“If you didn’t vote, you don’t get to complain,” and other variants of the phrase are common following a Presidential election. These phrases reflect a tension that rises around elections, not just between political rivals, but between those that vote and those that do not. The tension between the two groups is in part due to the vast differences in the perceived value of voting. While some people that refuse to vote are, as a large group of voters say, too lazy or unpatriotic. That would not explain why a such a large portion of people do not vote. According to the United States Census Bureau, only about 61% of potential voters voted in the 2016 election (File). Laziness and apathy would not explain why four out of ten eligible voters do not vote, and the issue of whether or not to vote is a complex issue with valid arguments on both sides.

Arguments for voting

To many people voting is a responsibility. A Tallahassee Democrat article, “Voting is more than a right, it’s an obligation,” argues that voting is important because it is the primary way of purchasing policies. By using the analogy of votes as money, the article argues that one only gets what one votes for. Thus for those that don’t vote, they, “cannot or should not expect delivery of service in education, housing, health care, public safety, etc” (Simmonds). By not voting, one rejects the benefits gained and allows for potential injustices to occur as voting is not just for benefits, but to reduce potential harm. Because one’s vote, “coupled with scores, thousands, or even millions of others — can prevent a candidate from denying my human rights” (Simmonds). Voting is not only a source to put those in power that one desires to be in power, but as a way of stopping those that would abuse power. In this article voting is the core of stopping corruption and those that seek to harm rather than help. Voting by its nature is the multitudes’ voice against potential tyranny. Thus at its core the article holds that unified votes are critical because, “Your vote and mine has generational consequences. We must use it with a sense of commitment toward our children and grandchildren” (Simmonds).

In addition to voting being in one’s self interest, not voting, according to a Fortune article, “Who Helped Trump Most in the 2016 Presidential Election? Nonvoters, Pew Study Says,” is against one’s own interest. The article using a Pew Research Center study declares that, “nonvoters in 2016 had just as much to do with establishing the Trump presidency as actual voters” (Shoot). Because “Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents made up a 55% majority of nonvoters,” the nonvoters gave power their less preferred candidate. The article is shows the importance of voting because it states that, “an increase in under-30 voters in key swing states could have cinched the election for popular vote winner Hillary Clinton” (Shoot). This article is attempting to push nonvoters into desiring to vote as the article is arguing against the idea of the individual vote having no impact. However, this article is only influencing a select group, nonvoters in swing states. Because certain states are unlikely to change who they vote for, this article ultimately undermines its own argument as it ends up focused on the potential of the states rather than the overall group of nonvoters.

Arguments for not voting

There are reasons not to vote. In a Washing Post Article, “On election day, consider abstaining from ignorant voting,” Ilya Somin argues that a reason not to vote is a lack of information. This lack of information isn’t due to the information not existing, but that time and energy needed to find all the information one should have before voting far exceeds the value of the vote itself. Quickly getting information through shortcuts do not fix the problem as “Shortcuts can help in some cases. But they can also be actively misleading, and often require considerate preexisting knowledge to use effectively” (Somin). At its core Somin’s argument is about how much does one need to know before one should act on one’s information. Learning everything is a higher cost with less potential benefits in respect to voting because voting is a collective action. In addition voting without knowledge is likely to harm the public’s own interests, and in most cases, “the average of the rest of the electorate will usually be better, or at least is unlikely to be worse” (Somin).

Not voting is also a way to vote. A New York Times article, “Should Everybody Vote?” argues that not voting is a valid vote as, “not voting, then, can be a protest against all the available candidates” (Gutting). By refusing to vote as a sign of protest, one is voicing their decision as one does by voting. The article recognises the main problem of nonvoting being misunderstood, and it offers a solution, “add as a ballot choice ‘No Acceptable Candidate’” (Gutting). This solution could partially work as it allows people that refuse to vote for either candidate to fully voice their opinion, but this idea pushes nonvoters to be voters and will not affect nonvoters that have a problem with the voting system.

In addition to nonvoting as a form of voting, The New York Times article introduces the idea that votes don’t affect specific policy that much. Political scientists, “looked at almost 1,800 cases of controversial policy issues in the United States and explained: ‘[T]he majority does not rule — at least not in the causal sense of actually determining policy outcomes. When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites and/or with organized interests, they generally lose’” (Gutting). While more research still needs to be done, this argues that votes have little precision in what is accomplished through them. This devalues voting. This reduction in the value of a vote makes it harder to justify spending more time deciding who to vote for. The article then adds, “Of course, the game is not entirely rigged. As long as we have free elections, our wealthy rulers do not have dictatorial power” (Gutting). This article is not trying to reduce faith in the American system of voting. By acknowledging that the research isn’t absolute and that there is still some worth in voting, it seeks to give people reasons why some might not vote and why those reasons aren’t absolute. The article is not trying to have either side of the voting debate reject the article outright. It is seeking to inform and not repulse readers.

Conclusion

Whether or not to vote is an individual choice, but voting itself is a group decision. The reasons not to vote are more individual reasons while the reasons to vote are closer to group reasons. Those that don’t vote appear to value individuality far more than unity, while those that vote seem to value the group effort over their own costs of voting. These clashing values cause a rift each voting season as voters see nonvoters breaking the unity of being responsible, American citizens.

Works Cited

File, Thom. “Voting in America: A Look at the 2016 Presidential Election,” United States Census Bureau. 10 May 2017, www.census.gov/newsroom/blogs/random-samplings/2017/05/voting_in_america.html Accessed 8 April 2019.

Gutting, Gary, “Should Everybody Vote?” New York Times. 25 April 2016, https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/25/opinion/should-everybody-vote.html

Shoot, Brittany. “Who Helped Trump Most in the 2016 Presidential Election? Nonvoters, Pew Study Says,” Fortune 2 August 2019
http://fortune.com/2018/08/09/nonvoters-trump-presidency-pew-study/

Simmonds, Keith. “Voting is more than a right, it’s an obligation,”
Tallahassee Democrat. 21 August 2018,
www.tallahassee.com/story/opinion/2018/08/21/voting-more-than-right-its-obligation-opinion/1050524002/ Accessed 8 April 2019.

Somin, Ilya. “On election day, consider abstaining from ignorant voting,” Washington Post 4 November 2014
www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/11/04/on-election-day-consider-abstaining-from-ignorant-voting/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.9b19ec98296b