patching...
Breaking: Creve Coeur Man Abandons Mt. Everest Climb »
Welcome back, Patch Blogger!
Local Voices

Why Voting Sucks

With election season looming on the horizon, like a trip to the dentist’s office that you simply cannot avoid, I’ve been thinking a lot lately about the subject of voting. The reality of voting is very different from popular opinion. The perception is that exercising one’s right to vote is the single most patriotic thing a person can do. That it is this sacred ritual that defines America and somehow sets her apart from every other nation on Earth. Unfortunately, the historical context of the struggle to bring the vote to the “common man” has bestowed a much greater significance upon voting than it truly deserves.

H.L. Mencken said, "Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." Truer words have never been spoken — with the possible exception of Churchill when he said, "the best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter." It is clear from these quotes (and countless others attributed to the Founding Fathers of our nation) that respect for the notion of democracy is far from universal, and rightly so.

If Jay Leno’s “Jaywalking” segments aren’t enough anecdotal evidence to convince us of the collective stupidity of our nation’s electorate, behold, scientific evidence of this fact abounds! From the quasi-scientific results of surveys that tell us seventy percent of Americans cannot name their senators or their congressman, to the exhaustively researched papers that assure us that 2.8 million people voted against Al Gore in 2000 because of drought or flooding in their home states. 

So if one can manage to ignore that the outcome of any given election is largely decided by legions of morons, and still accept the result as legitimate, then one is forced to face the next truth about democracy: mob rule. Benjamin Franklin said, "democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch." Don’t let the humor of this statement obscure the deeper truth that it contains. To embrace democracy is to abandon the notion of basic human rights, since any action against another person or group can be legitimized if it is sanctioned by a majority of voters. Witness the practice of slavery in this country’s early history. I realize that not every ballot issue represents a violation of human rights (although most do), but it is important for people to recognize that it is the mechanism of voting that makes these violations possible.

Most of the laws, regulations, and bureaucracies that govern our day-to-day lives are rarely, if ever, impacted by a referendum. One could argue that our elected representatives are accountable to the voters for the laws that they are involved in implementing, but there are two problems with relying on this alleged check on the power of legislators. First, the public has a notoriously short memory. The sponsor of an unpopular law may be able to mitigate or completely erase the wrath of his constituents over the period of his term of office. Second, even if his actions were egregious enough to bring about his ouster, the infamous law lives on.

All men are created equal (I will assume that this truth is self-evident). The logical extension of this is that no one has a right to rule over you. Most people would not find a reason to disagree with that statement. However, some will object to the next logical step: while you may delegate your right to rule yourself to someone else, you cannot delegate the right to rule other people to someone else because you yourself do not possess that right in the first place. Delegating the right to rule is a purely voluntary action, and participating in the election process is tacit agreement to the terms of being ruled by someone else. People say, "if you don’t vote, you can’t complain." However, the exact opposite is true. If you *do* vote, you can’t complain because you have agreed to be bound by the results of the election. If you don’t participate at all, you are not responsible for the outcome.

On November 6 this year, millions of Americans will participate in the grand bit of theater known as an election. I will be interested to see, following all of the “get out the vote” hype, if participation is actually any greater this time than it was four years ago. I’m going to go out on a limb and predict that it will be the same, if not less.  I would love to see the reaction of our politicians the morning after an election where voter turnout approached zero. Just imagine the spin doctors staying up all night trying to explain how their candidates *still* have a mandate to rule over us.  How could a president who only received 10 votes legitimately lead this country?

Jim Gilbert

5:50 pm on Tuesday, August 7, 2012

While I agree with much of what is said here, I have to say elections are way better than the alternatives that have so far been discovered throughout history...

Reply
Comment_arrow

Jerry Pipes

6:02 pm on Tuesday, August 7, 2012

Perhaps. But we haven't tried everything yet.

Kim C.

10:35 pm on Tuesday, August 7, 2012

That's fine to a point. What do you suggest as an alternative? Not voting only allows those who show up to do what they want. Even if the only votes cast are the candidates voting for themselves, they still have all the power. Barring the apocalypse and having to restart society from scratch, voting is currently the only way individuals have to influence those in power. Politicians are the same as everyone else and they oil the squeaky wheels. You can write and call them as much as you want, but they really only have to care what you say if you actually vote.

Reply
Comment_arrow

Jerry Pipes

7:01 am on Wednesday, August 8, 2012

Voting is this sort of absurd manifestation of how ineffective government is at all of the simple, mundane tasks we expect it to do for us. And obviously, if you eliminated centralized government, you eliminate the need for voting. I would like to see us craft a society in which voting is not necessary at all. I think it can be done (there are a handful of examples from history), but most people are indoctrinated to believe that a strong centralized government is the only way to keep evil in check. I believe this is patently false but that it's in the government's best interests to allow people to go on believing it is true. But here's the real truth: when you look back through history at all of the evil things that have happened (wars, slavery, genocide, crusades, hegemony) the true source of those things is government.

