Why Vote?
Jul 10th, 2008 by Micah Tillman | 20 Comments |
That’s a question I’ve been pondering for a long time.
Mr. Stevens claims voting — at least as things are now — is irrational. And it’s hard not to agree, even if you don’t want to.
But all a decision’s being “irrational” means — sometimes — is that you can’t blame it on logic, and therefore you have to actually take full responsibility for it.
Furthermore, there are reasons to vote, I think:
- By not voting, you declare yourself a slave.1
- People fought and died so you could vote. It would be disrespectful of you to not vote.
- In a democracy, the issue isn’t how small your voice is compared to everyone else in the country — it’s how large the group you belong to is compared to the other groups in the country. In other words, democracy is about being part of a group, not having your personal opinions determine the course of the country.2
- If you wanted your vote “to matter,” you’d be wanting a kingship, not a democracy. So the fact that your vote “doesn’t matter” means democracy is working the way it’s supposed to. It’s a good thing.
- Every society has depended on a mythology, and voting is an integral part of our mythology. It’s not very often you get to live out part of a mythology.3
_______________
1(You say it’s okay with you that you “have no say” at all in who your government is, that it’s okay for other people to pick your government for you, that it’s simply okay for other people to tell you what to do.) [ back ]
2(Or, rather, it’s realizing that your personal opinions can be shared by masses of people, and can therefore determine the course of the country.) [ back ]
3(And the mythology which founds democracy actually works. Somehow. So it’s not very often you get to participate in a mythology that works.) [ back ]
Good post, Micah.
I’m going to vote for all of those reasons, plus the fact that I feel if I don’t vote, I can’t complain.
:)
Yay!
Joanna said the same thing about the right to complain. And that’s one of the reasons many people give for voting.
So why didn’t I list it?
Good question.
Um . . . .
I think I figured everyone would have thought of it already? So I didn’t need to make sure everyone thought of it? Maybe?
*ponders*
Hmmm. . . . I confuse me sometimes.
Perhaps I should also note that when I talk about mythology, I have a whole background which I’m assuming.
Good post. Your reasons for voting are super.
I would like to suggest that not having the right to complain is contained in your first reason–that by not voting you declare yourself a slave. A slave has no right to complain.
I would also like to suggest that simply voting is a very minimal act of social responsibility. It’s really the least that we as citizens can do, and to do any less is just lazy!
A slave has no right to complain?
…
RG–
Thanks! And good points. In fact, I’d argue that way we “show up” as citizens for a democratic government first and foremost is through our voting. Otherwise, we’re only citizens in some derivative sense.
Seb–
I think RG speaks of the “idea” of a slave, if such a thing/person could ever actually exist legitimately (see Locke). Such a person would have to be irrational, inhuman, having no rights at all (which includes the right to complain).
Anyone who is still a human and has rights can’t be a slave. She or he might be treated as one, but won’t actually be one. Unfortunately, this is the kind of “slavery” which has been most dominant in history, I think.
Perhaps he is taking the popular sovereignty view. As Abraham Lincoln summed it up: “Popular sovereignty, as a matter of principle, simply is ‘If one man would enslave another, neither that other, nor any third man, has a right to object.’”
Anyway, a quick comment on all these points.
(1) By not voting, you declare yourself a slave.
Actually, no. I’d elaborate, but I’m frankly baffled as to what reasoning could possibly lead to this assertion.
(2) People fought and died so you could vote. It would be disrespectful of you to not vote.
Arguably true, I suppose. People also fought and died to preserve slavery. Are we dishonoring their memory by not owning slaves? (Of course the answer to that question may well be yes.)
This is part and parcel of the whole concept of a “duty to vote.” The argument would be that voting isn’t done as some sort of rational calculation, but because it is simply a moral act, regardless of any utilitarian outcomes. I disagree with this; I see no particular morality in the act of voting. I actually believe that voting is an expressive act, akin to loudly rooting for your favorite sports team. It is simply an opportunity to declare what side one is on.
(3) In a democracy, the issue isn’t how small your voice is compared to everyone else in the country — it’s how large the group you belong to is compared to the other groups in the country. In other words, democracy is about being part of a group, not having your personal opinions determine the course of the country.
