While reading Andrew Sullivan’s latest column concerning the insanity in Washington, I was reminded about an article on ethical voting I saw a while back. First, let me cite Andrew’s article, which at this point is discussing the anonymous op-ed:
If Anonymous quits, he will only empower the president’s worst anti-democratic instincts, and make way for someone else who will likely enable authoritarianism. If he stays, he is undermining the very democracy he is trying to protect, by conducting what is effectively a soft coup on behalf of the “steady state” and that part of the GOP that decisively lost to Trump in the primaries.
And that lead me to consider the problem of that part of the GOP that lost “decisively” in the primaries to Trump-backed candidates. If you’re a never-Trumper conservative, who should you be voting for, or even voting at all? The article on ethical voting is, I believe, this one in Quartz, and has the following passage:
“As a citizen, I have a duty to others because it’s not just me and my principles, but everybody,” says [philosophy professor Michael] LaBossiere, who favors the utilitarian approach. “I have to consider how what I do will impact other people. For example, if I was a die-hard Bernie supporter, I might say my principles tell me to vote for Bernie. But I’m not going to let my principles condemn other people to suffering.”
And the current contretemps of the United States, if we individually recognize it, is certainly illustrative of the truth of that paragraph, isn’t it? Upon those who voted for Bernie, those who might have voted Democratic but didn’t vote at all because of some concern over Hillary, as well as those who voted for Trump, falls the blame for the damage being done to the foundations of our liberal democracy, from the fallacious attacks on the free press to our international relations and alienation of key allies, while enabling the malign ambitions of the Russians.
If you’re shaking your head in denial, I’m sorry, but it’s true.
The narcissistic nature of today’s American society is, I suspect, partially to blame. I say this from the viewpoint that, because it’s a single vote, how much impact can it have in a State of some millions? I know that I’ve personally argued on an occasion or two (prior to the opening of UMB) that the worth of the individual’s vote is not in its use, but that it exists as a passport to participation in society’s institutions. But it should be now clear that it must be exercised to be fully qualifying for that access to institutions.
Moreover, it’s a selfish viewpoint, because it presupposes that we must have an individual, substantial impact with that vote, or it’s not worth exercising. But the fact is that we have just as much electoral impact as the millionaire in his mansion, and that should be a source of great joy, because in our previous incarnation as an English colony, that millionaire, that member of a more elevated class, really did have more impact than the common guy in the street. The consequence of that was a society preoccupied with the higher classes, and resulted finally in the Revolution.
With the privilege of voting and participating comes the responsibility of voting for the best possible outcome. This doesn’t mean simply evaluating each candidate for fidelity to your values, or who makes the most expansive promises, but finding that candidate who has demonstrated competency in governing, who has ideals and goals at least somewhat compatible with yours, and has a chance of winning.
Being too disgusted to vote sounds sexy, even realistic, but in the end it’s an abdication of responsibility, particularly when it means you don’t vote at all, rather than skipping a particular race. Take the time to research and evaluate, because that’s part of being an American citizen – you are seriously offered an opportunity to help select our leaders, why blow it off? Because you’re lazy? Unacceptable. Because none of the candidates meet your standards? Maybe you should be out there researching what it would take to run yourself – and maybe you’ll learn a thing or two about those very issues you thought weren’t addressed properly.
As hard as it is to accept that your 3rd party candidate isn’t going to win, it’s usually the reality, and if you want to make a true contribution to the task of governance, voting for that 3rd party candidate may enable the candidate you really didn’t like to win the race.
That’s how our electoral system currently works.
Perhaps we should be discussing ranked voting as a replacement system for all races, as they’ve started using in Minneapolis, but that’s another post. We have to work with what we have, and if you refuse to recognize that reality, then you’re part of the problem.
Not part of the solution.
