There are lots of good arguments as to why an individual should vote: perhaps I’ll write about some of those later, and talk about my own personal experience of the system. In this blog post, instead, I’m going to talk about a very bed argument for voting. It’s a very popular argument I’ve heard used by a great number of people who are in favour of compulsary (either at the legal level or just as a social pressure) voting. It’s a very popular argument, but it’s also a very weak argument. It goes something along the lines of this:
"If you don’t vote, you have no right to complain."
Over the remainder of this article, I’ll be taking apart this argument. To help me with the examples, I’ll be using a fictional character called John Voter. John is a resident of the United Kingdom, or a similar Western democracy. His political views are pretty moderate, and he isn’t a member of any particular party, but he’s open to new ideas and arguments: simply put, he’s the ultimate floating voter.
No One Candidate
Suppose the electorate is completely split between the candidates – every candidate gets exactly the same number of votes: there is only one ballot paper left to count, and it’s John’s. It’s a highly unfeasible scenario, but it serves for our purposes. In this scenario, John is responsible for choosing which candidate wins the election. This seems to some like an ideal oppertunity for many voters – a chance to choose exactly which candidate is elected – but not to John. You see, John can’t decide who to vote for. He likes the Red Party candidate’s promises of tax cuts, but he doesn’t approve of their foreign policies. Meanwhile, the Blue Party would increase taxes, but have foreign policies that he prefers. No single candidate is suited to John’s opinion. In the end, he flips a coin and votes for one of these two candidates.
Does John have a right to complain? He alone explicitly chose which candidate was elected, but he doesn’t approve of everything they’re going to do in their term. Does he have a right to criticise the candidate who he put in office. Think carefully before you answer.
If you answer no, then you’re saying that even if you do vote, you have no right to complain if your candidate is elected. It doesn’t actually matter whether or not John’s vote "makes the difference." More likely, he’s part of a larger group of people (all of the people who cast their vote the same way as him) who elected somebody who didn’t perfectly reflect their views, but reflected them more closely than any of the other candidates did.
More likely you answered yes; in this situation, where John singly "chooses" the politician who represents him, he still has a right to complain (you might even think that he has more right). So let’s take a different example. This one’s less hypothetical.
The votes are likely to be unevenly split amongst the candidates, just like a real election. There are candidates who will get only a few hundred votes, and there are candidates who will get tens of thousands. John still doesn’t know who to vote for, but – in this more realistic scenario – his vote will almost certainly not make a difference to which candidate is elected (note that I didn’t say that his vote will make no difference – perhaps I’ll look at arguments relating to whether votes "count" in a future blog post). Perhaps his chosen candidate will get in, or perhaps they won’t. Does he still have a right to complain?
Your answer is probably yes. Yes, John has every right to complain that his views are not being reflected, because no matter who he votes for – in fact, no matter who wins! – he will not be completely satisfied, because no politician is able to completely satisfy the things he cares about. He has chosen (either by concious decision or by flipping a coin, as before) to align himself with one of several viewpoints, neither of which he wholeheartedly agrees with. It doesn’t matter if he votes for one of the two tens-of-thousands-of-votes candidates in his constituancy, or if he votes for one of the less-popular candidates… the candidate that is elected remains the same (remember: I’m still not saying his vote doesn’t count). He’s still able, and probably feels the need, to complain about his elected representative.
So what’s the difference if he puts a blank ballot paper into the box? He was equally unhappy with all of the viable candidates anyway. And if he’s going to do that, he might as well not even bother going to the polling station, and make better use of his own time – he could draft a letter to be sent to the winning candidate, outlining his views, or he could write a blog post about why he isn’t voting, or he could go out with his mates for a pint. They’re all valid uses for his time (it is, after all, his time), and the net result is still the same as if he voted: a candidate he doesn’t 100% care for is elected, and he feels the need to complain about it.
And what right does anybody have to try to take away somebody’s right to complain. Complaining, otherwise known as "free speech," is a more important right than the right to vote. When you speak, you can influence people, whether they’re the unwashed masses or the people in power. When you vote, all you do is align yourself with somebody who represents less of the ideals you disagree with than any of the (limited) alternatives.
To say "if you don’t vote, you’ve got no right to complain," says a lot about the people who say it, though. When people say those words, what they’re actually implying that that they feel your right to complain should be dependent upon your duty to vote. On a personal level, they’re saying, "I feel that mandatory voting is important, and I plan to socially stigmatise you – by not listening to your complaints – as a way to try to coerce you into voting."
It’s sad that some people feel that the act of voting is more important than thinking about politics; that it’s more important for you to make an uninformed vote than it is for you to think about the changes you actually want to see, and help bring them about. It’s sad that everybody who "doesn’t vote" – from the man who just can’t be bothered and doesn’t care what happens (more on this in another post, as well, I think) to the anarchist who doesn’t want to support the system he opposes – gets lumped into a group of "apathetic voters."
The Personal Bit
Personally, I’ve very rarely felt the need to nominate a particular candidate as a preference over the others: most elections, I spoil a ballot, because no single candidate has a clear lead in my mind. I do, however, write to (well, usually e-mail and fax these days) politicians from time to time to try to persuade them of the validity of my viewpoints. I’d be more likely to vote in more elections if we had a better electoral system, such as STV. I’m not a non-voter (nor am I politically apathetic), I’m just, like John, unimpressed by most of the choices in most of the elections I participate in. The Liberal Democrats almost won my vote in the upcoming Welsh Assembly elections, but I challenged a representative of them on a couple of key issues I feel strongly about, and they seem to be adamant that they’re right (and I feel otherwise). It doesn’t look likely that I’ll find a candidate that reflects how I feel significantly better than any other, so instead of voting for a candidate, I’ll write a few letters (to whoever wins).