My group, such as it is, is either sufficiently well-represented that it can cope without my vote or sufficiently ill-represented that my vote won’t matter. Whether or not one votes doesn’t change one’s belonging to a group (except the group of voters).
(4) If you wanted your vote “to matter,” you’d be wanting a kingship, not a democracy. So the fact that your vote “doesn’t matter” means democracy is working the way it’s supposed to. It’s a good thing.
This is a non-sequitur. It probably is the case that democracy is working the way it’s supposed to and that it would be a bad thing if my vote actually mattered. This isn’t an argument for voting.
(5) Every society has depended on a mythology, and voting is an integral part of our mythology. It’s not very often you get to live out part of a mythology.
I remarked that voting is irrational. This is an interesting reason, but clearly irrational. I derive no particular pleasure from being part of a mythology, though your mileage may vary. In any event, I did vote a couple of times (back in 1992 and 1994) and that would seem to satisfy the requirement to be a part of a mythology.
As soon as my chances of influencing an election actually outweighs my chances of dying from an infected paper cut caused by the ballot, I will certainly consider voting.
Not voting causes one to lose one’s right to complain.
Really? Has the First Amendment been altered to say that? I must confess that I must have missed that whole new Amendment. Okay, we’ll assume that you’re not talking about a legal right, but about a moral right. Again, I can’t see a difference between voting or not voting impacting one’s moral right to complain. It is clear that had I voted in the last election (for anyone), the same people would have been elected, so it’s puzzling why the people who voted for the losers (or apparently the winners!) have a right to complain and the people who didn’t vote at all don’t. In any event, I do precious little complaining (as distinct from analyzing) no matter who is in office. I can imagine that changing, but it’s not terribly likely.
Really? Has the First Amendment been altered to say that?
No, but if you’re not going to participate, I don’t want to hear your opinion on what “they” are doing wrong, which makes complaining, to me anyway, completely futile.
As to (1), you either missed the footnote, or disagree with it.
As to (2): You do some things not because they are important to you, but because they are important to someone who is important to you. That’s why parents take their kids to kids’ movies. That’s why kids try to make their parents happy by dressing up when they go out or by watching their language.
Deferring to those who have gone before you in matters you have no moral opinions about is a sign of respect. Maybe they saw something you can’t see at the moment, or are simply worth honoring. Deferring to those who have gone before in matters on which you have a moral opinion contrary theirs is something else entirely.
As to (3): The argument is that when people are worried about whether their votes matter, they are looking at the situation completely wrong. If worrying about whether your vote matters is what’s keeping you from doing what you want to do (i.e., voting), then this argument will hopefully show you that whether your vote matters or not is irrelevant.
As to (4): This is more a “leveling the playing field” kind of point than anything else, I suppose.
People take the fact that their vote doesn’t matter as evidence that there’s something wrong with how democracy is done here in America. (As if they want both Democracy and their votes to matter, and the fact that they don’t have both is evidence that something is messed up). So they want nothing to do with it.
My argument is that there is nothing wrong with the system, that if you believe in democracy, you should expect your vote not to matter. (I.e., the desire for democracy and your vote to matter is a self-contradictory desire.)
If your vote doesn’t matter in a (non-corrupt) democracy, it probably means something is going right, that what you believe in (democracy) is actually occurring.
So the situation is at least neutral, not negative. You might not have any logical argument for voting (other than the fact that your vote’s not counting is evidence that something you believe in is in fact occurring, and you can join in).
But the fact that your vote doesn’t matter isn’t evidence of some kind of problem which would give you a reason to not vote.
I have no stake in whether the “complaining” reason works.
Is whether or not an action has a chance of influencing something the only thing that makes that action rational? Is “influencing something” the only reason to act, or is it that voting falls into a sub-set of acts whose telos is to influence other things?
Surprisingly, we really should be on different sides of this debate since you’re the one with a teleological ethics and I’m the one with a deontological ethics. I don’t know why you’ve switched to the deontological side for this argument.
Is “influencing something” the only reason to act, or is it that voting falls into a sub-set of acts whose telos is to influence other things?
