Suffering From Suffrage

Biden and Obama on Voting

If you log into Facebook very often you’ve probably been bombarded with relentless calls to action. Those kind souls in Silicon Valley seem to really care about democracy (or something else), and have been encouraging voting for weeks on end. 

It’s probably good to remind people to register to vote. We all live busy lives and are prone to forget rare but important events (Men, this is your anniversary reminder. You’re welcome). 

However, I also find the ongoing persistence of these reminders incredibly irritating. It’s not confined just to Facebook. Today’s culture in the United States treats voting as some kind of moral obligation that all of us must fulfill. I find that idea to be completely ridiculous, and in many cases actively harmful.

Have you been on social media? Have you witnessed the unending stream of nonsense, ignorance, and vitriol? Do you really want all of these people shaping the course of human events?

I think those questions can stand alone as an unassailable argument, but I’ll elaborate so my position on voting is made clear: You shouldn’t let people pressure you into voting, especially if you haven’t done much deep thinking about it.

What is Politics?

Politics is a complex arena, especially at the national level. It involves the intersection of many fields, like economics, history, morality, religion, science, law, and so on. Few, if any of us, could be considered experts in each of these fields. 

The best we can do is take what we’ve learned and develop a coherent worldview that gives us a general idea of how the world works. From there we can use our vote to try to shape a better future based on our worldview. Every voter does this, whether they consciously recognize it or not. 

What Motives Do Voters Have?

If people voted entirely out of pure self-interest, maybe I could see the appeal of encouraging everyone to vote. People don’t vote that way though.

Have you ever been in a political debate before? Everybody argues that implementing their ideas will be better for society as a whole, not just for themselves. People of all political stripes  claim that some ideas may benefit them directly, but overall would be bad for society.

Self-interest certainly plays a role in who people decide to vote for, but it’s far from the only motivating factor.

The Problem of Careless Voting

This leads to a significant problem. By treating the right to vote as a golden calf to worship, we are rewarded with a very large group of people with vastly different levels of wisdom who all feel obligated to weigh in on the complex problems of the world.

Clearly, these people can’t all be correct about their prescriptions for the future. Some might even argue they all are wrong.

Voting for progressives or conservatives, according to G.K. Chesterton

You wouldn’t encourage your friend to make an important life decision without first spending some time thinking about it deeply. Why would you encourage voting among people who normally aren’t very interested in thinking about the broad implications of policy decisions?

None of us should want close elections decided by people who voted based on a few click-bait articles they saw the week before the election, or because they were pressured by annoying friends who don’t know what they’re talking about.

If you have to constantly remind somebody to do something, it probably isn’t very important to them. 

How We Should Treat Voting

We should treat the right to vote the same way we treat other rights granted to us by the US Constitution. Like any other right, it should be exercised responsibly.

We shouldn’t put such an emphasis on encouraging people to vote. Instead, we should be encouraging people to learn more about how the world works and to use that knowledge to take on new challenges in their own lives. 

Read about those different fields and disciplines. Start a business. Learn a new skill. Volunteer in your community. Become friends with people who think differently than you. Travel somewhere new. If you become a more well-rounded person you will be better prepared to make decisions that affect the lives of other people. 

Democracy is wonderful, but it is no safeguard against poor decision making.

If this tirade still didn’t convince you, I just have one request to make. When you encourage people to vote, you’re really encouraging them to vote for your preferred candidate, aren’t you? I’m cool with that, but at least be honest about it. 

Subscribe here to receive more articles like this one.

On Single-Issue Voting

Horses with blinders as an analogy for single-issue voters

In my last post I made the case for why being pro-life is the morally correct position to take. My friend Daniel incorporated my post into his own thoughts about a another related topic: single-issue voting. We got to talking, and I then I got to thinking. Is being a single-issue voter a good or a bad thing?

What does it mean to be a single-issue voter?

My gut-level reaction is…it depends on what the term “single-issue voter” means. One possible definition is somebody who puts on blinders and only casts his vote based on what is being said about a single issue. This seems like an obviously bad approach to politics. Another possible definition is somebody who pays attention to what each party is saying about a range of different issues, understands the trade-offs being made by each, and then still makes a decision that is influenced very heavily by a single issue. I think this can be a good way to approach politics, and is the definition I’ll be discussing for the rest of this article.

A moral imperative

In certain situations it could be considered morally imperative to be a single-issue voter. Building on the analogy used in my previous post, who could argue with 20/20 hindsight that the abolition of slavery wasn’t worthy of single-issue voting? Or voting against the Nazis when they were coming to power? The key ingredient here is an awareness and understanding of the times. Assuming you have full confidence in your opinion on the issue itself, the biggest factor you will have to wrestle with is all the other positions you are also implicitly casting your vote for. The net benefit/harm of the policies each party stands for should weigh into your decision.

Let’s take the abortion issue as an example. It’s hard to imagine another issue today that would be a better candidate for justifying single-issue voting. The merits and drawbacks of different policies can often be endlessly debated without a clear consensus emerging about their effects. But with today’s abortion policies, we are allowing the direct termination of innocent lives for the sake of convenience. We couldn’t even get a ban after 20 weeks through the Senate, and it included exceptions for the life of the mother and for rape or incest. That is appalling. Personally, it’s very difficult for me to cast a vote without the huge weight of this factor disproportionately influencing my decision making. If you are against this piece of legislation, I frankly do not care what you think the minimum wage should be.

Maintaining awareness

Now let’s say, for the sake of discussion, that all of a sudden the pro-life party started campaigning on hauling a certain group of people off to Nazi style concentration camps. Well now the case for single-issue voting on the abortion issue has been weakened quite a bit, to say the least. The situation has changed and now the calculation must be performed again. No matter how grave the issue, single-issue voting should be accompanied by a continuous reevaluation of the political landscape.

Conclusion

In short, I don’t think single-issue voting should be your standard operating procedure. But if you arrive there after some deep thinking, there is a chance you might just be on the right side of history.

As always, if you are enjoying the ideas I’ve presented or you think I’m crazy and want to tell me why I’m wrong, go ahead and subscribe to stay up to date with all the latest content.