I have voted in every civic, provincial and federal election I could since my 18th birthday. Not to do so, I thought, would have been to take democratic freedom for granted, to abdicate my responsibility as a citizen. But on Tuesday, as my fellow Manitobans went to the polls, I stayed home.
I wasn't too busy. I didn't forget. I wasn't even one of those principled abstainers who dutifully spoil a ballot in vague protest. I just didn't bother voting.
A couple of weeks ago, as the inanity and acrimony of our provincial election campaign wore on, I realized that I no longer accept the popular doctrine that good citizens are obliged to vote regardless of all other factors, or that voting is as central to democracy as the "get out the vote" proponents seem to believe.
I know my view is not popular, but I doubt I'm the only person who, when poised behind a cardboard shield with a little pencil in hand, has felt both a tinge of freedom at the site of a fresh ballot as well as a decided dissatisfaction at the available options, the combative nature of campaigns and the fact that this climatic act of democracy consists only of making a small mark on a piece of paper. I'm not the only person who has felt insulted by the cliches and spin that dominate political debate.
I must qualify my defence of not voting by saying that in some elections, the choices are stark, the consequences substantial and the races tight -- in such cases I vote, while holding my nose. I also believe citizens bear a responsibility for the betterment of society. I don't advocate apathy in general, I just think the popular emphasis on voting has created a simplistic impression of civic responsibility.
While the ability of citizens to occasionally oust legislators is a fundamental tenet of democracy, this does not mean that when the policies of the leading parties are very similar, and both have obviously been willing to sacrifice integrity for the sake of power, that I should still trundle over to the ballot box and choose the lesser of evils.
Here in Manitoba, the incumbent NDP and the challenging Progressive Conservatives both promised more doctors, more nurses, and more police officers. One offered "A better Manitoba for everyone;" the other "Vision, change, progress." What a fount of fresh creativity! Neither said much about the environment. Both sides spent big bucks on attack ads, leaving the moral low ground overcrowded.
To further blur the differences, when the PCs tried, predictably, to depict the NDP as "soft on crime," the NDP responded by pronouncing their unqualified support of the federal Conservatives' tough omnibus crime bill, saying the bill should go even further than it does. The NDP also promised to balance the budget four years sooner than the fiscally conservative PCs.
Commentators said they had never see so little to distinguish between the parties, yet the leaders claimed that much was at stake in this election. Indeed, for them there was much at stake -- their personal positions in the pecking order of power. Though the election resulted in few seats changing hands, NDP leader Greg Selinger solidified his political cred -- after taking over from the popular Gary Doer in 2009, part way through Doer's term -- and PC leader Hugh McFadyen had to give up his dream of occupying the premier's chair, announcing he will step down as leader of his party. For the rest of us, the stakes were relatively low.
Was this election the climax of democracy? In some ways it was. Citizens were allowed to elect leaders in a free and orderly fashion. That is foundational.
But were campaign strategists and backroom PR schemers engaged in democracy? Does antagonism in the airwaves further the cause of democracy? And, while I'm at it, what is the democratic value of lawn signs? How is democracy served by an explosion of simplistic residential advertising? And how exactly is a sign on someone's lawn supposed to influence my decision about who should lead our province -- other than as a particularly inaccurate sort of poll that could inform, or misinform, a strategic vote? Is governing just a glorified high school popularity contest?
Call me cynical if you want, but who is served by pretending this whole process is worthy of unquestioning participation? If voter turnout reached 95 per cent, but most people voted only in purely selfish hopes of reducing their personal tax bills, would that be a good day for democracy?
Canadians commonly say that if you don't vote you can't complain. Is that to say that the purpose of voting is to gain the right to complain freely? Are voting and whining the essence of democratic participation? No more so than freedom of expression, which would have to include the right of non-voters to complain.
Did I take freedom for granted by not voting? Did I snub the millions (or billions) who long for the same opportunity? One could make that argument, but why distill the benefits of our democratic society to a momentary, quadrennial act? Disproportionate emphasis on voting obscures the importance of broader involvement in the betterment of society.
