Most Recent News

No change from doing more of the same

Chicago, IL
By A.B. Dada
—
On the LRC this morning, Paul Hein posts an interesting article titled Change? regarding his views that staying home on election day is the best way to promote change in the system. He states “If people want change, let them stay home on election day. The outcome will be no different, but the rulers might get the message that people no longer want to participate in the charade of voting. Perhaps – and wouldn’t this be wonderful!! – they might even get the idea that the people have become fed up with the very concept of government!” While this may sound true on its face, I feel it is completely false. I agree with Hein’s view that voting hasn’t instilled a sense of change, ever, at least in recent generations. I also don’t believe that not voting will do the opposite.

According to Wikipedia’s article Elections in the United States, in the last Presidential election in 2004, 122,295,345 voters turned out to the polls, or 59% of the legal voting population. Not quite a super-majority amount of voters actually voted, with 29.93% of eligible voters actually picking the winner. Since there wasn’t even a majority of eligible voters on the side of the winner (George W. Bush, if you weren’t aware), cutting back on the voter numbers would have no effect on promoting change. If anything, it would just make the world think of the U.S. as lazier and less involved.

Because Bush won with 50.73% of the actual voters, he can proclaim that he received the majority of the vote. It’s so close, but even if he received 48% of actual voters, the winner would still proclaim a mandate by the public. Staying home does nothing. Staying home means you’re not counted at all, except in the tiny figure that shows the amount of eligible voters taking the time to make a mandate.

My view on voting hasn’t changed in years. In a previous article years ago, I stated my opinion: Why I Vote. I used to believe that voting for the underdog made sense: your vote was counted, and it was a vote for change, many believe. But I quickly realized that the small amount of voters for a specific underdog (and underrepresented in the media candidate) meant nothing as the media doesn’t even post the percentage returns for the minor candidates. What a waste.

Instead, my view on voting is one that shows the frustration of the voters out there: the vote against everyone. In most states, write-in votes don’t count for anything, but they’re still tallied votes. I like to write my own name in, everywhere. If you’re against that idea, write in Mickey Mouse or Jesus Christ or Michael Jackson. Let the precinct managers deal with counting it, if they even bother. Be part of the exit polls to skew the media’s pronouncement of the winners (I like to pick one of the two major candidates as who I voted for if I am queried at an exit poll). Go ahead and put a bumper sticker on your car for one of the major candidates, or even both!

If more unconcerned-concerned non-voters would turn out to “throw away their vote” for themselves or a non-candidate, the media may have to take note. In that last Presidential election in 2004, 41% of eligible voters didn’t show up. 29.93% picked Bush. A few percent less picked Kerry. The non-voters had the mandate: we don’t like anyone. Wouldn’t it have been better if these voters would have just punched the equivalent of “none of the above” by writing in themselves or their favorite cartoon character?

I think so. I think this is the only possible way to proclaim to the world that we, too, are fed up with what our authoritarian leaders are doing. By staying home, we tell everyone (and ourselves) that we’re exactly the fat, lazy, irresponsible children that most consider us. By going to the polls and anti-voting, you’re telling the media, the masses and the world that you’re responsible enough to take 15 minutes out of your year, grab a ballot, and say exactly what you’re thinking: “I hate the system. I hate all the politicians. I despise the voters who think they’re instilling safety and freedom through a coercive act. I don’t want more of the same, I want less of the same. Far less.”

So while I like that Hein believes that non-voting is the only path to change, I have to disagree. I believe that the only path to change is to co-opt the system by voting no against everything: every candidate, every tax increase, every referendum, every judge, everything. Vote no by writing yourself in. Vote no by writing in your neighbor. Vote no by writing in MLK or Gandhi. What’s the worst that can happen?