Civil Disobedience (Thoreau)
To continue our (tangential) debate of whether it’s acceptable to refrain from voting...
People should place a lot of importance on their right to vote. The main bone of contention in our discussion appeared when Mr. Lazarow proposed the idea that making a conscious decision not to vote can be just as responsible as voting. I disagree.
A citizen’s main source of power is his or her right to vote. It gives you control over the actions taken by your local government and the power to choose candidates who (promise to) fight for certain issues. With the number of issues and positions on issues in today’s world, it is inevitable that you won’t like all of the beliefs held by any candidate. But my question is this: do you “compromise” your integrity by voting for the candidate that you prefer? Do you “compromise” your integrity by choosing the “lesser of two evils”? I say no.
I can relate to the disillusionment felt when you discover you don’t completely agree with any of the candidates’ platforms. I can relate to the feeling of insignificance that tells you “my vote doesn’t count.” But if everyone operates under the assumption that their votes don’t count, the democratic system collapses [especially when the people not voting are (self-proclaimed) geniuses].
Whether it is a conscious decision or not, the failure to vote is just that: a failure. If you don’t feel that any candidate is adequate for a given position, put your own name (or the name of someone you feel is qualified) in the “fill in the blank” space of the ballot. Not voting at all is a cop-out.
Granted, in a presidential election, chances are that an independent candidate is not going to win. Perhaps your vote doesn’t count for as much when you vote for an independent candidate. But think of it this way:
An increasing number of votes for independent candidates signals to the major political parties that their platforms are losing popularity This demonstrates that even a minority of the vote can make a large difference. Does anyone remember the Populist party? The one that wanted to adopt a 16:1 ratio of silver:gold? If the answer is no, I can tell you why. You don’t remember the Populist party because their platform was absorbed by a major political party that realized it had to adapt in order to maintain support.
Basically, what I’ve been trying to say is this. Regardless of whether your ideal candidate wins, your vote gives you an invaluable opportunity to express your beliefs. Even when your vote cannot possibly lead to your candidate winning, your vote still makes a difference.
-Danielle G
Feel free to post comments that are related more directly to Thoreau's Civil Disobedience.
People should place a lot of importance on their right to vote. The main bone of contention in our discussion appeared when Mr. Lazarow proposed the idea that making a conscious decision not to vote can be just as responsible as voting. I disagree.
A citizen’s main source of power is his or her right to vote. It gives you control over the actions taken by your local government and the power to choose candidates who (promise to) fight for certain issues. With the number of issues and positions on issues in today’s world, it is inevitable that you won’t like all of the beliefs held by any candidate. But my question is this: do you “compromise” your integrity by voting for the candidate that you prefer? Do you “compromise” your integrity by choosing the “lesser of two evils”? I say no.
I can relate to the disillusionment felt when you discover you don’t completely agree with any of the candidates’ platforms. I can relate to the feeling of insignificance that tells you “my vote doesn’t count.” But if everyone operates under the assumption that their votes don’t count, the democratic system collapses [especially when the people not voting are (self-proclaimed) geniuses].
Whether it is a conscious decision or not, the failure to vote is just that: a failure. If you don’t feel that any candidate is adequate for a given position, put your own name (or the name of someone you feel is qualified) in the “fill in the blank” space of the ballot. Not voting at all is a cop-out.
Granted, in a presidential election, chances are that an independent candidate is not going to win. Perhaps your vote doesn’t count for as much when you vote for an independent candidate. But think of it this way:
An increasing number of votes for independent candidates signals to the major political parties that their platforms are losing popularity This demonstrates that even a minority of the vote can make a large difference. Does anyone remember the Populist party? The one that wanted to adopt a 16:1 ratio of silver:gold? If the answer is no, I can tell you why. You don’t remember the Populist party because their platform was absorbed by a major political party that realized it had to adapt in order to maintain support.
Basically, what I’ve been trying to say is this. Regardless of whether your ideal candidate wins, your vote gives you an invaluable opportunity to express your beliefs. Even when your vote cannot possibly lead to your candidate winning, your vote still makes a difference.