Scott Simon

4:28 am on Wednesday, August 8, 2012

I'll bet you're wrong. Republican voters are pissed off.

Reply
Comment_arrow

Jerry Pipes

7:04 am on Wednesday, August 8, 2012

Scott, you may be right, but I think only the people who are pissed off are the ones that have been paying attention -- and what percentage of voters do they represent? Sadly, I think it is pretty small. Our system was built a few assumptions, and one of those was that we would always have an informed and engaged electorate. We no longer have that.

Jimmy Hill

9:52 am on Wednesday, August 8, 2012

Jerry, the current American republic was an answer to the United Kingdom and King George III's monarchy. A republic where there is a semblance of "self rule" and "home rule" was found to be mightily superior to rule by the King's Parliament from London. Having broken away from Great Britain, the founders were unwilling to establish a new monarchy in the new United States. The weak Articles of Confederation failed; so, it became necessary to enact the current Constitution with its stronger central government.

Reply
Comment_arrow

Jerry Pipes

10:38 am on Wednesday, August 8, 2012

I'm familiar with the history. :) I challenge your assertion that the Articles of Confederation failed. They succeeded at preventing the Federalists from taking over the government.

Jimmy Hill

10:12 am on Wednesday, August 8, 2012

Centralized government is necessary for only one reason - common defence. In a world full of heavily centralized command economies and tyrannies who wish us ill it is necessary for us to have a strong common defence. Unfortunately, once a central government is established, it goes far beyond the limits placed on it by the founders. It gets more and more deeply entrenched in the lives of the populace. Voting by the governed is, at best, a speed bump in the way of tyrannical rule by government. Still, it is the only remedy we have to check the power of tyrannical politicians short of revolution.

Reply
Comment_arrow

Jerry Pipes

11:09 am on Wednesday, August 8, 2012

One could make the argument that centralized government isn't even necessary for common defense. At the time of the First American Revolution, the common defense relied more heavily on the militia. We need to return to that model.

Jimmy Hill

10:22 am on Wednesday, August 8, 2012

Your market based ideas are noble, but just won't work in the world of "realpolitik." Marx argued that capitalism would lead to socialism which would lead to communism. Marx's communism was then supposed to become so efficient that the apparatus of the state would "wither away." As we know, the Soviet Union didn't just wither away. It was consigned to the rubbish tip of history by the concerted effort of the centralized republican government of the USA.

Reply
Comment_arrow

Jerry Pipes

11:12 am on Wednesday, August 8, 2012

Never underestimate the ability of the market to solve a problem if there is money to be made in the solution. "It behooves our citizens to be on their guard, to be firm in their principles, and full of confidence in themselves. We are able to preserve our self-government if we will but think so."
-- Thomas Jefferson

Earl Higgins

9:19 am on Wednesday, August 15, 2012

I get that most of what you say is satire, and that's fine.

But when you attribute "democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch" to Ben Franklin, it leads one to wonder how inaccurate the rest of the piece is.

You have this wonderful thing called the Internet, seriously, these things are not hard to check!

Reply
Comment_arrow

Jerry Pipes

4:18 pm on Thursday, August 16, 2012

That's interesting. This is honestly the first time I've seen the source of that quote challenged. You're right, it doesn't appear that the quote originated with Ben Franklin (http://www.r8ny.com/blog/barry_popik/lunches_with_wolves_the_fake_ben_franklin_quote_on_democracy.html). But then I researched it on the internet -- the same place I found the quote in the first place!

Comment_arrow

Jerry Pipes

4:20 pm on Thursday, August 16, 2012

The truth of the quote itself is certainly unimpeached.

Comment_arrow

Earl Higgins

8:51 pm on Thursday, August 16, 2012

I didn't know either, but it just didn't sound right. Didn't sound like something phrased the way that Franklin wrote, so I checked. I thought it was interesting that the term "lunch" doesn't even make an appearance in literature until the 19th century.

Morph

4:53 pm on Thursday, September 20, 2012

I couldn't see myself leaving the fate of my country up to people on the extreme. The extreme left and the extreme right will vote and hopefully people with sanity will prevail!

Reply

Morph

5:01 pm on Thursday, September 20, 2012

I think the most important part is whether the losing side will conform and stand in line with the winning president; grit their teeth and agree to disagree only for the promotion of confidence to all of the American people. Isn't that what Americans do; work together for the promotion of all...

Reply

Cynthia C.

2:35 pm on Monday, November 5, 2012

I only have three words -- The Electoral College.

Reply

Leave a comment