The Anti-Vote

Low voter turnout in the United States is often explained away by reference to voter apathy, indifference, or complacency. Sometimes it is argued that a non-vote is a vote of consent to either of the choices offered up by the duopoly parties, and sometimes it is maintained that a non-vote expresses discontent with a specific slate of candidates. However, the discourse of duopoly politics rarely, if ever, allows for the consideration that low voter turnout is an expression of active opposition to the two-party system itself. Boycott the Vote makes the case:
This is not to say that voting is always bad; rather, it is to say that voting is bad when it is conflated with all civil rights, when it is used as a tool to enforce complacency, and when it legitimates a process which subverts the liberties protected in a republic rather than encouraging them . . . And the two-party system ensures that none of this will change.
To paraphrase George Carlin: if you vote for them, you have no right to complain.


Samuel Wilson said...

Since there have always been more than two choices, Carlin's attitude was asinine.

Anonymous said...

That's Carlin for ya. I always thought of Carlin as a hippy that got angry instead of handing out flowers.

In Maine there are plenty of other choices. There are the greens and usually a few independents running on the ballot. For the last governor election there were two independents and a green. Before Baldachi we even had a two term independent Gov.

I have always urged people to get out and vote. You don't have to check the box you don't want to for a candidate, but there are local issues that need to be voted on. Ignore those at your own peril.

d.eris said...

I think Carlin excels at revealing the truth in the extreme. There have always been more choices, but the choice between the duopoly candidates is no choice at all.