Don't care? Don't vote

The main reason the average person doesn't vote is because he or she doesn't care enough to make the effort. Such people are exactly the kind that have no business running our lives. Other nations have legal voting requirements or a stigma for not voting. In Australia you're fined; in Italy your "failure" to vote is noted on your identification. This doesn't draw on a sense of civic duty—it appeals to a fear of punishment. Voting is transformed from an opportunity to a civic burden.

These forms of punishment are counterproductive and do not render a healthier electoral process. I would rather be governed by a small number of dedicated people— even if their views are opposed to mine—than by a grumbling horde halfheartedly flipping switches like caged monkeys at typewriters. They might give you Hamlet, but you're a lot more likely to get trash.

A major factor in this voter apathy is the influence of campaign advertising. A ballot box is blind, and it is meant to be. It can't tell your race or sex—but neither can it tell the difference between the devoted statesman and the person who saw a slick commercial the night before. Candidates capitalize on this fact. First, there's propaganda: one-sided support of a certain candidate intended not to inform you but to get your vote. It evokes a gut reaction rather than the genuine concern that is needed to shape our nation.

Then there's negative advertising. The primary intent of attack ads is to keep the other candidate's voters at home. In the event that the ads do convince voters to switch, they do so by inspiring fear of one candidate rather than genuine support of another's policy. In this sense, a vote inspired by negative advertising cancels out another person's voice rather than expressing one's own.

As our system stands now, advertising's effects are a necessary evil, but with one change this evil can be largely rectified. Rather than place restrictions on advertising, we should simply extend this free speech to the voter as well. The voting booth needs a third switch marked "no confidence," where a person can demonstrate that he or she is concerned enough about his or her country to decide that no candidate measures up to the standard he or she would require. This vote would in effect count against all candidates, favoring none but receiving consideration when calculating whether any candidate received the majority support of the people who care.

Last and most tragic are the effects of inflated voter turnout on the truly concerned voters. The more apathetic people that show up, the more the sincere voter's influence is diluted. You've heard the maxim that "swing voters vote their pocketbooks." These are the people for whom politicians scramble until midnight the day of the election. They don't think about the fundamental principles that concern all citizens. They just want what works best for them, whether it is the tax cut or the health-care subsidy. America is a large and diverse republic, and someone's opinions will in the end be countermanded. Acknowledging that this is inevitable, it's far better to misrepresent someone who doesn't care than someone who does.

Though everyone must have the opportunity to vote, those who exercise this right should do so with care. Until our voting procedure is reformed, the democratic ideal cannot be realized. As for now, I want the right people there for the right reasons. So if you have a positive message to send, I'll see you at the polls—and if you don't care, please stay home.

Back to Opinion...