« Iran and Hitchcock; Capitalism; Kafka | Main | Why Not Vote? »
Why I'm not voting today
I’m not going to vote today. If I did, I’d feel better. I’d feel like I was part of some kind of democratic nation, like I was voicing my opinion. But the candidates have never been worse, and though I’d still vote for the social democratic party here as the least evil, a lot of other people who will want to vote this way won’t for fear of the Conservatives getting in. They’ll vote strategically for the Liberals, even when they really wanted to vote NDP (the social democratic party). Without proportional representation we are disenfranchised.
I don’t want to feel better. I’m really upset by the state of this so-called democracy, and I think I should keep feeling that way. If I go to vote, I can step back from this pathos and think that I’ve done my duty (no need to worry for the next 4 years). We all agree we hate this system as it now stands, and then we go to vote. I think people that vote are really quite dumb. If you hate the whole system, why reproduce it as such?
Go spoil your ballot, then, you might say. A very good suggestion, but the problem is that the media still include that in their reports of how many people came out to vote, so that they are included in the percentage of the electorate who came out to vote. And so, they add to the number of people who take part in the system, when the point would be to see less than half of eligible voters actually vote (or, of course, for everyone to spoil their ballots – it’s easy to see how even if half of the electorate spoiled their ballots, the consequences of this would be under-reported, and/or blamed on some technical difficulty with the voting procedure itself).
One’s duty is not absolved by stroking a pencil once every 4 years. I’m getting very aggressive with people who say or infer they’re disappointed with me for not voting. “You can’t complain if you don’t vote”. Oh I see, you’re only voting to maintain your Beautiful Soul position.
If you step back from voting, then you suddenly want to actually do something for the transformation of the system – and you acknowledge your own place within it. This is the precise opposite of “voter apathy”; it is precisely because I feel so much pathos that I won’t just make myself feel a bit better by voting. I’m willing to suffer this hell for the sake of something Other.
By RIPope | January 23, 2006 in Canada, Current Affairs, Democracy, Politics, Protest | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/361357/4104262
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Why I'm not voting today:
» (post at Long Sunday) Why I'm not Voting from CPROBES
I just put up a post at Long Sunday on why I'm not voting in the Canadian election today.... [Read More]
Tracked on Jan 23, 2006 7:41:50 PM
» election from Posthegemony
It may have passed the attention of some that Canadians have been voting today. Not all of them, mind you: Craig of theoria and RIPope of Long Sunday have both made clear that they have better things to do. Or rather, that they are holding out ...... [Read More]
Tracked on Jan 23, 2006 9:24:42 PM
Comments
Thanks for the post. I've found myself being forced to defend my decision not to vote a number of times today in various fora. My position, my interlocutors tell me, amounts to apathy and cynicism.
They tell me to vote even if I don't like my options; that is, a non-vote by "rejecting" the ballot. (There is, as far as I can tell, no provision in the Canada Elections Act for "refusing ballots" -- except in the case of contested ballots at the time of counting; i.e., on the part of the returning officer.)
They tell me to vote for a "non-mainstream party" because "my vote" is "worth" $1.79. (That is, each party is distributed funding for the next election on the basis of $1.79 per popular vote cast in their favour.) When I express that it is highly insulting to place a dollar "value" on "my vote", they tell me I'm missing the point.
They tell me that if I don't vote, I'm just part of the problem.
I see it the other way: you can't both love democracy in Canada and vote. These positions are mutually exclusive.
(I've made comments on this theme here.
Posted by: Craig | Jan 23, 2006 7:58:42 PM
Hooray for you RIPope and Craig. I'm not Canadian (though I live in Toronto) so I didn't vote either, but I don't vote generally (in the U.S.) and wouldn't have voted in this election.
Posted by: old | Jan 23, 2006 8:45:41 PM
Ah yes, the $2 vote argument. It amazes me that people who are able to put on their own pants in the morning make that argument. In response I mention that I'm more than willing to go online and donate $2 to all the half-decent parties, but to use my vote to give one of them a toonie is the very height of cynicism.
