A common predicament that many individuals seem to be facing with the upcoming election is whether or not to vote. This is a very daunting and stressful process, there is quite a bit of progression happening and sometimes it’s unclear what the best decision would be. It seems as though that in this specific situation, it is not as much a concern of which candidate to vote for. Rather, the question of whether or not you are going to cast your vote at all. I will say that I too, personally feel as though this is the decision that I am caught between. None of the candidates in this election seem to fit the standard I have set in my mind regarding our president. It seems that there are two main opposing opinions regarding the matter and I feel as though they both need be addressed in order to fully weigh the consequences of either voting or not at all.

First off I will say that voting is important, if not for a presidential candidate, for those in your local government. Local and state government is the first place to start. In many cases, when movement is made, the efforts began at the local level. This is really where much of the organizing can begin. So regardless of whether you are going to vote for a specific presidential candidate, voting for those who will hold local and state office is imperative in order to work toward change in the future. We have to focus on electing local leaders who portray themselves to be receptive of new and different progressive ideas for future development. Regarding the presidential election though, we must ask ourselves, is this something that we can be comfortable wholeheartedly supporting? If not, we are faced with a decision between what seems to be ‘the lesser of two evils’. This is the electoral system that we are choosing to support with our votes. A system in which candidates are placed in front of we in a way in which we must then vote for the one that won’t create as catastrophic of an outcome. Is that the system we wish to live in? I believe that voting in a system such as this is a way of perpetuating the system itself. We are not living in a democratic system if it's one where we don’t truly have a choice. We are faced with the problem of choosing to vote against a candidate rather than for. Choosing to vote in a system such as this is almost, in a sense, denying your own voice. It’s a form of cohersion.

Michael Buber’s piece entitled ‘I & Thou” explains the I and you relationship that tends to develop in societies. Buber talks a lot about the idea of reciprocity. Which is the process of exchanging conversation with others for a mutual benefit. This can easily be related back to the electoral system. In an ideal democratic sense, we would be engaging in a relationship of reciprocity with the government and those who are elected. Sadly, this is just not the case (Buber 67). There are a variety of efforts working toward resolving this unjust political reality. One in particular is called ‘Represent Us’. This group is organizing with one common goal, to make corruption illegal. The way that the political system is set up allows for special interest groups to gain political influence solely by paying off politicians. A startling piece of information that I have come across is a published graph that this organization pieced together. Two professors from Princeton University viewed over twenty years worth of data with the goal of answering a simple question. They wanted to know if our government actually cares about what the people think, and if they truly represent the majority of the people’s views. They did it by taking information from 2000 different public opinion surveys and comparing it to laws that were actually passed. After putting all of this information together they were able to determine that nearly 90% of americans views have close to no impact at all (represent.us). With this information being brought to light, it seems that in Buber’s terms, there is close to no reciprocity within the electoral system. We give them our votes and they dismiss our views altogether.

Essentially this means that no matter your views or your opinions, a lot of what is said is completely disregarded at the end of the day. This doesn’t mean though, that there is no hope. It does not suggest that no matter what, there’s no good decision. As I said before, voting in itself has its perks and benefits and we have the right so why not utilize it, right? Audre Lorde has expressed the inability to move efforts forward when we play the game that they set up for us. “The master’s tools will never be able to dismantle the master's house” (Lorde). This makes us wonder, is the electoral system the master’s tool? Does voting in this system ultimately lead into a cycle of misguided views and misrepresented peoples? Can we even make a difference in voting at all? I think yes. There is a catch though, many of us believe that by simply going through the process of voting is enough. This is not the case. Voting is just one step in the process of free speech and utilizing your own voice. Placing your ballot into the ballot box can amount to nearly nothing if you are not willing to speak out about the problems you have with the electoral system and the political in general. This also proves the point that corruption cannot fully be disassembled if you are playing by the rules of the system/ political. Going out and voting is playing by the rules of the system, and she isn’t saything that this doesn’t aid a cause. What she is saying though, is that when your only political influence/ effort amounts to casting a ballot, there is no way that the corruption within the political system can be dismantled.

