Citizenship and voting.

[thorfinn]

Apropos of strepsil's post regarding being forced to join the electoral roll, I figured I'd post my opinions regarding Citizenship, what I think it means, and why, in a democracy, it's crucial for a Citizen to get out there and vote correctly, rather than spoiling their vote or not voting at all.

"Citizen" and "State" are intertwined concepts. A Citizen is a member of a State and a State is composed of the sum of and the interaction between its Citizens. They aren't separable concepts. You can't have a Citizen without a State for that Citizen to belong to and you can't have a State with no Citizens that go to make up that State. In a representative democracy, the basic concept is that Citizens are formed into groups, who then elect representatives of those groups, and those representatives are responsible for the process of government and lawmaking. Group formation, houses of parliament, the form and nature of parliament vs executive, etc, are details which vary between representative democracies. You should go find out about the details for your locality, because they matter, but they're not the key thing I'm here to talk about in this post.

The key thing is that as a Citizen of a democratic State, your chance to influence politics comes when you get to vote on something. Whether that vote is in a referendum, a local election, a regional election, a federal election, or some other time, that vote is the only chance that you get to express your view directly. There are plenty of ways to express it indirectly, for example, by writing letters to your representatives, influencing the media, etc, etc, but they are just that, indirect.

Now, let's jump back to the theoretical State entity. The point of a State is to have a particular form and methodology, and the aim of a State is, theoretically, to ensure that its Citizens are cared for as best as possible. Different States, obviously, do that differently, and strike different balances, and succeed or fail in different ways, but ultimately, that is the responsibility and purpose of the State as an entity. In a democratic state, the State is informed directly about the wishes of its Citizens by the votes of those Citizens, whenever a vote comes up.

Over to Citizens. As a Citizen, you're theoretically being looked after by the State. If you wish to express views about how that State is run, it is your responsibility to get out there and inform the State of your views. In a democracy, as already said above, but it bears repeating, the only time you get to express that view directly is when you cast a vote. That makes it crucial that you actually get out there and do so. If your genuine informed opinion is, "meh, these outcomes are all the same", then okay, spoil your vote, or don't vote. Bear in mind, though, that not voting is your active choice, and it is a choice that means that you are specifically accepting the consequences of the vote, whatever the consequences be.

In a democracy, because you can vote, it is not valid to say, "Well, I didn't vote, so Little Johnny/The Shrub isn't my fault." That's a completely bogus statement. In fact, quite the opposite is true. By not voting, you have expressly accepted the Will Of The Voters As Expressed By The Results Of The Vote, and if that is to put in Little Johnny or The Shrub (leaving aside questions of electoral fraud), then that's what you voted for by not voting. Only if you voted against, do you have even a skerrick of credibility, if the State goes and does something you don't like. You're still responsible for it, since a Citizen is always a part of the State, and thus is always partially responsible for anything the State does... But if you didn't express your will when you had the chance, then you don't even have a partial quitclaim on that responsibility.

If you think "I'm in a safe Blah Party seat, my vote doesn't count", that's utterly wrong. Even in a "safe" seat, the margins count, because they indicate to the party in question whether their political base is happy or not. Also, particularly hated politicians have lost elections in supposedly "safe" seats before, resulting in them being unable to be part of the government. You can make that happen. It happens more often in by-elections than general elections, but it has happened in both.

In Australia, because we have preferential voting, go out and vote against those you don't like, by numbering the ballot in reverse. Give your most hated party or politician the highest number available, and work downwards from most hated to least hated. A preferential voting system is designed to keep out the most hated options, rather than keep in the most liked options, so vote that way consciously.

The U.S. is different. You do not have preferential voting. A vote for someone who doesn't even have a chance is basically a wasted vote and you might as well not have voted at all. So, think carefully. If there are only two clear front runners nearing vote time, choose between those two, don't waste your vote on an also-ran. (Somebody correct me if this paragraph is wrong.) EDIT (corrections based on lederhosen and blarglefiend's comments): Thus, you have to think a bit differently. You can vote for someone who isn't already a front-runner, which means sacrificing your vote this time round. The idea with doing so is to exert a longer term influence, either by making your candidate look like a decent chance for next time or by dragging one of the front-runners in the direction of who you voted for. The other option is to vote short-term for a specific candidate, if you feel there is a difference between the front runners that matters to you more than exerting a longer term influence towards a minority runner. Or, of course, if you genuinely prefer a front runner, then vote for them.