The latter, yes. I see no purpose to the actual act of voting unless it actually has a chance of doing something to influence one’s society. Why else? And this is why I’m on the teleological side of the debate.
As to (1), you either missed the footnote, or disagree with it.
Both actually. I read it the first time I read the post a couple of days ago, forgot about it when I posted the above comment, and, having read it now again, I disagree with it. Nobody is saying any of the things you assert they’re saying by not voting. Again, by not voting, I am not asserting that there are no circumstances ever in which I would vote nor am I asserting that I wish I lived in a society where nobody voted. You seem to be falling into a very Kantian view here, by claiming that we must always act in a way consistent with what we will to be a universal law. But you’re normally the first person who disagrees with this. Do I have a duty to be your wife’s loving husband because I hope that she has one?
Point 2 is your strongest argument. But I am puzzled how far this goes. Let us imagine I have an ancestor who devoted his/her life entirely to charity. Let us further imagine that I favor this view and am predisposed to the charities this ancestor favored. Let us go even further and imagine that she was murdered by a bunch of violent anti-charity people? Is it incumbent upon me to similarly devote my life to charity out of respect for this ancestor? Since I’m not actually sure how I’d answer those questions, I have to say that this is actually a pretty good deontological argument for why one might have a “duty to vote.” I think it’s your strongest argument by far.
Points 3 and 4 we seem to be in substantive agreement about and neither seems to me to constitute an argument for voting. You seem to assume that I am desirous of a chance for my vote to be important. Actually, I have no such desire. It is my most fervent hope that I can live out my life in a country where my vote doesn’t count at all. Nor am I “worried” that my vote doesn’t matter. Quite the contrary. But given that it doesn’t matter, for which I am thankful, I see no particular reason to actually cast it.
Again, all the comments in this thread seem to indicate what I said above: people view voting as an expressive act. You are choosing your side. Throughout these comments, people have been assuming that by not voting, I am choosing my own side or expressing something about my views on democracy, the choices available, etc., etc. But in fact I am not expressing any such thing. I am not a Kantian.
No, but if you’re not going to participate, I don’t want to hear your opinion on what “they” are doing wrong, which makes complaining, to me anyway, completely futile.
But, of course, I’m participating! I am forever engaged in political discussions with people of both sides. I actually succeed in changing people’s minds on issues an apparently astonishing amount of the time (I assume it’s astonishing since so many people I talk to seem to assume that nobody ever changes their minds on political matters). I almost certainly do more to sway the country’s direction (small as it is) via these activities than I ever would by actually voting. Again, there appears to be some sort of visceral reaction going on here - not voting seems to be viewed as almost an evil act, even though clearly nobody is being harmed by this non-action. I am astonished at how sure people are in the correctness of their reasoning that voting is a morally obligatory act.
Interestingly, a quick web search of people who have written online defending not voting shows that many of these non-voters similarly view not voting as an expressive act. Many of them write about how they are protesting the system or some such. Presumably, they too can claim that anybody who votes has no right to protest against our current system since they have effectively endorsed it by voting. For what it’s worth, I don’t buy this argument either.
Thanks for the ongoing clarifications.
First, my arguments are for those who want to vote, but are afraid they would be wrong to do so because it is “irrational.” They are meant to show that the connection between “irrational” and “wrong” is contingent.
Even if you assume the point of voting is to influence something, and therefore that voting is irrational [because it in fact influences nothing], that does not necessarily constitute an argument against voting.
And if you see things as I (evidently) do, you realize that thinking the point of voting is to influence something is to misunderstand the nature of voting. And, therefore, to think that voting’s not influencing anything somehow constitutes an argument against its being done is to yourself be mistaken.
I didn’t know I saw things that way until you got me thinking about it with your response to this post, though, so this has been fun. Thanks! :-)
Second, I have no idea whether we’ve switched sides on the issues of teleology and deontology, or whether I’ve been on any side here on this blog. I hadn’t thought about it. Hmmm . . . .
I’ve always thought the one constant in life was duty. All the teleology stuff is stuff I’ve come to through my being around so many Aristotelians.
You have duties because of what/who you are. What/who you are determines your telos. I see no tension between the two, but maybe that’s because I’m tired.
Third, I’m not sure about whether I’m being a Kantian, or what exactly the issue is with “expressiveness.”