Taking this fact of the matter into account, we must also consider morally, what the voter believes and if it falls in line with the presidential candidate who is supposedly going to represent them in office. An individual’s view of politics depends on how they perceive speech and how they believe they should use it. When it comes to voting for a candidate only as a means to vote against another, this doesn’t really seem to be any form of productive free speech. Voting in a system that oppresses the individual view is undemocratic. Not casting your vote is just as big a political statement as voting could be. In some ways not voting may be more of a political statement than casting a vote for a candidate the individual does not support or believe in. This is only true when other forms of action follow an abstainment from voting though. Sitting back and complaining about the issues you see but not stepping up and taking action is very counter-productive, but this action does not necessarily have to be voting in the presidential election.

When it comes to the question of whether or not to vote. I have personally noticed an overwhelming upset whenever an individual states that they have decided not to vote for whatever reason. In the reading ‘City of God’ by Saint Augustine, the idea that it is better to serve the conqueror, than to be destroyed by war is discussed (Cohen, Fermon; St. Augustine). I do not believe this to be true. In speaking out about the issues you have with the world, there are times where you could be facing heavy opposition and possible threat. This possibility should not overshadow the desire to inflict change. Working alongside the ‘conqueror’, in this case a presidential candidate that you do not agree with, could essentially become a dismissal of your own views and moral standing. The act of voting is deemed to be one of our fundamental rights as an american citizen, but “there is no right where there is no justice” (Cohen, Fermon 140). This right to vote, and not only that but for our vote to matter, is removed because the electoral system we are living in is not a just one. There are divisions set up in society that make us feel as though we must harshly criticize those who view/ experience the world differently than us. This idea flows into another point that Saint Augustine makes, “People have a false consciousness when it comes to who the true enemy is” (Cohen, Fermon; St. Augustine). When we view our fellow workers, peers, educators, etc. as those who we must fight against, we are feeding into the game that this kind of electoral system sets up for us. When we spend all of our time and energy voting in a way that is opposing the rights of those who are different than us, we are losing sight of what the real issues are.

There are pros and cons to every decision. There will be times when the good things seem to outweigh the bad and others when the bad outweigh the good. In this particular situation, when it comes to a decision between voting and abstaining. It really comes down to an individual’s moral compass and what they deem to be the right decision. Each person views their right to free speech in a unique way. In this sense, it doesn’t seem that voting in a system that force feeds us candidates is a fair or positive exchange. Our representatives do not represent us when we have to vote for someone in order to keep the other candidate out of office. Again, that is not democratic and it is adding to the perpetuation of the corruption that is so deeply ingrained into our electoral system. I believe that as a voter, if you cannot wholeheartedly support a candidate, they do not deserve your vote. The possibility that someone potentially dangerous gets into office is a problem. As much as this is true, how are we to know though, that the other potential candidate won’t try to implement just as destructive laws and rules once they get into that seat? Voting against is not freedom of speech it is a way of silencing the voter, this political system debases us and our views as the electorate in this way. I believe that if you don’t feel that either candidate will do a proper job representing your views and your country, voting for them is a way of demeaning your value as a voter. It completely devalues the purpose that the democratic electoral system is supposed to embody. The decision you make must allow for your internal morality to stand. With all of this in mind though, this decision is not an easy one to make. I can’t speak for everyone, or anyone really. Everyone has their own perception of what it means to voice their opinions and views. What I do think is that no matter what the decision ends up being in regard to voting or abstaining, the advocacy cannot stop here. Whether we vote or not in the presidential election, getting involved locally and statewide is extremely important. We cannot let our voices go unnoticed and unheard, and I know that we won’t.

Works Cited:

Buber, Martin. I and Thou. New York: Scribner, 1958. Print.

"Study: Congress Literally Doesn't Care What You Think." End Corruption Defend the Republic

Study Congress Literally Doesnt Care What You Think Comments. Represent.us, n.d.

Web. 28 Apr. 2016. <https://represent.us/action/theproblem-4/>.

Lorde, Audre. Sister Outsider: Essays and Speeches. Trumansburg, NY: Crossing, 1984. Print.

Cohen, Mitchell, and Nicole Fermon. "St. Augustine, City of God." Princeton Readings in Political