It takes a real lack of imagination and a lemming-like partisanship to tell someone that if they decide not to vote, they are “voting” for the opposition.
As the “Make Sanders drop out for the good of the Democratic Party” movement ramps up this week in the corporate-owned news media and amongst Clinton supporters, the strategy of guilting those who in good conscience cannot vote for Clinton is gaining speed and mass. To that mass I say, “Go f**k yourselves.”
This isn’t a unique situation, nor is the emotional intensity uncommon. Regardless of party affiliation, this dysfunctional dynamic plays out every four to eight years when there are close races. In all instances, criticizing those who choose not to vote is a faulty argument and one that we need to stop making.
Why is it faulty?
1) It’s a demand that people compromise their strongly held beliefs.
The problem isn’t that people lack good citizenship. The problem is that our current electoral system sucks.
The assumption that people make about those who consciously choose not to vote or to vote only for, say, down-ticket races is that they are being petulant, pouting because they cannot get their way. Perhaps that’s true of some, but if you have studied candidates thoroughly, weighed their merits as people and on the basis of their policy proposals, choosing not to vote isn’t petulant or impulsive. It is measured and thoughtful and difficult. Demanding that someone vote against their conscience when all choices are godawful poor and destructive is not fair. (“Life isn’t fair!” I hear someone shouting about now. F**k you very much. I’m aware of that.)
2) It’s the wrong solution to the wrong problem. Think about it. When you are guilted into making a choice you don’t want to make, how does it make you feel? Angry. Pissy. Resentful. Now for those of you who may have been in a long-term relationship with someone who perpetually guilted you into acting against your interests, how long did that relationship last? How healthy was it?
Exactly.
When we are given bad choices repeatedly, we lose interest in choosing. That is the real problem that non-voting voters face. If the system and its supporters discourage participation by proposing bad policy and poor candidates, voters do what is natural: they disengage.
The problem isn’t that people lack good citizenship. The problem is that our current electoral system sucks.
So what can be done? What is the right solution?
A step in the correct direction would be ranked choice voting. It would make this argument moot.
Ranked choice voting allows voters to rank candidates in order of preference, rather than simply the either/or system we have today. Voters are allowed to rank as many candidates as they wish. With it, we could eliminate primary elections and provide more inclusive elections for multiple political parties.
Ranked choice voting is currently used in Australia, Ireland, New Zealand, Malta, North Ireland and Scotland. Eleven U.S. cities currently use it as well.
Here’s how it works:
If a candidate in a single-position race (say Mayor or President), wins more than half of the first choice votes, that candidate wins.
If no candidate has more than half of those votes, then the candidate with the fewest first choice votes is eliminated. At that point, the voters who supported that candidate have their votes added to the total of their next best choice.
The best thing: It’s guilt-trip free. There’s no incentive to badger your fellow citizens to vote against their interests in a race among candidates they despise. Democracy doesn’t get turned into a partisan bitchslap contest.
This process continues until a candidate has more than half of the active votes or when only two candidates remain. The candidate with a majority of votes at that point is declared the winner.
You can learn a lot more about ranked choice voting here.
The point is this: Ranked choice voting eliminates the need for torturous primary elections, minimizes the polarizing effect of “straight ticket” voting, and allows everyone the opportunity to vote their conscience in a general election. No more guilt. No more holding your nose while voting.
Imagine that you are a big supporter of Bernie Sanders. Going into the general election, you’re told that your candidate has a lot of support, but not as much as Hillary Clinton. Fine. Knowing that you can vote for Bernie as your first choice and rank Clinton lower gives you a sense of authentic participation in the election. The same would be true of Martin O’Malley supporters, or Jill Stein’s. You may all have the same spectrum of progressive beliefs, so you will vote accordingly. You would likely rank Republicans last on your ballot. However, the interesting thing is that you may rank some Republicans above some Democrats, Independents or Green Party candidates. So even if you’re 5th choice is the one that gets elected, you had some voice in making that decision. It isn’t your ideal choice, but you influenced the group decision.
The best thing: It’s guilt-trip free. There’s no incentive to badger your fellow citizens to vote against their interests in a race among candidates they despise. Democracy doesn’t get turned into a partisan bitchslap contest. Progressives or conservatives on every point of the continuum can vote their consciences and not be shamed.
So let’s stop characterizing the glaring flaws in the current system as a failure of individual ethics. Rather, when voters choose not to vote they are voting – against the system of elections itself, looking for a solution. Ranked choice voting is one intelligent way to resolve the issue, and one that we should all be demanding. If we don’t, the status quo will go on.
Until then, lay off the guilt. It makes for a poor relationship to democracy. At the end of the day, the only one guilty of electing a repulsive candidate, to be fair, are the voters who voted for that candidate.