 |
| Via Wrong Tees |
The
New York Times posted an interesting
op-ed by famed documentarian Errol Morris. The interesting aspect isn't his opinion, but rather his short video demanding voters to theoretically argue why they wouldn't vote:
... They told me that many of the issues they care about — climate change, civil rights, the war on drugs, immigration, prison reform — are not discussed by Democrats or Republicans. That there is such a gulf between what candidates say they will do, and what they do, that it’s impossible to trust anyone. That apathy is actually supported by the evidence.
Regardless of the above, Morris and his interviewees go on to champion the virtues and importance of voting (supreme court appointments, first vote, meeting a love interest), appealing almost entirely to pathos. Fair enough. Unfortunately, none dwell too long on why voting may actually not be worth the time. This lighthearted treatment of the reasons behind not voting is bothersome for a few reasons, chief being Morris and company's perpetuation of the nigh fanatical reverence for voting. Voting, beyond the banal reasons listed, really isn't
worth your time, nor is it a truly effective way to affect government. One young lady with large glasses describes voting as "a cheap thrill." She's right. That's all it is.
First, the time factor: Let's assume that your vote actually does account for something, and that everything was decided by popular vote. Okay, so one vote, one person. Here your vote has a measurable impact. On the national scale your voice roughly measures one in 311,591,917 (give or take a few ten thousand). On the
state scale it can range from one in half a million, to one in 37 million. Okay, so maybe your voice don't stand out too much, but that's not the point, is it? It's to cooperate with others to get your candidate into office and speak your
collective voice. Let's say your candidate doesn't get into office. Your effort, from justifying your decisions to time invested, accounted for naught. You sent no message. Your voice accounted for nothing.
But say your candidate does get into office and they argue and advocate for everything you want them to. Great. Only, now they have to deal with other legislators, most who're opposed to your candidate and your wants and needs. Well, your guy has become a Congressional wallflower — meek, ignored, and, worst of all, lacking any means of impact. Well, that's what your vote amounts to.
But let's say your candidate gets in, has your interests truly in mind and gets along with his or her fellow legislators. Great, right? They are the perfect politician — job finished. Not so fast. Your candidate is going to get buried under a series of messages from special interests advocating for their vote on a variety of issues ranging from gay rights to reducing the
use of paper in the federal government. Your candidate may be influenced to vote against your interests. Your candidate may, from your perspective, be misinformed on a given issue. Or your candidate, perhaps worst of all, could act contrary to what they campaigned on. Your candidate, as the tired cliche goes, turned their back on you. Not much you can do till the next election, right?
Wrong.
There are a variety of issue-based organizations, both state-wide and nation-wide, whose job is to inform, guide, provide arguing points, and corral legislators into coalitions to vote for in the interests of residents. These, we like to call lobbyists (they range from non-profits, think-tanks, advocacy organizations, unions, and businesses to the comically vilified K-street lawyers). The truth is that lobbyists aren't inherently bad; they make an efficient use of resources to prioritize and maximize the voice of people who care to influence Congress and the President beyond just one day in a two-year cycle (yes, midterm elections count). They do this at the behest of the most dreaded special interest group — people like you.
Care about gay rights? Well, the
Human Rights Campaign would love to hear from you. Like your Internet freedom? So does the
Electronic Frontier Foundation. Civil Liberties fan? Donate to the
American Civil Liberties Union. Gun nut?
National Rifle Association. Don't want to see manufacturing jobs shipped overseas? I think the
United Auto Workers would like to have a word. Believe in the right to worship God? So does the
American Christian Lobbyists Association. You can donate to support a single issue, or you can give them money all year long. Doesn't matter. You may even get a tax credit depending on
how you support them. Don't like what one of them says or does? Simple, tell them you're upset and take your money elsewhere. Heck, you could likely get a group of similar-thinking people and directly lobby yourself. There are options.
Each of these organizations lobby in some form, and each organization looks to influence which issue lawmakers tackle next. By giving your money and attention to these organizations you're effectively voting for which issues garner more attention on the Hill. That alone is more effective than any vote in a general election.
One woman in Morris' mini-documentary speaks of voting as "... this thing we only get to do once in four years." She couldn't be more wrong. This thing goes on every single day in every single state. It's up to you to participate. If you want to vote, fine. It's great that you want to participate in something, but it's just wrong to think of voting as both a moral obligation and your only chance to participate in government.
