The Vote of Not Voting

A matter of conscience.

Christopher Cook asks "Should You Vote?" at the Advocates for Self-Government. He calls the system "fundamentally flawed," meaning unfixable, or more accurately, inherently unworkable, and calls for new ways of doing things.

For too long we've heard that not voting is a sign of complacency. If only the winner of an election could see the obvious: if the plurality of registered voters didn't vote at all, that is, if more people didn't vote than voted for the winner, the winner should be humbled, because the winner was rejected and the system was rejected. 

There are "non-complacency" reasons people don't vote:

• "None of the Above." No candidate is acceptable.

• "I don't believe in this system." It doesn't serve us, and hurts many of us, no matter who's in charge.

• Both of the above.

The reason I probably won't vote at all, not even for "third-party" or independent candidates, is that I don't believe in the system. I don't believe in violence as the solution to problems, but the State functions only on violence. Everything it does is backed by the threat of kidnapping (arresting and jailing) or murdering us if we don't comply.

One might say that the State isn't founded on violence, but on self-defense. That sounds like a sensible theoretical moral justification for the State, but it goes against the history of how States originated and what they still do today.

The self-defense argument would have the State using violence only against those who violate other people's bodies and property.  But we know what the State does in reality: it employs violence against the peaceful, people who sell the "wrong" drugs, have the "wrong" kind of sex (e.g., paid sex), and seek to import goods from the "wrong" countries. And it embargoes, bombs, and invades other countries while funding wars in still yet other countries. 

You might say these uses of violence are justified for the greater good. I simply don't believe it and don't want to be a part of it. 

That's a reason to not vote at all, even for a third alternative that more closely aligns with my values. The State will behave like a State no matter who's in charge, and my favorite politician will be compromised or ruined.

But what about the two-party candidates, the only ones with a reasonable chance of winning?

The question always boils down to the necessity of voting for one candidate because he's not nearly as bad as the other, I can only say that I don't know that, and neither do you. We can't predict changing circumstances.

If Candidate A has a record of robbing 4 banks and murdering two people, and Candidate B has a record of robbing two banks but murdering four people, which do you think will have better policies toward jewelry stores and art museums? Would you seriously vote for the one who merely sounds more sensible? How can either one be trusted?

Would you believe we deserve to be stuck with those choices?

I don't think either former President Trump or current President Biden have murders and robberies in their past (one never knows for sure), but their likely presence on the ballot this November is dismaying:

• They both extended Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). As the ACLU puts it, "Information collected under the law without a warrant can be used to prosecute and imprison people, even for crimes that have nothing to do with national security." 20th-century FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover spied on prominent citizens without warrants to blackmail them into supporting his agenda. FISA empowers the NSA to do the same.

• From support for the extremist Netanyahu government in Israel to countless illegal military strikes throughout the Middle East and Africa, both Trump and Biden have, like their predecessors, given the people of the region (and around the world) good reason to think of America as the "Great Satan."

• Trump brought charges against Julian Assange for espionage even though no American law applies to him and Assange's "crime," reporting the war crimes of the United States, was a service to democracy. Biden has pursued extradition for Assange, who's being held in Britain. 

If both parties in the "Two-Party System" agree on violating privacy, civil liberties, peace, human dignity, and even the First Amendment with impunity, what's the point?

Democracy is more than voting every couple of years. It is safe to surmise that many of our leaders in government and business have been compromised by warrantless spying, and Assange is an example to all of us of what can happen if we expose government crimes as he did. We don't know when we've been lied to, but as long as Assange is in peril there is no reason to trust the federal government. On anything. At all.

The ritual of voting for Trump, Biden, or anyone else from the Two-Party System is hollow. This isn't democracy because not only are we uninformed and misinformed, but the feds are making sure we can't be informed.

To vote for censorship, privacy attacks, and wars, and proudly call myself a supporter of "our Democracy" would be like kicking a homeless person in the teeth while walking to church and calling myself a Christian. Hey, I went to church! I voted!

I know the major-party candidates won't get the message of why I didn't vote. But if I do vote, especially for one of these parties, they'll think they have my consent on all they'd do.

And that's a message I don't want to send.

James Leroy Wilson writes The MVP Chase (subscribe) and JL Cells (subscribe) and thanks you for your subscriptions and support! You may contact James for your writing, editing, and research needs: jamesleroywilson-at-gmail.com.