Read on Twitter
But you say both candidates are ~so~ noxious to you, that you feel you can’t “morally” even choose the lesser of two evils?
The aversion to consequentialism is admirable. But take a moment to consider what voting is.
The aversion to consequentialism is admirable. But take a moment to consider what voting is.
A vote, in republics, is consequentialism manifest: one can, at best, only guess at the motives of the body politic. The results of an election are yes/no, him/her, this slate or that slate.
(Proportional representation systems like the STV address this; I’ll come back to it.)
(Proportional representation systems like the STV address this; I’ll come back to it.)
In our presidential and congressional elections as they’re currently held, you—as an individual voter-apathetic protester—don’t get ranked or approval voting. But neither does any other voter.
After the election, all we have is the result—and the consequences of the result.
After the election, all we have is the result—and the consequences of the result.
I support voting systems that would enable third-party votes to not be “wasted”, reforms that would enable third parties in general to thrive in the United States, ways to make proportional minority representation a reality. These reforms aren’t as impossible as some allege.
A fight for systemic reform is righteous, and one I’ll heartily join. But it won’t be resolved this year.
We *will* have a vote under the old system in November (presuming chaos—or the mercurial will of Trump—doesn’t descend such that the election itself is endangered).
We *will* have a vote under the old system in November (presuming chaos—or the mercurial will of Trump—doesn’t descend such that the election itself is endangered).
Yes: “Election boycotting” is a real thing that happens in places where the vote isn’t free and fair, and it’s something that can be effective at least in signalling to the outside world that the public does not support the regime in power. It’s still possible that Trump could do
something that would necessitate that in some places—for instance, making voting much riskier to life and health in places likely to vote against him than places supporting him. But at this moment, that line hasn’t yet been crossed.
There is *nothing* in the circumstances of the 2020 US federal elections that make sitting out or voting for a third-party candidate or write-in *more* justified this November than in 2016, or 2012, or 2008.
But there are *many* circumstances that push in the opposite way. If you feel it’s a lesser of two evils choice, the sheer magnitude of the difference in evil is entirely unprecedented. The ongoing pandemic demands competent leadership under officials who actually want government
to succeed, who don’t see a cynical benefit for future elections in making government run worse.
The current officeholder acts in ways that are bizarre, bewildering to other countries—possibly pathological, and definitely cruel. His Capitol Hill enablers go along with the chaos.
The current officeholder acts in ways that are bizarre, bewildering to other countries—possibly pathological, and definitely cruel. His Capitol Hill enablers go along with the chaos.
The likely consequences of a Trump reelection are far, far worse than those of a Biden administration. The risks—involving dangers of every conceivable kind—are much, much greater.
The vote in a republic is consequentialism made manifest. Opting out at this time helps no one.
The vote in a republic is consequentialism made manifest. Opting out at this time helps no one.
The protests John Lewis participated in resulted in profound, tangible changes—brought about by legislation and decisions in the courts. But that is usually the way.
When is the last time popular protest WITHOUT legislative followup really brought about the change it sought?
When is the last time popular protest WITHOUT legislative followup really brought about the change it sought?
The answer, I think, is war in Vietnam. But, waging war is (or has become) a unilateral presidential power. Richard Nixon felt (or was made to feel) the power of the protests, and he eventually conceded to (some) protester demands.
Prior to that? Again, you find cases where a particular executive (president, governor, etc.) had power to enact the change demanded.
Protests *effected* change, but governmental executives *affected* it, in necessary ways.
Protests *effected* change, but governmental executives *affected* it, in necessary ways.
The demands of protesters today are not—at least, not durably—within the bounds of power of executive action. So when *was* the last time demands of this scope were enacted through protest, yet without legislative adoption?
Perhaps some would disagree with me—but I don’t think there’s a clear example of this since the American Revolution.
And, indeed, some of today’s protesters are revolutionaries (in the literal sense: seeking the overthrow of the government, to be replaced by something else).
And, indeed, some of today’s protesters are revolutionaries (in the literal sense: seeking the overthrow of the government, to be replaced by something else).
But only *some* are revolutionaries.
Maybe more in some places than others, maybe more (and surely, a higher percentage) this many weeks after George Floyd’s murder. But revolutionaries represent a tiny fraction of those who peaceably assembled in May and June.
Maybe more in some places than others, maybe more (and surely, a higher percentage) this many weeks after George Floyd’s murder. But revolutionaries represent a tiny fraction of those who peaceably assembled in May and June.
If you’re a protester on a systemic issue—in this case, meaning it’s not one that can be solved locally, or simply by winning the favor of popular opinion—then you have just two avenues of redress open to you. One: action by our three branches of government. Two: revolution.
But another thing John Lewis taught us: a revolution in our society can happen without a revolution against our Republic.
He believed, to his bones, that voting was not just a civil right—a human right—but a sacred duty.
He believed, to his bones, that voting was not just a civil right—a human right—but a sacred duty.
A word I see a lot in conjunction with what I’m calling voting-apathetic protesters: “tired”. They’re tired of having to choose between white men, tired of having to choose between capitalists, tired of having to choose between those who don’t want to abolish police.
John Lewis had every right to be tired of the slow progress—it was the subject of his 1963 March on Washington speech.
Yet, even 57 years later, he still wasn’t tired enough of it to give up.
In 2020, being “tired” of the choices in voting is no excuse.
Vote.
Vote.
VOTE.
Yet, even 57 years later, he still wasn’t tired enough of it to give up.
In 2020, being “tired” of the choices in voting is no excuse.
Vote.
Vote.
VOTE.