Finally, isn’t it the case that you may influence the country, but do not in fact participate in its politics (unless one of the people you convince in conversation is a politician)?
It seems to me that only politicians (and those who influence them) are actually involved in politics, on your understanding of democracy (since no one’s vote actually makes any difference in her/his nation’s politics).
Talking about something with other people who aren’t involved in something is different than participating in that something.
Let me clarify a few things. Your one vote cannot possibly influence an election. (I am, in fact, going to argue that it’s impossible as I believe the 2000 Florida difficulty completely proved. If your one vote does end up swinging the election, litigation will actually decide the election.) However, let us imagine that you write a persuasive article which changes the minds of 500 people who will vote and changes how they’re going to vote. You still have little chance of influencing a Presidential election, but since you have taken 500 votes from one side and given it to the other, your chance of having influenced the election by this method is much, much greater than your one teeny little vote. And, if it was about local politics, it’s quite possible that you have just swung the election. Thus, while voting is irrational, it is not necessarily the case that organizing votes is irrational, persuading people is irrational, or any similar activities.
I do agree that the connection between “wrong” and “irrational” are contingent. I argued that voting was irrational. I never said it was wrong. Indeed, as I said above, I think the people who argue that it is wrong are mistaken. Voting is no wronger than rooting for one’s sports team and appears to give the same psychological comfort to many people. I do not happen to be one of those people. By all means, continue to vote if you enjoy it. Your chances of dying on the way to the polls are fairly small and you’re taking a reasonably light risk for any activity which provides some marginal enjoyment. And I have certainly noticed that a great many people seem to take enormous pleasure in voting. More power to them. I am not so blessed. (I wish I were; the more not-immoral activities one finds pleasurable, the better, it seems to me.)
As for your teleological position, I was going off one post you wrote in which you expressed your approval of and agreement with Aristotle’s teleology. I won’t hold you to it if you don’t think that statement actually reflects your views. I noticed it only because that is one position on which I disagree with Aristotle. My own moral philosophy is deontological (though not Kantian). I agree with you on the importance of duty. Indeed, I think it’s the only thing of much importance. I just do not intuit a duty to vote, despite many, many people trying to instill such a sense of duty into me.
There is no necessary tension between a teleological and deontological morality in most situations. The major tension comes when one considers whether the ends justify the means. The teleologist must say that it does. The deontologist is not obligated to do so. Whether the ends justifies the means is, I believe, one of the only genuine moral debates. Most apparent debates about morals are actually debates about facts. (Curiously, this voting/non-voting argument does appear to be a genuine debate about morals rather than about facts. Nobody appears to be disputing my factual analysis. They are instead claiming that there is a duty to vote just as there is a duty to honesty, loyalty, etc.)
The reason I mentioned Kantianism is because the entirety of your first point seemed to be an argument that an act (such as not voting) must say something universal. I deny that this is true. In fact, the only philosophy I am expressing is a very particular and quite limited one. I am no more saying nobody should vote by not voting than I was saying everybody should marry my wife when I married my wife.
To clarify a little further: when I said above that your first point was an argument that not voting says something universal - e.g. you are claiming that by not voting, I am showing my disregard for my right to vote. But this isn’t true any more than by not owning a gun, I am showing disregard for my right to own a gun or by not peaceably assembling, I am showing disregard for my right to peaceably assemble, etc. If I believed that people should have a right to get an abortion, am I obligated to get an abortion?
Anyway, that’s the way I have to interpret You say it’s okay with you that you “have no say” at all in who your government is, that it’s okay for other people to pick your government for you, that it’s simply okay for other people to tell you what to do. Since we agree that I have no say in who my government is whether I vote or not, that other people will pick my government whether I vote or not, and that other people will tell me what to do whether I vote or not. You must be saying, then, that I am saying, by not voting, that it’s okay if my right to vote is taken away.
Interesting. So it’s rational to get 500 people to do something irrational? *grin* Maybe it is. That’s fascinating.
I wish to deny no previous assertion I’ve made about teleology.
