I'm apparently not as nice and civic-minded as the typical person who writes about politics. I care more about who you vote for than whether you get out and vote
( Read more... )
If you don't vote, you can still complain. Complaining is a fundamental human, pre-human, and non-human right, recently guaranteed by the First Amendment. Your odds of getting listened to are fair-to-middling, and not dependent on whether you vote.
Technically true.
However, it is also said that complaints without solutions are empty. And it seems to me that casting a vote is a straightforward first step toward a solution, if the problem is a dislike for those governing (and their policies). There are lots of other solutions, but short of working outside the system or in different directions in the system (litigation, for example) to achieve changes, voting is an explicit signal of intent to create the government one wishes.
So I disagree, mostly. If you don't vote, you have a significantly less valid complaint about the government than those of us who do, unless you have done the work outside of voting that makes up for it.
*****
On a whole other topic, I urge you to read David Neiwert's reporting at Orcinus, if you don't already do so. His writing is not light, nor easy, but he addresses some serious and valid concerns, and his recently completed series of posts on what he calls pseudo-fascism in America is superb. (Part 1Part 2Part 3Part 4Part 5Part 6Part 7) Let's hope that this sort of reportage is not only still permitted post this election, but that it becomes less necessary.
*****
And with that, and the kids waking up (I promised they could come with me to the polls), I am off to vote. I just wish I lived in Ohio, or Pennsylvania, or Florida.
It's technically true and emotionally true, and it's counter to something people keep saying. That struck me as a good enough reason to lj about it. Furthermore, I've never heard anyone say, "You didn't vote, so I won't listen to your complaints", let alone actually not listen.
I voted because I'm so comprehensively pissed at Bush that I was willing to apply a slight and possibly ignored shove in the right direction, but I can only see two strong arguments in favor of voting, and I'm not sure that either of them are strong enough to apply to individuals.
One is that countries with voting are generally more pleasant places to live. It isn't obvious that having a higher proportion of voters will improve matters above that level.
The other is the efforts made by the powers that be to keep some people from voting suggest that voting matters. Maybe the only people who really need to vote are those who face significant obstacles.
I used to read Orcinus pretty carefully. At this point, it's gotten so repetitious that I just skim it to see if there's anything new.
I've never heard anyone say, "You didn't vote, so I won't listen to your complaints", let alone actually not listen.
I've heard it. I've never said it -- and never will -- but my response will usually begin with "So what have you done or are you doing about it?" In at least one case, the responder pointed out the massive amount of nonvoting work he does in the community, intended to bring about change, and I acknowledged that what he does is worth far more than his vote. But for many folks, not voting and not doing anything about their complaints is the norm; that combination strikes me as wanting their cake and eating it too. And the complains that follow seem hollow, by comparison.
The government has a responsibility to represent and be responsive to *all* of its citizens
Absolutely. We're agreed on this.
Where we disagree is on this point: those who vote are exercising their best efforts to create a government that will (as best they can ascertain) represent them and their point of view. Those who do not vote are effectively stating that they are unable or unwilling to make such a selection. That being the case, their responsibility to have made such a choice abrogated, they lose (IMO) a great deal of their justification for complaint.
Jehovah's Witnesses don't vote (as it's part of their religion not to participate in earthly governments except by following such of their laws as don't conflict with G-d's), but they are still citizens and the government is still responsible to them. And they still complain: they even file lawsuits to enforce their rights.
To what extent do they work to bring about the laws which don't conflict with their Deity's? I understand that their litigation is important, and a part of such a strategy, but I cannot help but believe that humans are not called to create a government on earth that reflects their beliefs, rather than trusting to others to do so.
I assume you're exempting people who can't vote (minors, convicted felons) as well.
Yes; sorry, I thought it was implicit, but you're right. My point is that if you are eligible to vote and fail to do so, you have forfeited the moral authority to complain about getting the government you didn't want. (If your choice is the losing side, you can at least note that you did what you could.)
We agree on this point: The government is responsible to all citizens at all times. Everyone has the right to representation, including complaints about not being represented, up to and including litigation.
HOWEVER, it is (or should be) clear to aware citizens that there is a choice (even when it's minuscule) between the candidates available to them on Election Day. And that it is more likely that one or the other (or, if they're lucky -- which luck ought not to be necessary, in that we ought to have more than two choices as a matter of course -- three or more) of the candidates will more likely represent their views and positions more of the time than the other(s).