So vote if you choose, but also volunteer (if you are able), stay informed about public issues, knock on politicians' doors and participate in community organizations. Don't waste time telling people they must vote, engage them in the betterment of society.
Neil Boyd: The B.C. Liberals Embrace the Crime Bill: The Principle Is Political Expediency
David Vines: Making Voting Easier for Every American
What you are forgetting is that:
1. Democracy is about compromises. With so many different view points we have to look for the best compromise at the time. That is why we have term limits on these positions. With the term expirations and their performance we have the ability to vote in different leaders.
2. Passing judgements and pulling yourself out of the democratic process is easy, it does not require any effort but neither does it bring about any change. Democracy requires involvement. If you are unhappy with the candidates in the running, you have the option to express your displeasure to the parties. You could have facebook/twittered about it early on, you could have written to the candidates directly, you could have started a grass roots movement or enlisted the support of other parties. You live in democracy, you had so many options. But rather than prompting people to action you instead chose to sit at home and pass judgements. This is not how democracies are defended. People made many sacrifices for this, but you are not willing to work for change if you are so unhappy with the current situation?
Would Mr. Braun still feel this way if we had a totalitarian who barred voting? It' is certainly his choice not to vote, but perhaps he should remember that there are people who wait in line for hours to vote, who risk death to vote, or people who can't vote. It's a pathetic voter apathy which is eroding the rights of people all over the world. It is voter apathy which allowed the current PM to win a majority, despite only winning 39% of the vote. It is voter apathy which has allowed the GOP in the states to hijack the American economy.
Mr. Braun, choose not vote, but make sure you choose wisely.
people might make the choice not to vote and why they might make that choice. Braun tries to ask these questions and so much of the response here is trying to force the dialogue back into the framework of "civic duty to vote/ do as you're told" dogma.
Discussing not voting as a legitimate choice lends itself to discussions of meaningful questions. Why aren't spoiled and protest ballots counted in any substantial way? Shouldn't a voter turnout of less than 50% mean that the parties running disband and we start again? How is choosing between two identical parties/candidates a choice? How do we keep governments accountable?
If you prefer your politics in the ballot box, don't demand that we all stay in there too.
Low voter turnout is a complex issue, but perhaps "apathy" is actually an expression of satisfaction. I'm in my 40's and, although I grew up in a working class family (my Dad was a logger), I've never missed a meal in my life, and never had to sleep outdoors unless I was camping. So obviously, the system of governance we live under is doing some major things right. If unemployment hit 20%, I'm sure we'd see the turnout increase.
In the meantime, I would argue that there are differences between the existing parties on issues of importance. As an example, I can't imagine the federal Liberals or NDP contemplating the crime legislation that the current government is enacting. Whichever side you more closely agree with on this issue, there is clearly a difference, and there is a difference on many other issues as well.
Are you registering your dissent or do you have trouble with aiming a pencil? No one knows.
It would be different if there was a way to tally protest ballots and that tally had some kind of tangible result.
The less voters that turn out the stronger the singnal to polictial parties that they are free to do whatever they want. The more people that vote the stronger the message to policticans trhat we are watching them and we will come out in full force and get rid of them if they don't keep us first and foremost in their agendas to govern.
Until we get some kind of proportional representation, I will continue this non-voting policy when the result is (virtually) pre-ordained. However, if my lone vote can be added to a province- or country-wide pool of votes that will help my chosen Party get some 'wild card' seats, I'll be first in line.
More importantly, the percentages various opposition parties get influence government policy. In the 1960's and 70's, as the NDP gained more popular support, the governing Liberals were forced to adopt NDP social policies to keep power. In the 1990's, as the Reform party gained support, the Liberals adopted their fiscal policies. And ultimately, it's not really about which candidate or party gets elected is it? It's about whether governments as a whole make good policy decisions.
Your reasons for disapproving of the candidates are your own and are therefore valid. Your excuses for not at least participating in the process don't really cut it though. At least go to the polls and spoil your ballot. You can even scribble on it "I choose none of the above."
But the right to vote is too important not to appreciate it and participate.
Fanned for the opinion, name, and Benny Hill pic.