Posted by: RIPope | Jan 23, 2006 9:29:46 PM
For readers of Long Sunday, the most interesting riding is, no doubt, Etobicoke-Lakeshore, in the west end of Toronto. None other than Michael Ignatieff is running there -- to great controversy.
Readers can follow live election results via Elections Canada, although projections have already given a minority government to the Conservative Party even though results have yet to be released in British Columbia, the western-most province.
Posted by: Craig | Jan 23, 2006 10:17:15 PM
Um, hate to be the dual-citizen dick here, but, seriously, you guys have Nothing to complain about compared to those of us south of the border... Seriously...
I'm very proud of my Nan, who basically a Can red-neck equivalent (maritimes...) and votes NDP. Why can't we get our rednecks to vote social dem?
Can you explain, for the benefit of those of us who chose last election between the Unspeakable and the Hawkish, "God Bless America" "Left" why the NDP doesn't work for you? (UK voters face an almost - but not quite - equal conundrum...)
Your system isn't proportional rep... But come on, look at ours... We've got Montana with the same standing as California in the senate for chirssakes.
Posted by: CR | Jan 23, 2006 11:10:29 PM
CR, you're quite right of course, but just as we shouldn't choose between the lesser evils we shouldn't compare ourselves to the evil of the US, but rather hold fast to something positive.
My main problem with the NDP has to do with its two star candidates, Jack Layton, its leader, and Olivia Chow, his wife and now elected representative of my riding. Layton, who rose to fame as Canada's #1 supporter of low-income housing, turned into a NIMBY when a housing shelter my sister worked as manager of in his riding wanted/needed to expand its services. People in the neighbourhood complained, and at the meeting he didn't for a second stand up for the shelter... not even for a second.
As for Chow, I received a letter from her in her duties as City Councillor saying she would be refusing any new bars or clubs from opening in this area, one might assume under pressure from new condo dwellers in the area hoping to make the downtown core their new suburb. This area bases itself, prides itself, on its vitality. It's Toronto's last line of defence from total banality. Chow knows this. In fact, one can often see her out at said bars and clubs.
All to say I could not place my trust in either of these two representing any sort of progressive agenda at the federal level. They've already compromised everything.
Posted by: RIPope | Jan 23, 2006 11:56:11 PM
Isn't not voting really just another way of voting? Abstentions are counted just like bad ballots.
And isn't the system reproduced no matter what you do vis a vis voting? The implied threat to the system would be if there was sufficient nonvote vote, ie. abstentions, to delegitimate that. Ironically, that would be nothing other than...a vote, only a 'properly' democratic one.
I'd like to know what the Other is supposed to be. Forgive my scepticism, but I can't help thinking that if you knew what that was, you'd be telling us about it rather than about how important not voting is supposed to be.
Posted by: TCO | Jan 24, 2006 1:35:04 AM
TCO, thank you for your thoughts. Surely yes, the system is just reproduced in not voting, provided not voting is all one does. In my case, however, it's not. Instead of placating myself by voting, I'm going to (re)take this pathos into Symbolic attacks on the system, that is, something Other.
Posted by: RIPope | Jan 24, 2006 1:57:37 AM
CR: I'll answer your question tomorrow (re: NDP) in your comment on my post. You also say: But come on, look at ours... We've got Montana with the same standing as California in the senate for chirssakes.
The comparison is false because it has to do with structure of the respective regimes. Most simply, the US is a mixed regime while Canada is a constitutional monarchy.
This means that of the three traditional forms of government (monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy), the US attempts to integrate each into the structure with a positive presence. Thus, the President stands in as the Monarch, the Senate stands in as the Aristocracy, and the House of Representatives stands in as the Demos. (And the Supreme Court stands outside of all three.) Thus, the Senate distributes representation on a different basis than the House of Representatives.
