“You HAVE to vote. People died for your right to do so!”
This seems to be the typical response from people when you
are apathetic and/or fed up with politics. Not voting is like crapping on a
Bald Eagle and then wiping your ass with the flag with Jane Fonda, Hitler, and Ivan Drago. It is
unpatriotic and un-American for you NOT to wait in line to stand in a smelly
little cubicle from the 1970s and cast your vote. You wouldn’t want to disrespect
the dead, would you?
But I ask, “Who are these people exactly?” Who are the
specific people who have died to give me the right to vote?
I usually conjure up the military in my mind as the ones who
have given their lives so that I may be allowed to actively participate in the
government. But, in the back of my head, I can’t believe that every soldier died to give me, and
protect, my right to vote. I know this is an unpopular sentiment to have, but a
lot of wars haven’t been fought to protect my rights and freedoms, specifically
the right to vote. Explain to me how Iraq defended my suffrage. Or fighting in Vietnam,
Korea, the Philippines, Cuba, or Mexico? To me, only two wars really seem to
have defended the right to vote; the Revolutionary War and World War II. We brought
on the War of 1812 ourselves and the Kaiser wasn’t much of a threat to global
Democracy in World War I (The Allied Powers were doing a nice job of that themselves
throughout their empires…).
Well, what about the Civil War and the resulting 15th
Amendment that gave African-American men the right to vote? That’s very true.
But for me as a white man, the outcome of the Civil War had no impact on my
right to vote. By the time of the Civil War, landowning requirements were
removed and there was universal white male suffrage. I don’t see how the successful
secession of the Confederacy would hurt the voting rights of white men on either
side of the Mason-Dixon Line. While I appreciate the sacrifice the boys in blue made to keep this country united, their deaths didn't advance or defend my right to vote. But of course, there is more to history than
white men, despite what Republicans want you to believe. For African-American
men, the Civil War was fought to give them the right to vote. But that would mean
many “Americans” fought and died to prevent the expansion of suffrage as well
as for it…
This raises a question; are certain groups more obligated to
vote? White men have had it pretty easy for the last couple of centuries. They
have been the first to obtain voting rights. The American Revolution solidified
the rights of propertied, white men, which many had in the colonies for years
before the war (although most states did have religious requirements) After the
war, the populism of Andrew Jackson helped to abolish land and tax (for the most part) requirements and expand suffrage to the common
man. It was mostly peaceful without bloodshed. Mostly.
But other groups like African-Americans, Women, etc. didn’t
have this right, and the process was long and hard fought with a lot of death
and suffering. Is it more abhorrent if they don't vote? Is it a spit in the eye to all the Civil Rights protestors who
were beaten and killed if an African-American doesn’t vote? Is it dishonoring the
legacy of suffragettes Alice Paul and Lucy Burns, who were force fed in prison
when they went on a hunger strike, if a woman doesn’t vote?
Or better yet, should we really be playing the guilt card?
Is that an appropriate way to get people to vote? Shouldn’t they vote because
they are genuinely interested in politics, not because their conscience won’t
let them sleep at night?
Whoever those people are, they died to give us the right to
vote. And part of that right is NOT voting. I complain a lot about liberals and
Democrats staying away from the polls and handing victory over to their
opponents, and then complaining about those in power. But they do have a right
to do so. Not voting is just as powerful as voting. By telling an organization
you align with, but currently disagree with, that you will not support them in
the election gains the attention of politicians and has them scrambling to meet
their supporter’s demands. Change without voting. With partisans, I think this
strategy is asinine because, you just end up giving the people you really dislike (as opposed to just upset
with) more power, and it creates more partisanship as parties try to appease
the more hardline ideologues than the average person. With independent voters,
it works a lot better because it forces parties to be more moderate.
I really disagree with compulsory voting. How can you call
yourself free if you have no choice in the matter? It’s almost as bad as not
having a right to vote whatsoever. Okay, it’s not exactly the same. A $20 fine for not voting isn’t the same as not having any right to choose your government. But I don’t
like a system that forces people who have very little to no interest in
politics making these kinds of decisions. Voting should only be done by an
informed or interested electorate. If you are just going to write in “A. Plant” or vote based
on who has the hottest wife, just don’t vote at all.
I do think everyone should vote because that is how our
system works. We have a system that gives the people the power over the
government, and it doesn’t work right when a large section of the population
does not participate. But guilting the public into voting is not the right way
to increase turnout, and neither is forcing them by law. People are being
turned off from politics because of partisanship and politics-as-usual. No one
party holds a monopoly on corruption and inefficiency and with a two-party
system, a “lesser of two evils” method of deciding the Leader of the Free World
isn’t worth it. We need to get people to look past the muck and convince them
that their participation can clean it up.