-Danielle G
Feel free to post comments that are related more directly to Thoreau's Civil Disobedience.
posted by Danielle G | 7:53 PM
11 Comments:
So I can see every single movement of the past one hundred years starting right with this essay... When talking about social movements in class, people keep alluding to how the transcendentals influenced the hippie/counterculture movement of the 60's, but they also influenced so many others.
The beginning of "Civil Disobedience" reminded me of the Progressive movment at the beginning of the 20th century. For all of you who don't remember, it was a period of reform in the late 1800s/early 1900s. According to Wikipedia, "Progressives assumed that anything old was encrusted with inefficient and useless practices...Progressives strongly opposed waste and corruption, and they tended to assume that opponents were motivated by ignorance or corruption." Thoreau evidently shared these views when he said, "I ask for, not at once no government, but at once a better government." Thoreau believed that the government corrupted the consciences of men, and, thus claimed that the government needed to be quickly reformed. About 40 years later, the Progressives took the ideals and molded them to fit their own protest of the government.
Later, Thoreau says, "The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right." This quote just jumped out at me and reminded me strongly of the Civil Rights Movement and Martin Luther King, Jr. As implied by the "quote of historical interest" at the end of this piece, King was heavily influenced by Thoreau's writings. King actually used the idea of civil disobedience as his major means of protest. He claimed that one could break the law to protest what he or she believed to be unjust as long as that person is willing to pay the consequences. Thoreau also felt that it was a person's obligation to protest something that he or she felt was unjust.
I don't really have much more to say without getting into the debate of whether or not we have a duty to vote, which Danielle seemed to cover thoroughly ...
I agree Danielle...I was actually a little suprised when he said on occasion he has chosen not to vote. It is a right to be able to have a choice on who runs our country. It is a priveledge. The right is priceless...just think about how many people in how many countries will never be able to obtain the power that we, as soon to be 18 year old Americans, will have...I think it's something to be valued, regardless if you don't like the candidates. This statement would be impossible to defend in actual class so I figured I'd blog it so he won't have the chance to fight back :o)...sorry for pretty much summarizing Danielle.
Well. I'm going to play devil's advocate and disagree with Danielle and Jillie and actually side with Laz.
First. If a citizen's main source of power is her right to vote and you hold it so highly how come half of the citizens in the United States do not vote? What does that say about the importance of voting today?
Furthermore, choosing the lesser of two evils is basicially the definition of compromising your integrity. You are not making a decision for what you believe and what you stand for if you are choosing the lesser of two evils.
If no one votes and the current system fails, then the necessary changes will be made to create a better system in America. Isn't that the purpose in the first place?
If after completing a sufficient amount of research, you decide that none of the candidates are good for the position, it is best not to vote at all. Why would you vote for something you do not believe in, espicially if they are controlling aspects of your life.
Hypotheticially
You are for the death penatly, against abortion, and against stem cell research
There are three, only 3 canditates running for office.
One is very strongly oppossed to the death penalty but shares the same views on the other two.
Two is for the death penalty, but also pro choice and pro stem cell research.
Three is against death penalty, pro choice, and for stem cell.
Why would you vote for any of those three people when you do not share the same views. It doesn't make sense. Why would you endorse what you are against. None of the men or women share the same view as you, so none of them should be picked.
Just because you have a right to vote doesn't mean you have to utilize it. You have the right to strike, but you don't see that happening every day. Abstaining from voting is like striking. It is not wrong, it is simply standing up for what you believe in.
I'm gonna side with Laz and Kaitlyn on this.
It's getting kind of tiresome hearing people say "Oh, but it's your right to vote, you should exercise it." Going with Kaitlyn's example, I have the right to bear arms, the right to free assembly, the right to freedom of speech, but do you see me practicing those rights?
A right is just that, a right. Not an obligation. There is no moral necessity for voting. Unless of course you want to vote for a candidate you strongly support.
I'm not trying to say that people shouldn't vote at all. I'm just saying people should exercise their right to vote wisely. (A view shared, I'm sure, by Kaitlyn and Lazarow).
But I really think that this problem could be solved by getting rid of the two party plus the independent party system. It places too much restraint on a citizen to say "I'm a republican" or "I'm a democrat" There is always a person who says "I'm a republican... but... I share some views with the democrats."