Canada, in contrast, has a bicameral legislature: an elected House of Commons and an appointed Senate. The executive power -- the Governor General, who is appointed by the Prime Minister for a more or less fixed term which means that G-Gs often overlap different governments, stands in for the Queen. However, the HoC is responsible for introducing legislation, the Senate confirms it, and the G-G signs it into law. The chain of authority gets progressively weaker: although it could happen in fact, it is almost unimaginable that the Senate would reject legislation and impossible that the G-G would refuse to sign a bill into law.
Now, there are people -- the forefathers of the new PM, for instance -- who would have the Senate become an aristocratic, geographic based institution, like in the US.
TCO: Isn't not voting really just another way of voting? Abstentions are counted just like bad ballots.
While it is wildly rumoured that you can (1) reject your ballet and (2) that a rejection is noted as such in the official tally, I can find absolutely no evidence of this in the Canadian Elections Act or anywhere on the Elections Canada website. As far as I can tell by reading the Act (and I'm not a lawyer), the only provisions for "rejected ballots" relate to the counting of ballots and the determination of what to do with ballots that are either unclearly marked, incorrectly marked, or not marked at all. All of these are counted the same way as "spoiled" or "rejected" ballots. (I assume Australia, for instance, has a more sophisticated method of counting due to the legal requirement that one vote.)
Thus, in Canada, there would be an official tally that lists the number of votes received by each candidate, the number of ballots cast, and the number of registered voters. "Rejected" ballots (i.e., non-voting) are counted the same way as drawing a swastika on the ballot. The important difference enters into -- and this isn't really counted except to show that "young people are irresponsible and lazy" because, apparently, it is only "young people" who don't vote -- the ratio of those eligible to vote to those who actually voted; i.e., the turnout rate. A low turnout rate is always interpreted as cynical, lazy, and irresponsible. It is rare for anyone to interpret it as a positive expression of distaste for the entire system.
The difference, then, is between refusing to vote (i.e., what I did and what RIPope did) and spoiling your ballot. Refusing to vote is, I think, a refusal of the system. Spoiling your ballot is a recognition and reproduction of the system (albeit comparatively passive).
Posted by: Craig | Jan 24, 2006 2:22:32 AM
I should have made myself clearer. What I means is that in a non-compulsory voting system, not voting is an option clearly foreseen in the design of the system. There are elaborate justifications for that, some of which are 'rightwing' - eg. the ignorant aren't made to participate - but there is also another justification which is that certain kinds of people are not forced to vote against their conscience. The genius of this is that nonparticipation is encapsulated as a kind of participation.
As for the legal definition of what counts as a vote - I'm sure you're right, but what difference does that make? The social and political system of voting is wider than the law, which at any rate foresees nonparticipation as a legitimate exercise of citizenship. I'm not sure how this pans out in Canada, but in Europe, social democrats often become very concerned about falling participation rates, because that generally signals an upward skewing of the income profile of the electorate. In the US, for instance, more people who earn 100k+ vote than who earn less than 15K, which is wildy disproportional and takes a lot of the bite out of arguments like Thomas Frank's. I'm sure this is of great interest also to the people who benefit from it; I certainly be amazed if nonparticipation rates aren't monitored in Canada.
I certainly understand why one would not vote, I rarely do (in Brazilian elections, which are compulsory.) I suppose that I don't really relate to the notion someone would feel better by voting - I can't help seeing it as almost entirely meaningless either way - but if that energises you to do something better, more power to you.
Posted by: TCO | Jan 24, 2006 4:02:29 AM
I would've changed my citizenship and gotten my free University education in Denmark if I didn't believe so strongly in contributing to Candian politics by voting. It pains me to hear stories like yours. I really hope you've done your research instead of just believing what the media spews. There are a lot of things worth believing in...and it should start with your local candidates. They will listen to you. If nothing else, you really should get involved in some civic agenda. maybe it would give you a little morte pride in "the system".
Posted by: sookie | Feb 20, 2006 12:39:30 AM
In India we value our democracy a lot.....that's why we observe unending ques on the voting booths
Posted by: web design | Aug 7, 2006 2:14:40 AM
Post a comment
Please note: comments are published at the discretion of the post's author and will not appear immediately. Do not submit comments more than once.
