The most surprising element of last Tuesday's election was not the sweeping Republican victory, but the astounding apathy of the Virginia electorate. In a state that was crucial in the ascension of Barack Obama to the White House in 2008, less than 2 million people voted out of a possible 5 million voters. If citizens in a democracy hope to maintain a sense of legitimacy in their criticism of government action, they must be willing to participate in political activities such as voting. Otherwise their calls for reform and changing the structure of government will be drowned in their own hypocrisy.
The problem with motivating people to vote is that unless the country is in a perceived time of crisis, like during the 2008 election, people don't think that government actions have an impact on their lives. It may be true that on a day-to-day basis the government does not explicitly interfere with a person's life. But at some point during a politician's term in office, his decision-making will affect the average citizen. And if a person has not made the choice to vote for the candidate he thinks would best serve the interests of his city, state, or country, then he has little moral ground to stand on when lodging a complaint.
Some might argue that the political process is fixed in a way that prevents candidates with significantly opposing views from running against one another. That was certainly true in this latest gubernatorial race in Virginia, where one candidate was on the right - Republican Bob McDonnell - and the other one was on the center-right, Democrat Creigh Deeds. But just because the two front-running candidates don't represent a person's interests does not mean that he should not participate in democracy. He has a number of options in this case, from voting for the least offensive of the two front-runners, to writing in a different candidate, to supporting a third-party candidate. Just because the two major parties don't have striking differences between one another does not mean that voters should become apathetic. In fact, it should motivate them to cause a shake-up in the race by refusing to give their vote to candidates that don't represent their interests and instead throw support behind someone who does. There are precedents in American history of third parties (e.g. the progressives of the late 19th/early 20th century) and independents (e.g. Ross Perot in the 1992 presidential election) having a deep impact on the political climate of the time. If voters expressed support for parties and candidates outside of the mainstream, there is the strong possibility that politicians in power would take important cues on how to govern from voters.
Another reason presented for not voting is that, in reality, a single vote is not going to matter. This is true. It's more than likely that a single vote will not affect the overall outcome of the race. Most races will be decided by vote differences in the thousands or tens of thousands of voters. But going out to vote is a way of communicating a commitment to democracy and democratic ideals. If someone doesn't care enough to vote, does he really have a commitment to fostering a democratic society? If he only cries out against the government when it personally offends him, but makes no effort to shape its operation during times of relative stability, what legitimacy does he have when he opposes government action? Being members of a democratic society, we are all implicated with the actions of our government. We are all in some way responsible for what our government does and a person who does not vote is shirking that responsibility.
There are certainly a number of different ways to participate in the political process. One can contribute funds to a party, political action committee, or lobbying group. One can join protests and sign petitions to oppose certain government actions. But voting is obviously the cornerstone of democracy. Without elections, politicians would have no accountability. There are millions of people throughout the world who would love to be able to vote in a free and fair election. There are people who are willing to die to receive the same gift of democracy that we have received from our forefathers. American democracy is unique, but many Americans choose to take it for granted. They would rather stand aside while others make the decisions that affect millions of people everyday. Democracy is not a given. It must be maintained through participating in the electoral process amongst other democratic actions. Those people that are content to let other people make decisions for them erode the democratic tradition and cheapen the gift that has been handed down to us. All responsible citizens must vote in order to support and maintain a democratic tradition.
Michael Khavari's column appears Mondays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at m.khavari@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
EDITORIAL: Carla Williams deserves her seat at the table
By Editorial Board | 2 days agoLooking beyond basketball and football reveals that Virginia Athletics is, in many ways, thriving.
UPADHYAYA: The Great and not-so-Good sides of U.Va.’s 2030 housing plan
By Apal Upadhyaya | 5 days agoInstead of improving the dire state of existing infrastructure, however, the University has shifted attention away from it and chosen to expand.
EDITORIAL: Support low-barrier shelters in Charlottesville
By Editorial Board | 6 days agoInvesting in low-barrier shelters now will pay off in increased stability for the homeless, which will undoubtedly improve the safety of shelters and the community writ large.
