What is the real value of a vote? For some, it’s choosing a banner to stand under, be it red or blue. For others, it’s a protest against a candidate, by choosing their competitor. But how many people can say they actually back a candidate that they truly believe in?
Allow me to preface my opinion, which follows, with this: I do not believe that there is a wrong way to vote. Voting is a practice that should be praised, regardless of the motivating factors behind it. Part of democracy is the understanding that everyone has an equal voice, no matter what opinions and beliefs that they hold. What I do believe, however, is that today’s voting practices in the United States are contributing to how we feel about government.
Democracy benefits when more people vote, because it is only with a high turnout that government can have a legitimate claim of representation. Today’s American populous votes less than it ever has. The United States consistently underperforms in voter turnout when compared to other democratic societies.
It is no wonder, then, with such low turnout, that people are consistently unsatisfied with government. With a Congressional approval rating of 14 percent, a discussion needs to be had about who it is that we choose to represent us.
Inadequate representation is what happens when a public official holding office does not accurately reflect the people that make up his or her constituency. If only a third of eligible voters actually vote, and only about half of those people vote for a candidate, would that candidate actually have a legitimate claim to represent those people? Our system of voting says yes, but the feeling of dissatisfaction expressed by most Americans seems to say otherwise.
What if it is our voting practices that cause so much dissatisfaction? Obviously, lower voter turnout is one issue which contributes to the sentiment of Americans who don’t feel that the federal government represents them, but how much have we considered the way that voters choose their candidates?
There is this concept which has always seemed strange to me about voting for the "lesser of two evils." The reasoning plays out like this: If Candidate A is not preferable to a voter, yet he or she finds Candidate B to be even further from their beliefs, then that voter should cast a ballot for Candidate A. Or even simpler, some people vote for Candidate A or Candidate B just because of the party that they are in.
This is how many people vote, both in primaries and in general elections. To this, I will submit my counterargument.
A vote, to me, is not just a number to be counted for one candidate, or against another. To me, it is an endorsement. It is a public declaration of support for who a candidate is, what the candidate has done, and what I believe the candidate will strive to accomplish in office. How could someone, in this framework of what defines a vote, choose a candidate that they are not enthusiastic about, but rather could just put up with for a number of years?
Obviously, I do not have to agree with everything that the candidate I choose stands for – I am an individual, as is every candidate, and therefore I cannot reasonably expect my exact ideology to ever be reflected in office. That being said, I will not vote for a candidate because of the party with which they identify, or because of who they’re running against, or because most people think that they will win. I will not vote for one candidate over another because the vision that one has is supposedly more realistic than the other’s.
I would prefer to vote for someone who dreams big over an incrementalist because dreaming big is what this country is all about. Dreaming big is what won us two World Wars and put a man on the moon. Dreaming big is what we seem to have lost our grip on today.
I will not listen to the candidate that tells me what we cannot do. I want to listen to the candidate that gives me hope for the future and makes me excited about the direction we are going in, because even if the dreamer doesn’t completely deliver, it’s very likely that what is accomplished would be what the incrementalist would’ve settled for without reaching farther.
The enthusiasm of voters is a problem in America today. Without enthusiasm for a candidate, voters are just choosing between two disappointments. What I plan to do, if I find myself disappointed with my options on the ballot come November, is either to write in the name of someone I believe in, or to walk away altogether.
My vote has to be earned, and I think that if more voters believed that, we would be less disappointed when it came to picking who runs our country.
