As I've said before, I think voting is pretty swell and not just because you get a nifty "I Voted" sticker (although I always wear that sticker for the entirety of election day.) So, it's no surprise that I was rather miffed when I read that Dr. James Dobson plans not to vote in the 2008 election if Senator John McCain receives the Republican nomination.
I'm tempted to launch into an "everyone and their brother needs to vote" rant, but I'm discovering the importance of thinking before I blog. Therefore, I'll put a few questions to you instead.
1. Do you think it's ever appropriate to abstain from voting? If so, when?
2. What potential good could come from abstaining from voting?
Your thoughts and opinions would be most appreciated. And a quick shout out to JP Sander! See, now you've been mentioned on a blog.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
I think in many cases it's entirely appropriate not to vote. If you don't know what's the best policy, then abstaining is perfectly legitimate. Even if you think you know and are wrong, it's better not to vote. Most issues are disguised behind political mumbo-jumbo so figuring out what is right or true is difficult. We can't just analyse motives, because plenty of evil is done in the name of good intentions. Unfortunately, the effects of policies are much harder to understand.
As far as voting for politicians, it's unfortunate that we have to support people instead of policy. When you cast a vote, you support everything the politician stands for. It comes down to whether the good outweighs the bad, and besides being a morally questionable tactic, it's a difficult decision. Better to not support someone at all than be wrong.
If it ends up being McCain vs. a democrat, I probably won't vote (certainly I won't vote for either of the frontrunners). I can see plenty of good coming from it. I would save money and time by not casting a mail-in ballot. I think an hour of prayer would be FAR more beneficial than voting. And I don't mean that in a "look how holy Toph is" sense, but I honestly don't think voting would change any of America's economic and foreign policy, and I couldn't in good conscience support either candidate.
John Stossel has a good article about voting. I basically commandeered a bunch of points from him. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/08/economic_illiteracy.html
But anyway, that's my little anti-voting rant.
Hi Toph,
I'm going to respectfully disagree, but as one who hasn't spent as much time thinking about this issue as you have.
I should note that I do agree about abstaining from voting when one is not well-versed on the issues (I did this with a proposition this year). However, this scenario assumes that one has already failed a civic responsibility; namely, to understand the issues! Thus, this rationale for not voting strikes me as a perpetual "plan b," and not as a primary reason not to vote. I think alternative forms of media can help us to think objectively about these issues, and come to convictions more quickly (this was certainly true in California, where the recent Indian gaming commercials were downright nauseating after awhile).
To me, a justified non-vote must meet one of these two criteria;(1) the differences between the frontrunners are immaterial, or (2) the changes that the candidates want to implement aren't realizable. As for (1), it seems clear to me that the two prospective frontrunners are divergent in a number of significant ways. This is transparent as regards national security. Moreover, it is clear with regard to the universalization of healthcare, which has huge economic and social implications. As for abortion, McCain strikes me as moderate to conservative on the issue, while Hillary and Barack are perhaps the two most vehemently pro-choice presidential candidates in history. See...
http://townhall.com/columnists/TerenceJeffrey/2008/01/09/obama_is_the_most_pro-abortion_candidate_ever
Anyways, I think (1) is out of the question. Then there's the issue of whether (2) is viable. Are the changes realizable? How can we tell? There's no way at present.
All that to say, I'm not sure if I
would see the criteria as being met in the present case. Can you think of more criteria that would justify a non-vote?
Anyways, let me know what you think. Moreover, as one who voted (along with about 36 other people in California) for Ron Paul, I can sympathize with your ambivalence over the candidates.
Hi Jeff, thanks for the response. I can think of one more significant criterion: that all the possible candidates will make things worse. I certainly agree that McCain and Hillary have different stances on certain issues, but overall, I don't think either of them are eager to follow the Constitution. I can't support a candidate that would go to war without Congressional declaration, further socialize the economy (and I don't mean just medicine, which is already pretty socialized), and expand government powers. And while McCain might say he wouldn't do the last two, I don't see his record consistently showing that. (If you know otherwise, please tell me! I would love to vote for someone who does care about the free market.)
As for abortion, I definitely think McCain is more likely to end Roe v. Wade than any democrat. But his general disrespect for human life (promising more wars and wanting to stay in the Middle East for 100 years) don't make me think it's likely to happen.
