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.

3 comments:

Samuel Wilson said...

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

derek 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.

 
http://www.wikio.com