Shaming nonvoters reflects neoliberal ideology where the blame for social issues focuses on personal behavior while ignoring a larger social context.

“Neoliberalism shifts responsibility for public welfare from governments to individual and markets.”- Abigail C. Saguy

Vote shamers shift responsibility for public welfare from the politicians—and the state as a whole—to individuals. Under this transformation, nonvoters and 3rd party voters become partially, if not wholly, responsible for conditions post-elections.

We’ve all heard the cliche that a person can’t complain if they didn’t vote. The assumption propping up this platitude is that the nonvoter can’t complain because they helped create these conditions.

Another example are the people who argue that Hillary Clinton was entitled to votes (whether she spoke to your interests or not) because voting for her was the responsible thing to do in the face of Trump.

Rarely if ever do these people wage a critique about the system that presents people with an illusion of choice through use of a duopoly.

So why do people engage in vote shaming? At its core, it’s a way for people to reduce dissonance that comes from feeling powerless.

They see and experience a society entrenched with problems, and they’re told that voting is only--or at least the most impactful--way of addressing social issues.

Voting allows these people to feel like they did something. They’re able to get rid of that dissonance (at least until the next election). “Encouraging” others to vote also allows them feel like they did something.

In the pursuit of trying to find empowerment, many people simply assume that shaming is a successful route of getting people to vote. Who wants to upset the ancestors right?

Nonvoter shamers get upset with those who chose not to vote and those who point out the limitations and contradiction associated with bourgeois electoral politics b/c it threatens the sense of power they derive from voting and "encouraging" others to vote.

Hence why you can’t even offer a nuanced opinion about voting (or speak against shaming) without someone parachuting in to accuse you of encouraging people not to vote or discounting voting as a whole.

Shaming nonvoters also allows people to direct their anger (often resulting from their sense of powerless). Being angry at the institutions seems unproductive b/c they feel like they are here to stay and are slow to change. So guess who becomes an easy target? nonvoters.

I suggest that folks critically investigate why people don’t vote. This means looking at obstacles that prevent people from doing it, but also listening to the people who have the ability to do so and choose not to.

I also suggest people look beyond the individual and look at the social structure on which bourgeois electoral politics operate. You may find that you’ve misdirected your anger. You may decide to aim it at the system, and not the people who are catching hell from it.

@threadreaderapp unroll