Yazad has a persuasive list of reasons not to vote. I agree with a lot of them. Voting as a right is meaningless unless you have the right not to vote. The claim that those who don’t vote have no right to crib later implies that those who did vote for the party in power are also responsible for all the foolish things they do while in power. Claiming that unless you vote you don’t have any right to enjoy the fruits of living in democratic society makes sense only if you also agree that those who didn’t vote (or indeed those who didn’t vote for the party in power) can withhold their taxes, because their party is not in power and they don’t have a right to enjoy what benefits comes from living in society.
But I disagree with Yazad about the value of voting. For example he says that the value of one person’s vote is very small. The same thing can be said about one person’s purchasing power, but I don’t think Yazad will think that product boycotts by customers are useless and that companies are all-powerful.
He also finds it repugnant to vote for the least bad person or party. I wonder why. We capitalists don’t expect companies to be models of rectitude and superefficient. We accept that they are imperfect, but they will respond to incentives. They will repeat behaviour that is encouraged and refrain from the behaviour that loses them money. I expect politicians to be the same. If we do choose the least potent poison, we can hope that they will dilute it further the next time.
The real difference between political markets and private markets is in the granularity of choice that I have. In this election for example, I want to
Express my contempt for what the government did in Gujarat
Encourage the government to speed up economic reforms and tell Vajpayee to retain Arun Shourie.
Tell the government to chuck Joshi from his post
Express impatience at the slow progress of the Mumbai Urban Transport Project II
Tell the Congress to come up with a real leader, not an incompetent idiot desperately trying to emulate her mother-in-law.
I have to do all this using one vote! Those who think that the government “represents me” had better explain why is it that I have so little control over the process as compared to a private market. But Yazad is not among them by the way. The point I am trying to make is that it is wrong to reduce the little choice we have even further by making voting a “moral duty” or going off in a huff and not voting because the process gives you too little choice. Vote or don’t vote, but do it strategically.
When I read the piece, the private company analogy came to my mind too. Was going to post a detailed rebuttal to some points Yaz makes.
Thanks for saving me the effort.
By the way, a correction. You don’t have just one vote. You have three votes. BMC, Vidhan sabha and Lok Sabha. Three may not be enough either, but it does give more options.
For example, take the 1999 elections. A lot of people in Maharashtra wanted to say
1. I want BJP-SS to win bcause Vajpayee to remain the PM.
2. I want BJP-SS to lose because I wan’t to get Thackeray’s cohorts out of power.
Though the elections were held on the same day, people could say both these things, because they had TWO votes. Sure enough, NDA swept the Lok Sabha seats, but could not form a state government.
Nice typos, huh? 🙂
I meant one vote to say all those things that I listed. I can hardly tell the mayor of Thane (which is where I stay, not Mumbai) that I want better train services on the Central Line when that is not under his control and there is the issue of garbage to be dealt with.
Whose typos are you talking of?
what could be a strategy in “not voting”…
voting is not a moral duty or anything like that… it is just a good idea.. it is the citizen’s best option (only option really) to have a say on who will make decisions for his future…
Saying “voting is my choice… so i can choose not to vote” is fine.. but those who say that might also want to explain why “not voting” was strategically better than voting for the “least potent poison”.
An important element that both you and Yazad seem to be overlooking, is that the non exercise of the franchise, which is well within your rights, seems to count against you in the final electoral outcome. If you don’t vote at all you will be allowing a greater weight however infintisimal to everyother voter, who could potentially cast his vote against your interests. If you do vote you are no assured of anything except that of diluting any vote that might be cast against your particular interests.
About the granularity of choices, I think all choices are “chunky” or “lumpy” to various degrees. For instance, in the Indian education system, my having taken Arts in teh 11th grade precluded the possibilty of me becoming an engineer (without a substantial cost). I guess its about prioritisation, which is the most importance message you want to send, is a negative message on Gujarat more important than a positive message on disinvestment (which I think will continue no matter who is in power, except the commies (god forbid))? Chunky choices are not a real reason why not to vote, just a reason to prioritise on what you want to vote about.
My own typos of course. Am the Knig of Tpyos!!