In Question:
What are the ethics of voting? Are they different in a primary rather than a general election? Must a person always be sincere in casting his vote? Or should the process just be seen as a way of getting a point across? Is it ever permissible to vote against something, by way of voting for it's opponent?
John's take:
To boil that down to it's simplest level, I'd phrase it is what is the purpose of a citizen's vote in a representative democracy. I think the simple answer is that the purpose if for the citizen to lend his support to a candidate he wants to see in office.
But in the real word, sometimes it's a giant douche vs. a turd sandwich running for a position. Sometimes it's an asshole with a brain vs. a nice guy without one. Or hypothetically, it's Robot Hitler vs. Mutant Pol Pot, and the responsible citizen wants to have a say.
If you vote for Hitler, and he wins, you're responsible in part for his atrocities. Same with Pot. If you don't vote, then you failed to do your civic duty.
I first thought that the correct course of action when voting, regardless of who is running, is to choose the candidate you can support, or to accept irresponsibility and don't vote. But my reasoning for that was just to make things consistent. It involved making yourself Ok with Pol Pot's plans, so you support him, then if Hitler wins, you don't feel bad, and it Pot wins, you've accepted it.
But the point of democracy isn't conscience gymnastics, but to govern.
On the issues we can vote yay or nay, so why not on the candidates? A vote for one person is by nature your way of voting against everyone else. If I supported George Bush in 2004, when I voted for him, even if it was for all the "right" reasons, that could still be seen as a vote against Kerry and the independents could it not?
By that reasoning, a vote for someone, just to be against someone else, doesn't sound so bad.
I'll try to address the rest of the question after work.
If I may, I'm not so sure choosing not to vote is irresponsible. If a person is familiar with the candidates and the issues and decides neither of them serves his or her interests, what would be wrong with making the choice to not vote - a protest, of sorts? Sure, this person could vote for a third party, but we all know how futile of an effort this is, so can we really fault someone for not even bothering? Also, there is always the possibility none of the third party candidates serve the interests of this person, either.
ReplyDeleteI do think it is irresponsible to not vote because you're apathetic to the political process. In any given election, a large body of eligible voters will opt not to. I imagine most of them do so not because they bothered to learn about the candidates and didn't like any of them. Likewise, I think it is irresponsible for people to vote for petty reasons. There are people who will vote for you if they think you're cute, or if they like the sound of your name. There are people who could care less if you want to drop nukes on Canada just as long as you're in favor of legalizing/criminalizing the one issue they give a rat's ass about.
The system doesn't allow for a "nay" vote by design. We have to work around a system where only a "yay" vote is possible. So what are the dynamics of a system where you can only affirm for someone, or opt not to affirm (don't vote, inaction).
ReplyDeleteThis is giving me an idea. Let me try to flesh it out. One can make a positive statement ("this is true"), a negative statement ("this is not true"), or no statement at all, leaving the matter ambiguous.
To vote for a candidate you believe in is a flat out positive (N/A here, since no one really believes in Romney, but just see him as the least worst option).
To see all the candidates as bad and therefore don't vote in the primary is a to choose inaction. Neither a positive or a negative.
The system doesn't allow for a plain, flat out negative.
What would Herman Cain be? A double negative? Or something? And which is more appriopriate, a convoluted statement like that? Or inaction?
I thought of a good justification for being devious:
ReplyDelete"In a primary, you choose the best candidate who is most representative of the party and it's ideas. In the general election you pick the best candidate for the office, only"
It's a good dodge. But I'm not sure if I believe it. It has a ring of truth to it, but I don't know if most people would agree that the first statement is an accurate description of the purpose of a primary.
"In a primary, you choose the best candidate who is most representative of the party and it's ideas. In the general election you pick the best candidate for the office, only"
ReplyDeleteThis sounds like a cop-out. The primary is a popularity contest, not a search for the candidate that embodies the party's principles the most.
Guilty
ReplyDeleteAlthough I would like to MAKE IT be about party principles...
ReplyDeleteIt's extremely aggravating to think that Romney will be nominated simply because he can avoid putting his foot in his mouth, and he has a precise haircut, rugged good looks and an orderly fundraising operation (bankrolled in part by his own personal fortune).
At a time when ideologies are fighting it out in our culture, we're going to squander a great chance to have a decisive voice, simply because the Right can't find ANYONE worthy of championing them. We'll throw it away by defaulting to the political equivalent of a Ken Doll. Nothing will be decided because the contest will be meaningless from the start.