Voting in Elections is Always Better than Not Voting

Cheers! WE AGREE THAT IT IS BETTER TO VOTE MOST OF THE TIME I am glad that my opponent agrees that it's better to vote most of the time. However, he posits three claims in negation of my resolution. I will refute each of his claims with the following contentions. [1] IT's BETTER TO BE COUNTED THAN DISCOUNTED My opponent suggests "not voting can be a way to send a message in times of great injustice. " What message can be sent when someone chooses to NOT vote? A non-voter hopes that those in high office and other observers will realize that her lack of participation reflects a grievance that must be addressed. There are a few problems with this. (A) Election observers cannot understand what the grievance is if the only message is silence in the form of a passive non-vote. Political observers are likely to assume that the non-voter is lazy or apathetic. No subversive message will be received. (B) But what if a non-voter writes a letter to a representative explaining why she chose not to vote? A politician has little incentive to listen to someone not interested in voting; politicians can discount what cannot be counted on election day. In this case, this move would be strengthened if she chose to back up her convictions with a vote. A letter is more persuasive if she explains, "if you do not support X then I will vote for your opponent. If you support X then I will vote for you. " Voting is a better way to send a message than not-voting. When you vote you send a message that you support a candidate and or the ideas she stands for. In a direct referendum a person can communicate her support for a particular policy, and possibly help it get passed into law by voting for it. If you do not vote, you lose your chance to make that difference. In each case one"s vote is a clear sign that a policy or particular leader has a certain level of support among the people. In a democratic society, it is in the interest of the leaders to be receptive to those ideas with support so they can win reelection. EXAMPLE: SOUTH AFRICA, 1994 South Africans had been living in times of great injustice. They lived under a policy of apartheid in which they were treated like second-class human beings. What message would have been sent if they chose to NOT vote in that historic "94 election? Would observers understand that they were expressing their dissatisfaction after decades of oppression by not voting? Probably not. The white Frederik Willem de Klerk would have been re-elected and continue to be the face of South Africa after blacks earned suffrage. Instead, despite decades of injustice, they chose to vote and elected the nation"s first black president, Nelson Mandela. [2] EVALUATE ELECTIONS THROUGH THE ORIGINAL POSITION OF A VOTER My opponent asserts "I don't agree that more voters produces a more democratic result or even a good result necessarily. " First of all, if more people vote, whether or not you favor the results, the election is by definition more democratic and more representative of the constituency (body of eligible voters) being represented. But do more voters produce a better result? How should my opponent and I consider this contention? If one provides a partisan historical example in the affirmative or negative it will prejudice one"s consideration of the proposition. If I argue a low voter turnout led to a BAD outcome, like the election of George W. Bush in 2000, then it may prejudice conservatives against my position. If my opponent argues that a low voter turnout led to a GOOD outcome, like the election of George W. Bush in 2000, then it may prejudice progressives against his position. And I assume my opponent, like me, does not wish to explode the topic by debating the virtues of progressivism over conservatism and vice-versa. Therefore, let"s consider this question from the Original Position first posited by John Rawls. In one's current shoes, it's easy to assert that the world would be better if your ideological opponents stayed home on election day while your people vote in big numbers. But imagine if you could be any voter in any democratic election throughout time and space. To vote or not vote? That is the question. It will always be better to vote your conscience. Let"s say you are a Republican in 1999 considering whether or not you should vote in the 2000 US presidential election between Bush and Gore. You believe in low taxes, low regulation, and traditional social values. You do not know the outcome but you have reason to believe that the election will be very close. Therefore you should vote in order to increase the likelihood that your values will be promoted. In 2000, if you are a sincere Republican then you should vote for Bush. Not voting would decrease the likelihood that your values will be promoted in high office and increase the likelihood that a candidate will be elected who is antithetical to your values. Therefore, you should vote. From the point of view of many Republicans, Bush was a success. Under Bush, taxes were cut and traditional social values were championed. OR Let"s say you're a Democrat in 1999 considering whether or not you should vote in the 2000 US presidential election between Bush and Gore. You believe in a strong social safety net, regulated capitalism, and social liberalism. You do not know the outcome but you have reason to believe that the election will be very close. Therefore you should vote in order to increase the likelihood that your values will be promoted. From the point of view of a Democrat, more Democrats should of voted, especially in Florida. Under Bush more people fell into poverty and civil rights were pushed back a decade. In 2000, suppose you are a Nader supporter. It would still be better to vote than not vote because by voting you (1) increase the probability that your candidate may win, and (2) increase the apparent support for Nader and his ideas. By not voting you (1) have no impact on the election for either party, and (2) forsake your duty to express your point of view in a democracy. Imagine you are a voter in a fledgling democracy where there may be some election fraud. You want to live in a stable society represented by honest leaders. In this case it is better to vote than not vote. If there is a high chance of fraud what will not voting accomplish? It will only make the ballot-box stuffer's job easier and the corrupt politician may cheat to achieve a legitimate win. If you do vote then there is at least an initial record of your choice. The corrupt leader might try to destroy this record or crowd it out with fake votes, but the corrupt leader will still have to expend energy, money, and resources to cheat. Voting is still better because voting provides a chance that the corrupt leader could be ousted. If he cheats, voting is better because the international community may discover the fraud and pressure him to perform a re-count. If there is a re-count you will want to be among the counted. Lastly, voting is better because it will make the corrupt leader aware that a sizable percentage do NOT support him. With this new information he may consider instituting popular reforms or even consider a graceful exit in the near future so that he will not be embarrassed in the next election. Therefore, even in the case of a corrupt election, voting provides at least some marginal advantages while not-voting provides no advantages. [3] CHOOSING THE LESSER OF TWO EVILS PREVENTS GREATER EVIL OR SEND A REAL MESSAGE WITH A WRITE-IN or THIRD PARTY VOTE My opponent said that non-voting may be better " when there is no good choice available. " Not voting accomplishes nothing. If you dislike the two mainstream party candidates then vote for a third party or write-in a candidate! Your candidate could win. List of third party wins: . http://en.wikipedia.org...