There seems to be an assumption in many of the voting arguments that choosing not to vote is a morally neutral choice. Faithful Citizenship puts it thus:
The voter may decide to take the extraordinary step of not voting for any candidate or, after careful deliberation, may decide to vote for the candidate deemed less likely to advance such a morally flawed position and more likely to pursue other authentic human goods.(36)
Previous version of Faithful Citizenship did not offer an allowance for not voting, but it would be an argument from silence to claim that it was therefore disallowed. In evaluating this provision, we should make a couple notes:
1) The non-vote has to be extraordinary, presumably in circumstance.
2) The fact that both candidates support intrinsic evils does not compel a non-vote.
In my interpretation, I would be willing to grant wide latitude on extraordinary circumstance. As I’ve noted previously though, I do believe that concomitant with regular non-voting is a withdrawal from the larger society. How that manifests itself will be different for different folks, and I would not argue that it is a call to agrarianism by any means. I would also note that one isn’t required to do futile acts. If one doesn’t believe either candidate will advance their interests or in the more simple case of a candidate running unopposed, I do not believe one should feel compelled to offer their vote.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In