We’ve seen consequences of not voting. In many close elections non-voters could’ve changed the result if they had been voters. In that situation, not voting cannot be morally or ethically justified. Please make a case, if you feel otherwise.
But sometimes I think it’s not clear that not voting is unjustified. That is, there may be reasonable arguments in favor of not voting in some situations. For example, take the recent vote in Catalonia. Many would-be voters declined to vote, either because they were against independence or because they were against an illegitimate election. The Spanish government also threatened and then carried through violence against voters. Is there justification for not voting in that case?
But I don’t want to limit discussion to any particular election. There are other cases where a faction protests an election by not voting. What is the criteria for deciding when to vote or not? Is it ever justified to not vote?
Mine opinion is that unless one expects severe consequences for voting (potential loss of life, limb, or livelihood), it’s not justified to refuse to vote. Especially if your potential vote is in the minority–not voting further reduces your choice’s position. Even if the vote is illegitimate or rigged, not voting gives a rhetorical win to the side which gets the most “votes”. Make it harder for those holding the vote to get what they want. It’s better to vote and lose than not vote and lose.
Please note, I want consider the choice of a person who could vote but chooses not to. People who cannot vote, even if they wanted to, is a serious but different problem, and deserves its own discussion.
I notice that you didn’t make a case, why is the obligation to make a case not on the person saying ‘this is morally wrong’ (ie you)? No one is obligated to vote for anyone, people are perfectly free to cast a vote for whoever they want, or no one, or not to show up in the first place. Trying to ‘make a case’ is trying to prove a negative, there’s simply no obligation. In any election, all people who didn’t vote for your preferred candidate that lost could have changed the result if they had, but they don’t have any obligation to vote for the person that you want. While a lot of people (mostly Democrats in my experience, for example with both Gore and Hillary) seem to think that their preferred candidate is entitled to everyone’s vote, it simply doesn’t work that way. A candidate has to appeal to voters enough to motivate them to vote for the candidate, if Gore can’t convince people that he’s better than Nader and Hillary can’t convince people that she’s better than Stein or ‘none of the above’, then they don’t get the votes. Inventing a moral obligation for people to support them has no reasonable basis.
You’re inferring things I didn’t write. I was very careful not to imply anyone should vote in any particular way.
The question is whether it’s ever morally or ethically justified to choose to not vote. This discussion is not about whether a person has the right to not vote. Just because we can choose to do (or not do) something does not mean we’re justified in make that choice.
In a free society, no one is obligated to vote. The right to vote should imply the right to not vote, just as the right to speak implies to right to not speak.
Morally, that’s a different matter and would depend, of course, on the particular moral code you adhere to. Since there is no universally accepted moral code, there can’t be a universally required moral responsibility.
Tell us about when your moral or ethical code would justify someone not voting.
Yes, you make a good point (and applies to elections without candidates as well). If one doesn’t know enough to make a decision, then it’s hard to justify making a choice. But we don’t escape from the basic question: can I justify not voting? How would I determine if I know enough to vote?
You explicitly stated that people should vote in a particular way, actually. It doesn’t even need implication, you stated it outright.
Yes, it’s always morally and ethically justified for people to vote for whoever they want to, even it’s for no candidate at all. When someone clearly has the right to do something, and you concede that they do, then the burden of proof is on the person claiming that they have no moral or ethical justification to exercise that right. You’re essentially asking people to prove a negative.
The most obvious answer is when one really has no opinion one way or another about the candidates. Up until I became friends with a teacher, I left the school board portions of the ballot blank. I didn’t have a kid and didn’t know anything about the candidates so I figured it would be best for democracy if those who had skin in the game had their opinions counted without the addition of the random noise my vote would cause.
I always vote come election time, but I don’t always fill out the entire ballot. I guess that counts as not voting. Take judges for example. I’m asked to vote for judges that I’ve never heard of, and know nothing about. I tend not to vote for judges. Also, people who are running unopposed get a big blank spot on the ballot from me.
You should only vote if you actually prefer one of the candidates. It’s immoral to vote if you’re apathetic, because (as has been mentioned), that’s random noise that distorts the actual opinions of the people in the country. Flipping a coin doesn’t result in a useful vote.
I am eligible to vote in two countries, but only vote where I reside.
Both nations are perfectly functional western democracies and the outcome of elections result in only minor administrative differences, in the grand scheme of things. In most countries there aren’t even any major issues where government and opposition are diametrically opposed. No good vs. evil, no moral dilemmas, no lines in the sand. Just nuance. Slightly different viewpoints.
Basically, I don’t think it’s my place to decide on a 2% change in a tax I will neither benefit from nor pay for in a nation on the other side of the world.
You have to be clear about what you’re saying here. There’s no reason to assume that non-voters would vote differently from voters, so if every non-voter voted, the result might well be just the same. A cherry-picked sub-group of non-voters could have changed the result, but it could have been canceled out by a counterpart sub-group of opposing voters.
An individual voter can never change the result. The inherent error in counting will almost always be greater than one vote. Your vote literally does not matter. That’s the paradox of voting; elections are resolved by aggregate votes, but it’s irrational for any given individual voter to take the time to cast a ballot.
Yes, non-voters might not have changed the results in a close election, but they might. As opposed to an election that’s not close: then it’s mathematically impossible for non-voters to change the results.
Only the middle of these three sentences I quoted is correct. A single vote always changes the result—instead of N votes, there would be N+1 votes. That is almost certainly not significant, but whether or not it matters is a subjective opinion.
There will be an election (for mayor and councillors) in the small town I live in November (the 3rd, IIRC). The town seems to be doing well; I have no beef with anyone and there don’t appear to be any contentious issues. If no candidate can raise an issue that I have an opinion on why should I vote. Of course, just to keep my hand in, I could wander over there and turn in a spoiled ballot.
On the other hand, I did vote in the Federal election two years ago as well in the US presidential election last year, since I was reasonably well informed and had opinions in both cases.