A thought.

[napoleonherself]

I just came across that tired old chestnut that if you don't vote, you don't get to complain about the results. As someone who did not vote this year, I feel the need to engage in a little thought experiment.

First of all, wow congratulations on being the Grand High Decider on who gets to talk about what. You are so special. I wish I were that special.

Second of all, what if the vote is pointless where you are? What if you are a Democrat in an area where the vast majority of the population is Republican? Do you really have to cast your worthless vote in order to be allowed to speak?

What if candidates are unopposed in your district? What if there is no candidate from "your" party to vote for? Do you really have to go write in your vote for Mickey Mouse in order to be allowed to speak?

What if you live in State A and you want to complain about the election in State B? Do you really have to cast an unrelated-to-the-issue vote in order to be allowed to speak?

What if you're legally barred from voting? Are you just not allowed to speak?

What if you were unexpectedly physically unable to get to the polling place? Are you just not allowed to speak?

What if you realize only AFTER the election that you have concerns? Are you just not allowed to speak?


Am I just not allowed to speak?


I realize that the best way to maintain your position as Grand High Decider on who gets to talk about what means that you can never, ever, ever address my concerns. Good heavens, that might be almost the same as admitting that you could be wrong! Maybe everyone gets to express their opinions -- even if they didn't vote!

But I ask all the same.

Am I just not allowed to speak?

Comments

[trs80.ucc.asn.au (from livejournal.com)]

This is why I'm in favor of compulsory voting. Although I'm Australian so I have even less influence on the US than someone who doesn't vote.

[napoleonherself.livejournal.com]

The problem with compulsory voting is that you get people pulling the lever on things they don't know or care about, just because they have to! Unless you could pick and choose what to vote for, like I think most places do in the US, and maybe in other countries too for all I know. Except then some people would turn in totally blank ballots. All I know is that I really really don't want decisions made based on the flipping of several million coins, because coins are jerks.

[trs80.ucc.asn.au (from livejournal.com)]

Some other good points of compulsory voting are that politicians have to campaign to the whole electorate, not just the sections that usually vote. And if people have to vote, they'll pay more attention to the issues. It's true, you can't stop people turning in blank ballots, but to compare it to flipping of coins is insulting, since people generally know which party better represents their views.

[wing-zero-ew.livejournal.com]

Yeah, compulsory voting is a great idea, except that it violates the absolute most fundamental principle of democracy, Freedom of Agency.

Simply put, if you make voting compulsory, there is no ideologically sound basis for democracy. If the government can remove your freedom of choice for no other reason than a blanket appeal to 'civics' or idealism, or granting itself legitimacy, then it can remove your freedom of choice on anything. It can declare macaroni and cheese to be unpatriotic, or walking down the street between 3 and 4 pm, or failing to salute the flag. Or failing to hand over the Jews.

Then there's the issue of a proscriptive law without a specified punishment; you don't need my degree in Criminal Justice to tell you that, surprise surprise, unenforced laws are rarely obeyed very strenuously. So you would have to track voters, and punish non-voters.

You're going to penalize people for not voting? That's the goal? Oh, jeez, I'd love to see *that* in a country with a guaranteed bill of rights. Since not voting is a fairly obvious form of political expression (the logical contrary position to voting), compulsory voting in the US would require, at least, a constitutional amendment, and a partial rollback of the 1st as well.

As for the rest of your comments, dear god, you've got to be kidding, right? Politicians campaign to the 'whole electorate'? People are informed about which party supports their interests?

Seriously, did you hit your head or something? People are not rational actors. They are not well-informed. They do NOT, especially in the United States, but in general, know who is looking out for them or represents their interests, and they do NOT exercise their votes in a responsible manner to elect officials or pass initiatives reflecting those values. Just as an example, if you poll US citizens on the respective platforms of the two major organized parties, a sizeable majority, around 60 percent, believe themselves to be in the Democratic camp. If you poll by party name, on the other hand, very few believe themselves to be Democrats. Most Americans think they're 'Independents' because it appeals to their sense of personal vanity. Many Americans think they should vote Republican, even though, again if polled on individual issues, they disagree with the platform advanced by the Republican party. This is due to very effective political messaging by the Republican party, which has, among other things, changed the entire language of political discourse (liberal == soft, weak, etc, conservative == strong, national security expert, etc).

Then there's the campaigning to the electorate thing. Yeah, right. Go to CNN, right now, and look at the results of the 'landslide' election in the House of Representatives. You should note, perhaps with a dry chuckle, how few incumbents lost their seats. Almost none. This in a year where a record number of seats changed party hands, and still, 90% of the people in office, remained in office.

This is because the entire system is geared toward granting a massive advantage to those in power, in order to stay in power. Computer assisted gerrymandering has done so much in this regard, it's scary. Given another couple election cycles, we could probably do away with popular voting entirely, and nobody would notice the difference.

If you want to be elected, you campaign to your DONORS. You campaign to those who would give you money. Most of the time, for most politicians, this is a handful of very wealthy people, PACs, and corporate lobbyists. A new trend in 'people politics' is to use the internet to collect huge numbers of small donations for select progressive candidates, but you're still campaigning to your donor base, not your voters (and since the internet doesn't stop or start at your district, often to OTHER peoples voters).

I'd say, rather than comparing uninformed voters to coin flippers being an insult, it'd be praise. Coin flips would come up heads half the time. The voters we have NOW rarely hit their targets with that accuracy.

[napoleonherself.livejournal.com]

Mecha, in his long-winded way, said some of the things I would have said if I could articulate them that well. Of course, he also got way more up in arms about it than I can really manage.

In America, at least, it really would be coin-flip-esque. This is a country where millions of people are struggling to keep their heads above water, financially. They've got no health insurance and their jobs pay far below a living wage. The public schools they send their children to are underfunded to the point that I'm betting a lot of history books still show the USSR on their maps. And yet how do many of these people vote? Why, for the Tax Cuts For The Rich, Keep Health Care Privatized, Keep Minimum Wage Low party. Just because they heard on TV that the dirty liberals want to welcome terrorists into the country with beaming faces and open arms.

Maybe in other countries the mass of voters can be trusted to know what's best for them; I doubt it, because People Is Dumb. Either way, here, half the country can't even understand the basic concept of "vote your pocketbook".

[napoleonherself.livejournal.com]

True, there is a message there. I usually do prefer to vote even if it's pointless, simply because then I can see myself in one tiny fraction of a percent of a statistic, and point to it and say "that drop in the ocean, that one's me."

But I still argue that you do not have to send that message in order to be allowed to say anything else.

[kastofsna.livejournal.com]

not only are you not allowed to speak, but you're not allowed to make posts like this in LJ!!!


!!!!!!

[napoleonherself.livejournal.com]

Aw man, I forgot about that part!

At least I remembered that any mention of pirates, ninjas, or robots is grounds for execution. OH CRAP UH ER I MEAN -- *gunshot, meaty thud, silence*

[steaksammich.livejournal.com]

I think people who say that just don't bother to stop and think about how stupid they sound when they do say that. Because apparently when we don't waste our time voting, we lose the whole free speech thing. Does that mean we lose our other rights too? By their logic I'm guessing the two of us no longer have the right to bear arms either.

[napoleonherself.livejournal.com]

To say nothing of the right to freedom of religion.

You are now a Zoroastrian. Don't argue; you don't have any choice in the matter anyway. PRAY TO ZOROASTRI. Or, you know, whoever. Zorro maybe?