Anyway, what all this is really saying is, "Inform yourself, get out there and actually vote." It's the only chance you get to exercise your political will directly, and if you don't use it, you cannot disavow responsibility for the results. As a Citizen of Australia, I will be exercising my political will at every chance I get, and I exhort you, if you are a Citizen of this or any other democratic State, to go out and exercise your political will at every chance you get, too.

Comments

[p-cat.livejournal.com]

I have a very strong view based on sentiment rather than logic.

How many thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, of people die, or are imprisoned, fighting for their right to vote?

How dare we be so lazy or blase about going to a local polling booth, where we might spend just a few minutes queuing and then filling out a simple form. We don't even have to vote for preferentially for Senate candidates in this country if we don't wish to.

What a sign of privilege that is taken for granted when citizens can't be bothered to vote. What a wicked waste.

[p-cat.livejournal.com]

"By not voting, you expressly accepted the Will Of The Voters As Expressed By The Results Of The Vote"

In countries where voting is not compulsory, the likelihood of conservative candidates winning is significantly higher, because the demographics which tend to support such candidates are more likely to vote. Apparently conservative voters are more highly motivated - if it rains on election day in a state where voting is not compulsory, the conservative candidate is more likely to get a higher share of the votes.

Hear, hear!

[politas.livejournal.com]

Very well written up, Thorff. You have expressed clearly and concisely almost every reason that people should vote. I've written similar things, but never so comprehensive.

Thanks. I'll add this one to my memories list.

[lederhosen.livejournal.com]

The U.S. is different. You do not have preferential voting. A vote for someone who doesn't even have a chance is basically a wasted vote and you might as well not have voted at all. So, think carefully. If there are only two clear front runners nearing vote time, choose between those two, don't waste your vote on an also-ran. (Somebody correct me if this paragraph is wrong.)

Yes and no.

In the short-term, a vote for (e.g.) Nader has no effect on the outcome of an election. But there are two good longer-term reasons why one might want to do so.

(1) In a two-party system, the inevitable tendency is for the two parties to drift closer together, competing for the middle ground and taking the rest of their side of the spectrum for granted. The end result is that you end up with two indistinguishable parties, with the outcome determined by factors other than policies.

For those who don't sit in the increasingly narrow ground between Democrats and Republicans, the threat of voting for a third party is a powerful one. Without somebody to the left of them, the Democrats can only drift right. (Using Nader as an example here - one could equally well swap sides and look at Buchanan's role in the last election.) And a threat's only effective if you're willing to carry it out.

(2) If you want to *make* an alternative to the two existing parties, you have to build them up. The more people vote Green this election, the less they look like a 'wasted vote' next time around.

Voting third-party in a US-style election is basically a decision to sacrifice short-term influence in the hope of effecting longer-term change. Whether one makes that choice depends a lot on how much difference one sees between the two majors (Bush has done a fair bit to widen that gap in the last four years).

[blarglefiend.livejournal.com]

In the US (or other similar systems) one may choose to vote for a third-party candidate without "wasting" one's vote, particularly in cases where there's a clear front-runner in your particular electorate. It won't affect the outcome (then again, however you voted you wouldn't have affected the outcome), but enough people doing it (where "enough" varies, but doesn't have to be huge) can indicate to the incumbent Parties that there's some actual dissatisfaction.

Right-wing Christian fundamentalists in very safe Bush territory may, for example, choose to express their displeasure with his failure to execute familiy planning people by voting for that guy whose essay I can't find now.

(And of course if nobody ever votes for a third party, how the hell are you supposed to break the lock-in the incumbents have? Sure, short-term the practical thing to do is to vote for the lesser of two evils, but does that really advance things in the longer term? No, of course it doesn't, it just reinforces their view that they're right.)

