Some people just aren’t going to vote for president on November 8. They may vote for other offices and referendums on the ballot, but not for president. Some say this is copping out. I don’t think it is. I’ll try to make my case after the jump.
Campaigns exist for a purpose. If everyone just voted for what party they identify with, there would be no need for candidates to campaign and Democrats would win most elections, since they outnumber Republicans by party affiliation. Instead, candidates have to persuade voters to cast their ballots for them.
If a voter remains unpersuaded by all of the candidates, it makes sense not to vote for any of them.
Voting is choosing the candidate you think would be the best person for the office. If you vote for someone you do not choose and do not think would be the best, that defeats the purpose of your vote.
Is not voting the equivalent of voting for Hillary Clinton? No more than it is the equivalent of voting for Donald Trump. Not voting neither helps nor hurts either candidate.
I’ve heard the moral arguments, such as “Not to decide is to decide!” But not voting is a decision, the equivalent of marking “none of the above” on a test.
I’ve heard it said that not voting is an abdication of a citizen’s most important duty. Well, if you do vote for the down-ballot elections, you are fulfilling that duty.
Also, as Luther said at Wurms, “to go against conscience is neither right nor safe.” If voting should ever violate your conscience, don’t vote.
“But if you don’t vote, you have no right to criticize whoever wins.” I don’t understand the connection. Do you have to vote for the winner in order to criticize him or her? Do you have the right to criticize the winner if you voted for the loser? If you can criticize the person you didn’t vote for, I would think that if you didn’t vote for either candidate, you could criticize either one.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In