And from that modest philosophy grows pretty much the rest of the argument. Of course, that attitude doesn’t even get us to the hunter/gatherer stage of human social development, and I wouldn’t recommend it as a tool for personal growth either, but you’re fortunate to have been born at a time when much of the work of civilization-building has been done. A big enough dog can support a lot of fleas. I don’t think even the other non-voting enthusiasts in this thread reject the social contract entirely – at least I hope they don’t.
Noctolator, you were one of those who first pointed out the multitude of reasons for not voting. If these people once got to the polls, why would they all vote no preference? Some might , I suppose, but most people who don’t vote are probably not doing so out of a conviction that non-participation is a powerful political statement. I still think the mere fact that normally non-voting blocs were going to show up this year would have a very healthy effect on their representation in government. Those in power would have to take their needs into account, and candidates would arise to appeal to them, and both these effects would tend to reduce apathy and increase political awareness. If every sub-group, economic or otherwise, had equal rates of participation, regardless of what the rate was, this wouldn’t work, but that’s not the case. Depending on the demographic measured, rates range from almost 80% to less than 20%.
I’m still not persuaded by the bogey of compelled speech. It’s, at worst, speech you communicate privately, among millions of others, that can’t be ever attributed to you. Ever have to fill out a form? Been required to give any information about yourself at all? Maybe the penalty for not doing so wasn’t jail, but it was at least the foregoing of some option, and therefore a curtailing of your freedom to do whatever you want. And there might have been, on some of these forms, a notification that you couldn’t write just whatever you wanted, you had to tell the truth – or risk a more tangible penalty. As far as the courtroom analogy goes, a criminal defendant must plead. And this is not and never has been considered a violation of the First Amendment. Neither is the speech demanded of witnesses, who have committed no crime at all but are required to show up at a certain place, at a certain time, to speak their testimony, and can be punished if they don’t. This is done to protect the interests of the state. Voting is also in the interest of a democratic state. The exceptions to compelled speech you adduce merely show how subject to it most of us are, if you want to get picky about it, and how insignificant a freely-cast vote, to which there can never be any penalty attached, is by comparison. Anyhow, this is at best a distraction. The issue doesn’t come into play at all unless the government punishes non-voters, which nobody wants.
I can understand the distaste for being made to choose between unappealing alternatives – say steak or pork if you’re a vegetarian – and the anger arising from the prospect that, having been made to choose, your grudging pick will be trumpeted as an endorsement of something you personally consider vile. If you stop showing up for dinner, though, the menu won’t ever get any better. No would-be cook will ever get the idea that he can get the gig by offering some vegetables too, and no one will take you seriously if you decide to take a run at the job. Which is a shame, because your getting some of what you want might be good for everybody at the table, not limited to the other vegetarians who haven’t given up. And, as I extricate myself from the cooling scraps of an overcooked metaphor, that’s what I mean about a social obligation to vote.
Taber, I get it, but freely choosing to exercise the same degree of elective rights as a 14th-century Lithuanian serf is the freedom of self-indulgence, not political liberty. Similar freedoms include the right to let your lawn grow and the right to pick your nose on the crosstown bus.
I’ll concede there are plenty of places I’d hardly call “free” where voter turnout approaches (and sometimes exceeds) 100%. But I don’t blame the electorate for their situation, and anyway we have no such excuse.
Basically, I equate refraining from voting with putting Tinkertoys in your nose: the right to do so without government interference – paramount. Actually doing so – pretty stupid.