Isaac Lee

Voting, and why its not a duty Good citizens must vote, or so we are told. Voting is a basic form of political participation and is heavily ingrained in political philosophy since the Enlightenment. Even authoritarian countries pay lip service to democracy by having sham elections: Mubarak-era Egypt, North Korea and Myanmar all have elections in an attempt to legitimize despotic rule. As many as 32 countries make voting compulsory by law, including Westernized democracies such as Australia and Singapore. These countries see it essential that winning candidates represent a large share of the population. But voting is not a duty. Voting should be totally voluntary. Not voting means withdrawing consent from the political system. In many cases, withdrawing consent is a better choice than participation. The French Enlightenment philosopher Jean Jaques Rousseau theorized on the concept of the social contract. In many countries, the method of renewing this contract is through the democratic process. Victorious candidate can claim a mandate to rule on the behalf of citizens. But surely is it not possible that all candidates presented on the ballot are unsatisfactory or incompetent? Voting for any bad candidate is an endorsement and a show of support- for incompetence at best and evil at worst. To resolve this dilemma, the lesser of two evils concept if often brought up. This principle states that the less evil candidate is the one that should be voted for, even if that candidate is still terrible. But if you vote for a candidate solely on this principle, the candidate can claim your mandate and permission to execute reprehensible decisions. Do you really want to support evil? Sure, that evil might be less than the alternatives, but it is evil nonetheless. Pick-pocketing is less bad than armed robbery, but that does not make it any more excusable. On the other hand, not voting means that candidates can never claim your support or mandate. If you do not vote, you are not responsible for whatever evils are unleashed by a bad, winning candidate. The exception

Isaac Lee

to this is when voting is compulsory, where there is no choice to participate or not. But even in compulsory voting, there may be a none of the above option. None of the above can be used to substitute for non-participation, to show dissatisfaction at all choices presented. You have no right to complain if you dont vote is a common rebuke towards the non-voter. Nothing can be further from the truth. On the contrary, you have every right to complain about any corruption or harm that comes from a winning candidate. Non-voters have every right to complain when, for example, the government decides to bulldoze your house. After all, those who abstain are minding their own business. They seek no harm or trouble with other people. But it is the voters who elect and put dangerous people into power that are fully responsible for interfering with other peoples lives. As the late comedian George Carlin asks: where do you think bad candidates and politicians come from? They come from society, from the people at large- lawyers, businessmen, doctors, and more. But these candidates only get into power by voters. What comes out of the system is a product of what is put into the system. The democratic process reflects what society can produce. Whether the product is bad or good, it ultimately rests on the responsibility on the participants of the process. If all candidates support corruption, abuse, and squander, it is beyond the decency of anyone to even participate in the process. Dont think that abstaining from the vote is reserved for rare circumstances. It is often the case that candidates on the ballot are unsatisfactory. The views of candidates usually adhere to the prevailing orthodoxy of the day, with only minor differences that are trumpeted on. Democracy favors gradual change, rather than rapid ones. Those truly different are shunned as a fringe candidate and have little chance of winning. Butler Shaffer, a Law Professor from the Southwestern Law School, poses an interesting analogy: Voting is like being a prisoner in a penitentiary. Every four years the prisoners get to vote for the warden. One

Isaac Lee

candidate for the job promises larger cells for the inmates; the other promises improved food in the cafeteria and, perhaps, longer exercise time. Whichever candidate gets the most votes will be the next warden. It is understood, however, that the inmates will remain in prison; getting to secede from the system is not an option for them. Shaffers analogy is true for the most part, but neglects one aspect: whilst people cannot be totally free of the system and its effects, they can at least voluntarily abstain from it. If a sufficient percentage of people abstain from the system, the system loses credibility and may be ripe for true revolt. Recently, we have seen how rulers in Tunisia and Egypt are toppled when the people circumvent the broken politics that surrounds them. When politics is broken, it is perfectly permissible to abstain from voting. It can never be a duty to vote for incompetence or corruption, even in a case of the lesser of two evils.