In the long run, if the system works, and politicians are at least slightly in it for the purpose of representing the views of their citizens, I’m having more of an effect than your average voter. If the system doesn’t work, it doesn’t matter anyway.
If I get the time, I’ll be talking about some of the (better) arguments for reasons to vote over the next couple of weeks. Don’t forget, those of you in Wales, Welsh Assembly polling day is May 3rd.
I agree. and as i’m sure this post was prompted in some way by my own (which is friends only) post announcing my intention to write a ‘why people should vote’ article (which will not be friends-only) I will, for now, say this…
‘if you don’t vote, you have no right to complain’ forms no part of my argument. nevertheless part of the premise you base your counter argument on is the very thing I hope to overturn in my own article. I think that the people who use some of the above arguments as their reason for not voting are thinking about voting in the wrong way. that’s what I hope to argue. whether my rhetorical skills are up to it remains to be seen.
eep… what a clunky first sentence. bad positioning of brackets there. wish I could delete & repost/edit comments on this thing.
It’s partially inspired by your post, yes, but more by a discussion with Claire last night about the causes and meanings of political apathy. I might write about our thoughts at a later date.
If you want to change what you’ve written, just re-post with, like, “What I meant to say:” at the top and I’ll substitute the content in for you.
I suspect we’ll agree on a lot of things. For example, I don’t subscribe to the idea that a vote is ever “wasted” – even if you vote for somebody that loses, the vote has value. Oh, and your writing skills are teh r0xx0r, I’m sure you’ll come accross well.
cheers. you’ll be pleased to know that this blog has given me one other argument that I need to address in my article.
it’s a point which could be used very weakly as a reason for not voting (though you don’t use it that way), but could actually be much better used as a supplementary point in favour of my main argument.
Thanks. Not only have you expressed more eloquently than I could my reason for not voting, but you also made me realise that the date I put in my calendar for poll day is one day out. Whoops.
Want to set up a stall outside the Chapel Vestry and persuade people to spoil their ballot papers?
Out of curiosity which Lib Dem policies don’t you like? In my view you’re never going to get the perfect politician/party that you 100% agree with all the time on every issue. In the end I still think it’s better to vote for the party/independent which you ultimately see doing more good in the long run than either to spoil your vote or stay home. Writing to your politicians is definitely a good thing – but again you’ve got more chance of swaying someone towards your views if they’re a liberal and you’re a liberal rather than if they’re a conservative and you’re a liberal. I know it’s a bit more complicated than that, but I think it helps if you’re at least on the same page on the basics.
I disagree with several of the Lib Dem “green” policies, including and especially the Welsh Lib Dems complete opposition to a nuclear power plant in Wales, which I feel would provide a great deal of valuable work for a region where unemployment is a problem and demonstrate commitment to managing our energy in a sensible (i.e. not fossil fuel) way while we make plans to meet this European renewable energy plan that we’re supposed to be.
There’s another major point, but I can’t recall what it is without finding the pamphlet of their that I took notes on.
In the end I still think it’s better to vote for the party/independent which you ultimately see doing more good in the long run than either to spoil your vote or stay home.
Based on what? My support counts for almost nothing as far as getting a candidate into power is concerned. A vote is valuable but it’s value might be better spent supporting the underdog in order to do my bit to stabilise the democratic disparity that our flawed voting system causes – if I *really* loved democracy, that’s what I’d be doing. You can make a million arguments for any candidate, and I need to see a clear lead in good reasons, in my mind, to make me vote (and it has happened before, and it may happen again).
…you’ve got more chance of swaying someone towards your views…
Personally, I’d rather sway somebody who’s far from my viewpoint but who might come into power than somebody who’s near my viewpoint but who might come into power. It’s harder, but it’s more satisfying and it has a greater overall potential result.
I can see great arguments for voting for any of the four major parties who have candidates in the upcoming Welsh Assembly election, and I haven’t even begun to look at the independent (Emyr Morgan) yet.
Paul – that’s not a bad idea. We could put together a leaflet: “10 great reasons not to vote,” and see where it takes us.
Not that I’m in any way agreeing with it, but I think the “if you don’t vote, you have no right to complain” argument is directed more at those who don’t make the effort to go to the ballot box, even if it is only to spoil a paper. As I say, I don’t agree with it, I think it defeats part of the point of democracy if not everyone can question authority. However I think there is an easily definable line between those whose attitude is “I don’t agree with any policies, but I’m making a conscious effort to make my views known and exercise my right by spoiling a ballot paper”, and those whose attitude is “They’re all about the same, I don’t think I can be bothered to go”. I just wish I knew what we could sensibly do with the latter category…
I’ve organised myself a proxy vote for the 3rd.
If you don’t agree with any of the candidates then why not stand yourself? Or persuade someone who you do believe could represent your views and (behave honourably and all that other stuff) and vote for them?
I’ve been meaning to do a post about democracy and how it would be a lovely thing if we had it instead of our current system of feudal lords in a semi-regular popularity contest.
Yes, standing myself would work. However, I simply can’t afford to, because the system is biased. Plus, I wouldn’t make a very good politician.
Yes, if I find anybody who could repesent my views and seems likely to be happy with the idea, I’ll suggest it to them.