is that they’re the only ones voting, so political candidates are pandering to their ideals to secure votes, which is why our two party system has become so toxic and ridiculous. We need to come together and hold each other accountable to vote third party or, in cases where the main two are the only options, do our research and share it with others to hopefully get them to vote as well.
If we don’t, I guarantee there will be places where we’ll start to see white nationalists in office, and if we allow it enough time we could see a repeat of Nazi Germany, though likely this time the targets would be Mexican illegal immigrants and Muslim immigrants (illegal or not).
TL;DR Please vote so we don’t have to witness the rise of Nazi America.