I had never considered whether the belief that things have tele (that is, that things have “natures,” and that it is of the nature of every thing to actualize its nature; or to put it another way, that the primary dictum of ethics is, “Become yourself”) entails the belief that otherwise-immoral actions might legitimately be treated as amoral or good depending on the goal which they are meant to accomplish.
It doesn’t seem to me that there is any such entailment.
One factual claim which you make which someone (i.e., I) has/have been disputing is the claim that voting’s purpose is to influence government.
I don’t think your not voting says anything universal, necessarily. I think it says that you don’t think it’s important for you to even pretend to have any “say” in your government.
It says you are okay with the idea that you are not in any way part of the governing “mechanism” under which you live (i.e., that you are merely a subject, and therefore reject either the idea that you live in a “democracy” — a “rule of the people” or the idea that you are part of the “people” who rule the democratic system in which you live).
God bless you. You would not believe how many of my high school friends do not ever plan on voting (no matter what anyone ever says to them).
PS to Mr. Stevens, in regard to smaller clarification post:
“Having a say” is purposely ambiguous. :-)
Seamus–
Thanks!!! :-D
I think it says that you don’t think it’s important for you to even pretend to have any “say” in your government.
Now this is certainly true. Indeed I don’t think it’s important for me to even pretend to have any say in my government. This is quite different from “declaring myself a slave.” Then again, the more I think about that particular argument, the more I think you may have been on to something with that one. Unfortunately, to the extent that this is true, everybody seems to agree that we all are in fact slaves (to the tyranny of the majority, should the majority decide to be tyrants), so my sin apparently consists of having the bad taste to “state” what we all know to be true. Since people who don’t vote are treated no differently from people who do, obviously if I am “declaring myself a slave,” then I am also declaring everybody else a slave as well.
It says you are okay with the idea that you are not in any way part of the governing “mechanism” under which you live (i.e., that you are merely a subject, and therefore reject either the idea that you live in a “democracy” — a “rule of the people” or the idea that you are part of the “people” who rule the democratic system in which you live).
This is going too far. My right to vote is very important, irrespective of whether I actually exercise the franchise or not. In no way, by not voting, am I declaring that I am not a part of the “people” who rule the democratic system. If I were, say, to renounce my American citizenship (which only a ridiculous sum of money and a guarantee of citizenship in some other tolerable country could possibly induce me to do), then I would be saying what you claim I am saying. I can imagine circumstances in which I would certainly vote; these circumstances have not yet existed in my lifetime, but perhaps one day they will do.
Interesting. So it’s rational to get 500 people to do something irrational? *grin* Maybe it is. That’s fascinating.
It can certainly be rational to get other people to do irrational things. If I am running a poor inefficient shop and I’m getting my butt kicked by my competitor across the street, it would be perfectly rational of me to convince him to close up shop and cede his clientele to me. Whether I have any hope of actually convincing him is another matter.
I had never considered whether the belief that things have tele (that is, that things have “natures,” and that it is of the nature of every thing to actualize its nature; or to put it another way, that the primary dictum of ethics is, “Become yourself”) entails the belief that otherwise-immoral actions might legitimately be treated as amoral or good depending on the goal which they are meant to accomplish.
It doesn’t seem to me that there is any such entailment.
You may be making a distinction which I am not familiar with people making. Teleology comes from the Greek for “science of ends.” Most philosophers (though not all) use teleological and consequentialist interchangeably. The usual view of teleological ethics is that what matters is the total consequences or ends of an action. Contrast with deontological ethics which holds that the moral rightness of an action is independent of whether it has good or evil consequences. This debate is, I believe, virtually the only debate which is actually about morality rather than facts.
However, if you are operating under a different definition of teleology, that’s perfectly acceptable. You’ll forgive my confusion, I hope.
You are quite correct that we do have a factual dispute here. I do say that the purpose of voting is to influence one’s government. I am not 100% clear what you believe the purpose of voting is. Expressing yourself, being a part of a mythology, and performing a duty to the patriotic dead seem to be the major candidates, but I don’t wish to put words in your mouth.
That’s an excellent summary, I think, of the discussion so far. I’ll just leave it there. :-) Thanks!
[...] it I develop the discussion from this post, reformulating some points, adding others, and accusing all nonvoters of being noncitizens (among [...]