User:Real World/A Critique of Voting

A Critique of voting

By A.W. Shred

Note: this essay refers solely to electoral voting.

The time has come again, reader, you have been called up to choose from among your own, a man or woman to represent the whole. It is your civic duty to vote and if you were to decline, then you might face scorn or, in some nations, imprisonment. A self-aware person must do what they can do justify their actions and to, if possible, answer all criticism of the action they would take. What are the arguements against voting? Can you answer these critiques? If not, I suggest you do not vote.


 * The person who allows another to speak for them undeniably adds to the authority of this speaker, and are therefore responsible in part for the actions of the speaker in utilising this authority. Similarly, If you vote then you are giving your choice power to speak for you. This in itself is not troublesome, what is troublesome is that you agree to give them this power before you know specifically what they will choose to do with it. There has to be some level of moral dubiousness in surrendering your ability to choose against committing an act that is wrong. Even if you vote for a person that does not win the collective vote, then you are accepting the system for what it is and submitting yourself to a social contract that commands you follow the will of the system.


 * Among possible choices, is there one who represents your views on every matter? For an overwhelming majority of people, the answer is no. It stands to reason then, that the act of voting itself is a compromise, the voter is giving up some of his preferences for the sake of others valued more. If one is forced to compromise an opinion just to have a say, then one is giving their support to something they do not agree with.


 * The choices you are faced with, are they truly representative of the people they will choose to represent? In most cases the answer is no. Most of your options will be of above average wealth, most will be men, most will have had a level of education that you could not have. It has been deeply engrained in our brains to protect those who can give to us. How do you think this applies to your representatives? Do you think they will act on the behalf of all people? Or will they act on behalf of those who made them wealthy and the separate society-within-a-society that they dwell? Is such a person worthy of control of your society?


 * In a democracy it is essential for the will of the leaders to be equivalent to the will of the people. However, when a person is elected into power, then they immediately become separated from the will of the people. They become more than just an ordinary citizen. They rise to a position where all but the strongest of mind lose sight of the will of the people. What’s that? You don’t believe me? Then why are laws created to the contrary to the will of the people? Why are wars fought that you do not want? Why are the hospitals and schools less than what they could be? Why are the rich given preference over the poor? If this is true, then to vote is to destroy democracy.


 * History shows us that human beings, once granted more than normal power, have a tendency to be adverse to any action which would remove or dilute this power. This has the effect of power creating a need for greater power, and taking it from the only possible source -- those with less power. To vote is to put the leader on the path to destruction.

Did you answer these critiques, reader?