I’m posting this here because the author of the post does not appreciate the "surgical precision" with which I reply to posts. His unappreciation is so great that he has requested I not comment on his posts. Fine with me. I’m not! He does, however, express a common sentiment; viz.:
But whatever you do, vote. Voting’s how you make a statement about what sort of Canada you believe in and what kind of Canada you want to see.
Now, it is impossible to argue that I’m "anti-democratic". It is quite the contrary: I like democracy so much and approve so highly of democracy that when I look at so-called democratic countries, I cringe in disbelief and I cry in disdain. While I’m not a fan of smashing McDonald’s windows (this, afterall, implies a necessary recognizing of McDonald’s), I’ll nonetheless paraphrase the title of that Seattle documentary: this is not what democracy looks like!
While "the West", in general, is privileged enough to predominantly have countries that are on the "more" side of "more of less" when it comes to the spectrum of regimes, this in no way implies that one should be complacent and take what you’re given because, well, maybe it is better than anything else out there. If we believe the rhetoric of complacent sub-urban liberals of "the Canadian blogosphere", we should be really happy that, although Canada is a sexist, racist, classist, oligarchic, anti-democratic country it is, by comparison, "the least" sexist, racist, classist, oligarchic, anti-democratic country. Such a country is — obviously — still sexist, racist, classist, oligarchic and anti-democratic. But, let’s be happy in our narrow sub-urban liberal anti-Americanism and say, "Well, at least we aren’t American!".
Yes, at least!
Returning to my quickly fading point, where did this idea come from that we have to vote — even throw away our vote of the Green Party — if we want to "make a statement"? Or, maybe, you could throw away your vote on the Marxist-Leninist Party who still supports Stalin! What a ridiculous idea! What a great expression of your "vision" of the future!
Here’s how it is: I’m not voting tomorrow. And, you know what, come January 24, 2006, I’ll still be entitled to complain all I want. And, you know what else? My so-called "non-participation" is a greater defense of democracy than your nihilistic opinion that only those who vote (in one way or another) have a stake in the future.
7 Comments
Be proud to exercise your democratic right not to vote – in Australia, there is no such right.
Mark took the words right out of my mouth.
actually, it is not getting your name registered/ticked off on the electoral role that incurs a penalty. If you get you name ticked off, ie demonstrating you turned up to a place of voting on the day, then you can not vote without penalty. No one sees what you write on the card.
I voted in the advance poll. I respect your right to not vote, but for me it’s something trivially easy to do.
I, like you, deplore the choice between bad or worse with which we are always faced. But I do worry that actual people get hurt more by worse than by bad. So where I think it would make a difference, I do think it’s my responsibility to vote for bad, or at best nominally acceptable.
You live somewhere where you’re faced with worse and worse, so I don’t blame you for not voting. I voted somewhere I felt made a difference, or at least a statement with effect. It all depends on the context, I guess.
I lived in Trinity Spadina during the last election and, before moving to LFLA, we lived briefly in Parkdale-High Park. Both ridings, incidentally, went to the NDP. Even in comparatively solid social democratic ridings (on account, no doubt, of the high concentration of professors and graduate students) such as these, I would not have voted. That Scott Reid came away with over 50% of the vote in LFLA — and that it was predictable in advance — no way impacted upon my decision. I wouldn’t have voted for Olivia Chow; I wouldn’t have voted for Peggy Nash; and I didn’t vote for Helen Forsey. If I lived in Toronto Danforth, I would not have voted for Layton either.
My decision not to vote is genuine. And I’m glad I’m not the only one.
“actually, it is not getting your name registered/ticked off on the electoral role that incurs a penalty. If you get you name ticked off, ie demonstrating you turned up to a place of voting on the day, then you can not vote without penalty. No one sees what you write on the card.”
That’s true, Glen, but as RIPope points out at Long Sunday, these people are still recorded by the media and the government as coming out to vote. You can vote without penalty, sure, but you still appear to be supporting the system. That you show up is used to prove that the system works, even though you’re obliged to show up so that you can, in fact, not vote!
My guide is always been “who is hurt?” and “am I willing to risk their suffering even for a laudable statement?” I largely agree with your sentiments, but I am still faced with the choice between bad or marginally worse. I’d like to love democracy enough to make the kind of statement that you are making, but the honest truth is that I don’t love it more than I dislike people’s immediate marginal increase in suffering.
Sorry to sound so beancountery about the whole thing, but I’m all about, like, the material costs—to others, as well as, again honestly, to me, although that wasn’t seriously in play this time around. I think.
Post a Comment