In Theory: Why You Should Throw Your Vote AwayBy Stephen L. Beck A friend and I used to argue every November about the point of voting. He just thought it was a waste of time. I disagreed, but I couldn't realistically claim that my vote did any good. I still can't make that claim. I've never voted in an election that was decided by one vote, and, despite the recent fire bond vote in Lacey, I don't expect to in the future. But that seems to be the dominant idea in voting, judging by the ever-present injunction not to "throw your vote away" by voting for a candidate who isn't a nominee of either the Democratic or Republican parties. The idea seems to be that I would be "throwing my vote away" by voting for someone who doesn't have a realistic chance of winning. For my vote to count, it seems, there should be a reasonable probability that it could be on the winning side. That doesn't sound right, though; at least, I don't think that Mondale, for instance, had a reasonable probability of winning as of election day, 1984. Perhaps the real criteria for whether a vote is "thrown away" has to do with whether it's a vote for a candidate from the political mainstream. But I don't vote to be on the winning side. I vote because voting is an expression of citizenship. I mean that two ways: First, voting expresses the fact of my citizenship - by voting, I demonstrate myself to be a citizen. Second, voting is a way for citizens to express themselves - to express their ideals and principles about the common good. In short: Some vote because they are trying to achieve some good purpose, while others vote just because it is a proper activity of a citizen. The difference between the two is crucial. For if you vote in order to achieve some good purpose, you regard your vote as a tool. The question is then, "how can I best use my vote to achieve my goal?" To vote this way is to vote strategically; an election is treated like a game, and a vote is just a move in that game. On the other hand, if you view voting as an expression of citizenship, the question is rather, "what values, ideals and principles do I mean to express regarding the common good?" Here, the point is not to make a move in a game; the point is to express your citizenship by making a principled vote. While principled and strategic voting can coincide, they need not - as when a citizen doesn't vote for the candidate who best represents her own principles, but instead for the "lesser of two evils," viable, candidate. In this case, strategic voting is based on a calculation as to how that candidate will act if victorious. "Conventional wisdom" - the fancier synonym for common sense, when applied to politics - tells us what the probable results will be of the victory of one candidate or another. Our vote should aim at achieving one or the other of these futures. By contrast, principled voting ignores these calculations. The focus is on the ideals and values the candidates represent; by extension, principled voting is not as concerned with the particular results of this election as with the ideals embodied in our republic. While I think that principled voting makes sense, to many it sounds naïve. "Principled voting ignores the gritty reality of politics," goes the reply. "It sounds all very nice in theory, but we're dealing with the real world of politics here. There are important matters on the line. In politics, you have to compromise; vote for the lesser of two evils; hold your nose and vote." This reply assumes the attitude of worldly seriousness, against which principled voting is cast as starry-eyed folly. The idea seems to be that matters are too dire to concern ourselves with the ideals of the republic; instead, we must focus on the very real crises at hand. Principled voting at a time like this is akin to dusting the mantlepiece while the house is burning. The trouble, though, is that the house is always burning. We have always lived in a time of crisis, and we always will. Decision-making at the level of a national election, and often at the local and regional level as well, is always weighty. In fact, it is because we are in crisis (and perpetually so) that a vote on principle is so important. Principles are often treated as "last things" - once all practical matters are attended to, we can attend to principles. But principles must be first, they must be fundamental to our actions, if they are principles at all. They must be at the basis of our most important actions, or else they are merely pious words, to be spoken when nothing is at stake. While I think principled voting stands on its own, I want to leave you with the thought that principled voting may also have better, longer-lasting benefits than strategic voting. Remember that while voters make calculations about politicians, politicians also make calculations about voters. If enough citizens prove that they will vote their principles without calculation, candidates will need to better represent those principles to gain those votes. So, paradoxically, it may be that the way to achieve the best result with your vote is not to aim at the best result, but to vote your principles. Does this thinking sound too calculating? Then it shouldn't appeal to a principled voter. But if you're a strategic voter and it does appeal to you, then the thing to do is forget all political calculations, including the one above, and become a principled voter. Stephen L. Beck is Managing Editor of the Green Pages.
Back to Home page. |