[sly-girl.livejournal.com]

Erm. Um. By voting you are seldom utilising direct influence on decision-making. I vote
for John Smith, John Smith then makes the decisions. I do not directly influence what decisions
he makes. Even in a referendum, you aren't utilising direct influence because referendums, god
bless them, are usually stacked in favour of the way the government wants them to come out. Why
don't we have a republic? Is it because a) a majority of Australians don't want a republic or
b) because we had a referendum specifically designed to manipulate people's confusion and result
in a no vote? A vote is a good tool but it's not a direct one.

Also, voting is not your only vehicle fo exercising power. Joining political parties, trade
unions, professional societies, even charities is a powerful thing to do. Some of these help
you influence power more directly (eg, the political party) some of these are simply strong
enough lobby groups to have a fair chance of influencing governmental decisions (eg professional
societies).

I agree that people should vote but I largely disagree with your reasoning.

[amargosa.livejournal.com]

If this nation ever becomes a vote-optional quasy-theocracy like the US, I will beat every non voter personally.

Is it just me, or are liberals the first to stop voting when given the choice? Its because of this that we get conservative maniacs in charge. And yes I know little Johnny must be some exception.

[halloranelder.livejournal.com]

Well said, yet again.

And for the record, I have voted at every election that I was eligible for since I was old enough to vote. I tend to favour the highest number for the most hated and work from there method.

[usuakari.livejournal.com]

Hm. I'm with Halo on questioning your definitions of 'Direct' and 'Indirect'...

The key thing is that as a Citizen of a democratic State, your chance to influence politics comes when you get to vote on something. Whether that vote is in a referendum, a local election, a regional election, a federal election, or some other time, that vote is the only chance that you get to express your view directly. There are plenty of ways to express it indirectly, for example, by writing letters to your representatives, influencing the media, etc, etc, but they are just that, indirect.

I'd actually reverse those definitions. By writing to my elected representative I directly inform them of what I think and want, on an individual and considered basis. When I vote to elect someone, all I'm doing is either picking the least worst candidate or hoping for the best, and simply becoming a number for or against. My ticking a box next to a candidate's name on a ballot says very little about what I actually want to see implemented, and contrary to most politicians' deluded beliefs, does not in any give them a 'mandate' for anything.

That being said, I agree with pretty much all of the rest of the post. I certainly agree about the responsibility citizens share for each government, however they voted. I didn't vote for Little Johnny, but because he got in, he's till partly my problem and my responsibility. My Dad usually notes around election time that 'we get the government we deserve', and I agree with him.

Citizenship's been a topic of some personal interest to me lately (and it looks like I am one after all, I just need to be able to prove it). I'm well aware of the rights and responsibilities that go along with it, while simultaneously amused that I've been able to exercise all of those rights and most of the responsibilities when my citizenship was actually unclear.

What I would like to see is a way of measuring the dissatisfied vote. In our present system we don't have an option that says 'All the candidates suck! Send this lot back and get some better ones.' (depsite having something close to it in the process by which we select our juries). I think a lack of that option is what causes many people to vote informally, not a sense of irresponsibility. If such a thing could be measured, it might provide the wake-up call to the major parties that people think they delivering when they vote independant or for a minor party out of protest rather than any real support for those candidates. Mind you, I'd also like to see referenda on a monthly basis on matters of national import too. I guess I take the idea of 'the will of the people' a bit too seriously...

[bunnikins.livejournal.com]

Thanks, Thorf - that's a very good summing up of why I have been enrolled, and voted, since I turned 18. Despite the fact that I never really sat down and thought it through:) I know it's a drop in the ocean, but it's my drop...even if the best I can do with it is lodge a vote against my least preferred candidate, rather than for someone I'd actually like to win.

[blithespirit.livejournal.com]

Thank you for articulating a point which I feel very strongly about.
While many people feel that yanks are slack voters (with their roughly a 1/3 or less of people who bother to exercise their right to vote) I was raised there and that's where I developed my fervour for voting.
:-)
Donkey voters or abstainers -- in the voting sense ;-) -- trouble me as they're a symptom of the democratic system not working [why are they feeling alienated from the political process?] And whether they admit it or not, informal voters effectively further the status quo, which seems counterproductive from the informal voters point of view, since the status quo is presumably what alienated them from voting in the first place...