My specific point is that if the government then takes actions which are in line with the projected positions of one candidate, when the nonvoter would have preferred the positions in line with the stated position of the other candidate, then IMO the nonvoter has a significantly diminished moral/ethical right to complain.
If you can see it coming and do nothing about it, don't complain when it hits you. It's the surprises or refusals of representation that everyone has the right to bitch over.
Technically true.
However, it is also said that complaints without solutions are empty. And it seems to me that casting a vote is a straightforward first step toward a solution, if the problem is a dislike for those governing (and their policies). There are lots of other solutions, but short of working outside the system or in different directions in the system (litigation, for example) to achieve changes, voting is an explicit signal of intent to create the government one wishes.
So I disagree, mostly. If you don't vote, you have a significantly less valid complaint about the government than those of us who do, unless you have done the work outside of voting that makes up for it.
*****
On a whole other topic, I urge you to read David Neiwert's reporting at Orcinus, if you don't already do so. His writing is not light, nor easy, but he addresses some serious and valid concerns, and his recently completed series of posts on what he calls pseudo-fascism in America is superb. (Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part 4 Part 5 Part 6 Part 7) Let's hope that this sort of reportage is not only still permitted post this election, but that it becomes less necessary.
*****
And with that, and the kids waking up (I promised they could come with me to the polls), I am off to vote. I just wish I lived in Ohio, or Pennsylvania, or Florida.
Reply
I voted because I'm so comprehensively pissed at Bush that I was willing to apply a slight and possibly ignored shove in the right direction, but I can only see two strong arguments in favor of voting, and I'm not sure that either of them are strong enough to apply to individuals.
One is that countries with voting are generally more pleasant places to live. It isn't obvious that having a higher proportion of voters will improve matters above that level.
The other is the efforts made by the powers that be to keep some people from voting suggest that voting matters. Maybe the only people who really need to vote are those who face significant obstacles.
I used to read Orcinus pretty carefully. At this point, it's gotten so repetitious that I just skim it to see if there's anything new.
Reply
I've heard it. I've never said it -- and never will -- but my response will usually begin with "So what have you done or are you doing about it?" In at least one case, the responder pointed out the massive amount of nonvoting work he does in the community, intended to bring about change, and I acknowledged that what he does is worth far more than his vote. But for many folks, not voting and not doing anything about their complaints is the norm; that combination strikes me as wanting their cake and eating it too. And the complains that follow seem hollow, by comparison.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Absolutely. We're agreed on this.
Where we disagree is on this point: those who vote are exercising their best efforts to create a government that will (as best they can ascertain) represent them and their point of view. Those who do not vote are effectively stating that they are unable or unwilling to make such a selection. That being the case, their responsibility to have made such a choice abrogated, they lose (IMO) a great deal of their justification for complaint.
Jehovah's Witnesses don't vote (as it's part of their religion not to participate in earthly governments except by following such of their laws as don't conflict with G-d's), but they are still citizens and the government is still responsible to them. And they still complain: they even file lawsuits to enforce their rights.
To what extent do they work to bring about the laws which don't conflict with their Deity's? I understand that their litigation is important, and a part of such a strategy, but I cannot help but believe that humans are not called to create a government on earth that reflects their beliefs, rather than trusting to others to do so.
I assume you're exempting people who can't vote (minors, convicted felons) as well.
Yes; sorry, I thought it was implicit, but you're right. My point is that if you are eligible to vote and fail to do so, you have forfeited the moral authority to complain about getting the government you didn't want. (If your choice is the losing side, you can at least note that you did what you could.)
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
We agree on this point: The government is responsible to all citizens at all times. Everyone has the right to representation, including complaints about not being represented, up to and including litigation.
HOWEVER, it is (or should be) clear to aware citizens that there is a choice (even when it's minuscule) between the candidates available to them on Election Day. And that it is more likely that one or the other (or, if they're lucky -- which luck ought not to be necessary, in that we ought to have more than two choices as a matter of course -- three or more) of the candidates will more likely represent their views and positions more of the time than the other(s).
My specific point is that if the government then takes actions which are in line with the projected positions of one candidate, when the nonvoter would have preferred the positions in line with the stated position of the other candidate, then IMO the nonvoter has a significantly diminished moral/ethical right to complain.
If you can see it coming and do nothing about it, don't complain when it hits you. It's the surprises or refusals of representation that everyone has the right to bitch over.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment