To Vote or Not to Vote: That is the Question

The vast majority of the people in a democratic and well-structured society vote to make their voices heard. Some people argue that those who are normally in the minority in most societies and who do not vote most of the time, for some reason or other, are wrong to do so. Voting can be considered participation in democratic elections, or generally in all contexts in which a democratic vote, i.e. an election or decision made by a non-hierarchical group, is given to those authorized to participate.

In both cases, people often like to imply that those who do not always vote, whenever there is an opportunity, shoot themselves in the foot in doing so. This is debatable to the extent that participation in an election is the key to making the changes that would otherwise make a voter skeptical. Being a voter is also a privilege, when you consider the men and women who fought to win the right to vote. Since many elections are not fair, there is no point in committing to them, one might say. The moral arguments for violence or sedition are weak, but they have in the past been an effective way to seize power and can sometimes seem the only option in difficult situations.

In order to address the questions raised by this point of contention, I will first examine the extent to which voting is, in democratic nations, effective and valid. Next, I will examine how elections and voting mechanisms can be biased against individuals. Finally, I will determine whether the act of voting is a privilege and how this can justify the statement in question.

 For a vast majority of the people, voting is not something that is seen as an effective way to change life for the better. Voting in a national election is profitable, but voting locally or at European level seems too strenuous an effort, for too low a return. This is a damning indictment against not only the democratic system, but also against voting in general. If we are going to unravel the example of the European elections, we will see that, when voting in the European parliamentary elections, the elected candidates must find consensus in 27 countries with many different and unique opinions.

This leads to a level of political ineptitude and stagnation that makes European politics so slow and relentless. People don't feel like they should vote, because the system works against their elected officials in some cases. The European Commission, for example, has more say in the direction of policy than Parliament, which may lead many sceptical voters to simply prefer to vote in their national elections, or not at all. In some countries outside Europe where politics is more insatiable, voting becomes tiring because it is a superficial and empty act. In Russia, open elections would have been held, but time and again the same government is elected, and countless rumors of fraud are taking place against the government. Why vote again and again in elections across the country, when it doesn't change your life or the systems around you?

It is clear that for most people, voting more often in elections is no better than not voting at all or voting only in a key election. For some people, political change can only be done by violent means, even if this does not mean that it is morally right. Apartheid, for example, is a very good example of how violent means have led to serious political change, even in the face of some democratic progress.

Regardless of some of these political hiccups, voting in as many elections as possible could be seen as our civic and moral duty. The system may not be perfect, but it's as good as it's ever been. People have had a voice through which to express their beliefs in a free and fair way, at least in France. This is illustrated by the example of the French Revolution in particular, it was a bloody revolution in an extraordinary way that triggered the political changes that would lead to a modern and free France, with free and fair elections.

More recent examples of racial equality in voting in the United States are also relevant given the extreme segregation and degradation of political entitlement faced by blacks until the 1960s. With this in mind, can people today really say that it is better not to vote or vote minimally? It should be the case that people appreciate the rights that others fought for them to have and vote at every given opportunity. The more you vote, the more informed you are about the decisions taken by the authorities of your country, the more you vote, the more you are able to challenge those authorities, and the more you vote, the more you show respect for those who came before you and fought so hard for this right to vote.

This is very important to consider within the UK context also, why should people not participate in local elections that determine so much of the things that they complain about? If you do not vote, you do not have the right to complain about the state of affairs in your nation.

 In conclusion, I think it is important to emphasize the fact that voting is very personal, and all people have the right to choose whether to vote or not to vote or to vote in one election and not another. On the whole, however, voting as often as possible is an essential part of being a good citizen, and given all the examples cited above of those who fought to give us this right, it would be bad of me not to express this feeling.

Nevertheless, not everyone can be as lucky as we are to live in a democratic nation, and therefore it is understandable that some people do not share this opinion, especially those in countries where there is violent backlash against democracy.

Kamran Ali (Secretary) is a third-year reading French and Russian at Christ Church.