Elections are right around the corner again. And again we are told that we should not abstain. The reasons provided for this rhetoric are plentiful and familiar. They are also without substance. Some may even propose a return to the compulsory voting; that is, punishing those who abstain either by fines or even imprisonment. In fact, they argue that forcing people to vote will result to election results that more accurately reflect the people´s choice.
This, however, need not be the case. Allowing people to freely choose whether to participate in the elections or not has its pros and cons. On the one hand, a major advantage is that among those who choose to participate in the process, we will have people who really care about the issues and are thus more informed. That is, we eliminate those who are rather indifferent and passive, and are thus more likely to vote randomly or even worse vote what their peers suggested. In other words, the signal to noise ratio increases.
On the other hand, a major concern is that at the end more polarized than informed voters participate. This is a major concern because polarized voters choose based on emotion and not logic. In such a case introducing randomness (stemming from compulsory voting) in the process may result to a better result. However, before positing such an argument we should evaluate the level of polarization among such voters. How rigid are they?
Moreover, it might as well be the case that introducing compulsory voting may amplify the polarization among voters and not reduce it. If someone is passive enough to the point where he or she would not otherwise vote, then it is highly likely that she will not get informed about the issues. Consequently, he or she might vote what her polarized peers favor.
As far as the reasons which are provided for why one must vote, I take issue with 3 particular talking points that are frequently invoked.
1) Civic Duty: Many will often simply suggest that it´s someone´s civic duty to participate in the elections by voting. I disagree. Just because you feel overwhelmed with "patriotism" and believe that this is your duty, it does not mean that everybody embraces the same mindset. Please do not project your views onto us. I believe that it´s my civic duty to protect everybody´s opinion and ability to choose freely what they will do. It is likely that everybody has a different interpretation of what their duties are.
Being a member of a society is not like being member of an inclusive club where you have to sign a statement which clearly indicates your duties and responsibilities. When I was born, nobody gave me anything which stated my duties to sign. Please refrain from using such an emotional rhetoric and stop trying to shame someone into voting.
2) Abstaining maintains the status-quo: Another common argument is that failing to vote during elections condones in effect the status-quo and legitimizes corruption of the politicians. So, if you politicians can recognize that you are corrupted, why don´t you just change your behavior?
3) Influence on election result: another point often raised is the fact that abstaining from voting suggests that you cannot influence the result. Let´s check this one out. Suppose we have 4 voters and 3 alternatives to choose from; candidate A, candidate B and neither (denoted by N). Suppose 2 voters favor A, 1 favors B and the 1 is undecided and considers abstaining.
If the undecided voters abstains then candidate A gets 2/3 of the votes, whereas if the undecided voter does vote then we have 3 possible scenarios:
- Votes for B, in which case A and B get 2/4 of the votes. In this case, the undecided voter has a significant effect on the result.
- Votes for A, in which case A gets 3/4 of the votes. In this case, the undecided voter simply amplifies the difference, but has no effect on the ordering of preferred candidates.
- Votes for Neither, in which case A gets 2/4 of the votes and B gets 1/4 of the votes. Again, the undecided voter has no effect on the ordering of preferred candidates.
So, by abstaining the undecided voter affects the result only in the case where she would vote for candidate B if he or she was forced to vote.
Now further suppose that if forced to vote, the undecided voter is equally likely to vote for each alternative. Then forcing such a voter to vote leads to a standstill 1/3 of the time. But since the undecided voter is indifferent such an outcome is inefficient. Allowing her to abstain will improve efficiency in this society as in such case will have a definite winner and the result will more clearly represent the society´s preferences.
With that all being said, I am going to vote, but I know why. I have a strong preference and I am familiar with the different candidates and their positions on issues that are important to me. I do acknowledge though that the issues that are important to me, could very well be of secondary importance to other voters. Moreover, on the issues that are important to those other voters, the candidates may vary very little in their positions, which may lead to a lot of voters being indifferent. Similarly, it could be the case that people do not want to or do not have the time to get informed about the issues. Quite frankly, I would prefer them abstaining rather than voting randomly.
Finally,it´s wrong to suggest that just because someone abstained, then he or she has no right in criticizing the winner in the future. Just because a voter was indifferent when the election was taking place, this does not mean that this indifference cannot be broken in the future. Similarly, we are supposed to be a democracy and just because someone exercised his or her right to abstain, this does not mean that we should withhold his or her right to free speech until the next election. As a matter of fact, he or she might raise a good point that the rest of us failed to see.