I think studying economics can answer the dilemma of #2. By understanding the nature of the market and government intervention, we can see whether certain plans work or not. Now, whether the politician follows up on them is another case, and I agree we can't really know what the future president will do when he/she takes office.
Hi Toph,
I think that could be a good criterion, though in this case it seems to leave too much room for interpretation. However, I concur about McCain's comment regarding Iraq. Would we really have condoned this war (well, I suppose the congress didn't really condone it in the first place) if we thought we were going to be over there for 100 years? There's enough ambiguity as it is about being in Iraq! I suppose Ron Paul was prophetic (again) in noting that when congress doesn't agree on the terms of war, we get wars that never end.
First, to answer the question at hand, I think Jeff's criteria and possibly Toph's addition are potential reasons to not vote, though I'm skeptical of Toph's. That is, there probably are times when not voting is a good option. But I've never seen one, and I think the coming general is far from it.
First off, McCain and Hill-Bama are much farther from each other than many strong conservatives are willing to admit (and I am indeed a strong conservative fiscally and socially, with a few nuances on each aspect). This includes the war (troubling McCain comments and all), abortion (which, if it continues, would easily take more human lives over the course of the next hundred years than would even a hundred year long war), socialized medicine, and yes, general fiscal policy. Most notably to answer your question Toph, while I don't love McCain's record, despite voting in '01 and '03 against the Bush tax cuts, in '06 (the most recent vote on them) he voted to extend them. Perhaps he had a change of mind? And I think he signed the "no new tax pledge" though I'm not as sure on that.
That being said, I think the point is clearest when we consider Toph's last criterion: will both candidate make things worse? Even if the answer is yes, it is still reasonable to vote if one of the candidates will make things not-as-worse as the other.
Thus, while Barack Obama is as utterly liberal as they come, if he was running against Hitler, I'd vote for Obama. I think the country would get worse, but not as bad as if Hitler became the president.
And heck, if you're really that ambivalent/negative about both major candidates, go out and vote for a third-party candidate you like. S/he won't win, but maybe it'll push us towards a three party system, which I think would do immeasurable good for America.
Like how Jeff voted for Ron Paul. Of course he wasn't going to win, but perhaps it helps in the future.
Andrew
Wow. I was going to post and then Andrew pretty much said everything that I wanted to say (and most likely in a much more lucid fashion.) Thanks!
Hi Andrew,
I do think McCain at least speaks more like a free-market supporter than anybody still in the race (minus Ron Paul, whom I did vote for in the primary). And I recognize that he's better on taxes than most Republicans. But cutting taxes is kind of useless with cutting spending, and McCain's site is pretty vague about what spending he would cut. By supporting the war, he would do far worse to the economy than socialized medicine. Because the war is paid for mostly by the Federal Reserve printing new bills, inflation will run rampant (even more so than now), and the effect is just as bad or worse than new taxes.
I agree that my argument leaves lots of room for interpretation, and because of different viewpoints on what's better, it's not likely to convince many. But in the Hitler/Obama race, it would be difficult to know who was worse: I'm no Nazi scholar, but the party platform seems to be pretty standard socialist rhetoric (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/document/nca_vol4/1708-ps.htm). No candidate will run on a "kill the Jews" campaign. Any evil has to be hidden beneath politically friendly words.
My point is more moral than pragmatic. I don't confess to know who would be the least bad candidate out of the three. But I can't support anyone who wouldn't follow the Constitution (which is pretty much every president to date). I'm not even a huge fan of the Constitution -- it paves the way for a strong executive, legalizes the income tax, and allows "private property be taken for public use" with "just compensation." (That's kind of a twist on the original context, but it's still true.)
Of course, if I could vote against a candidate, as W.C. Fields wished to do, I would. But at this point, I can't lend my support to any contender.
Apologies to lengthening this more, but the reason I don't plan on voting for a third party candidate, is simply that it's a waste of time. The system is designed to not allow a third party. But I don't hold onto this view very tightly. Thanks for the discussion.
I just stumbled upon your blog while searching on another topic.
While I think we all should exercise our freedom to vote, this is the first year that I so strongly feel that all the candidates need to be thrown out and we need a "do over". There are simply no good choices.
So... voting or not, I feel we should all PRAY. Pray for whomever God places in the position of President, and pray for our country, and pray for the hearts of our neighbors, friends, families and even the hearts of our enemies to turn to the Lord.
Post a Comment