There also should be, in my opinion, instead of one president, have a team of leaders who act as the leader of the executive branch. It's impossible to have a sole president who can please everyone so to mediate that, there should be multiple people in office. That's why we have the House of Representatives.
That's pretty much all I have to say. I'm not big on politics cause I think all politicians are full of s.... crap. But, to fulfill my duty as a soon to be voter, I need to pay attention to those windbags in order to make informed decisions...
Whatever.
Kaitlyn posed a good question, " why is it that over half of the population of voting age abstains from voting?"
Before i get to the meat of that discussion i would like to put forward my own opinion on the Danielle vs. Laz "civic duty" argument. The issue is moot. It is moot, because to some extent both camps are correct. Voting is in essence the right of choice, the right to exercise our will. Like a muscle if we the people don't exercise our wills they will atrophy.Additionally one of the main ways we can protect our rights is by exercising them (pro Danielle). However the system we have in place is imperfect, and it is naive to conform to an ideal in spite of a reality. If we the citizens do have to chose between "the lesser of two evils" it is not a testament to our integrity to actively abstain from voting, but a testament to the condition the system is in. By choosing between " the lesser of two evils" many times in the past we have helped to forester an electoral system through which we can be manipulated and polarized. I cannot testify as to the effectiveness of voter abstinence as protest, however a change is clearly needed and i see very few alternatives being suggested. If we voters are obliged to vote, as a matter of theoretical self interest, than the same is true for abstinence. If you are unable to chose than perhaps you should abstain. Voting demands a degree of honesty, and if you can't be honest than by voting you would be sending a false signal. Individually this is nothing, but we are a nation of individuals, and the falsehood is cumulative in this case. To preserve the system, as long as it functions fairly, is part of our civic duty. We have a responsibility to be honest when we make such a choice, and if that is not possible than we must make a responsible choice and consider abstaining(pro laz).
The choice to vote and the choice to abstain are both valid.In both cases the citizen exercises his will, and fulfills his civic duty.
Also for all the good things that can be said about integrity, it is the consolation of those who fail to act. This is not always the case , however it often is.
That was very long for a brief detour. Anyway, "Why is voter apathy so high, and voter turn out so low?" To answer this question we must think about what the right to vote really is. As i have already said, the right to vote is the right of choice. The right to vote is also the right to protect yourself, to promote your own self interest, and to be heard. Why is apathy so high? Because the system has failed. we have the right of choice, however we can only chose between two parties that have a chance to win. If we chose the wrong candidate, our choice is invalidated. It is rendered meaningless, and annulled from the world. We have the right to defend our freedoms, however these freedoms don't protect us when we need to be protected. How many people in this country are unemployed? How many go hungry? How many straddle the fence post between middle class and poverty, and feel like they have fallen through the cracks into limbo? Why should we protect our freedoms by voting when they don't protect us half of the time? If that is the case, it would be better to pass by the voting center and go straight to work, because that paycheck is more protection than you would get for punching a ballot. We have the right to promote that which is favorable to us. So dose everyone else, and what is favorable for me may not be for you. We have the right to be heard. Are we heard, in this din? One vote dose not count, television my like to tell you that it dose. to say to you , " look what could have happened if only he had voted." What would have happened is that his candidate would have either won or lost by some number greater than fifty votes, dependent on the scale of the election. Why do people not vote? Because for all the power that is in that ballot the voter is powerless, and she made to feel powerless. When her taxes are raised again, when her son is sent to war, when the speed limit on the road by her house is raised to 35 mph, and house shakes whenever a truck goes by. Voting is the opiate of the masses in contemporary America.
Why do we not demonstrate our power and raze the government? Humans have an inherent need to form a government. when we issue a command , that is governing. with out this government and our votes we would just have another. beware of the brawny man across the street, because without the government, he is the government.
Voting is the right to chose, and no one would chose poverty. Thoreau is correct about inherent commonalities, no one wants to starve. So why do some of us?
Because voting is one of the least powerful ways to exercise choice,it just happens to be the way provided to the general population.
Go figure...
_Adiel_
I’d like to start off by saying that I see validity in everyone’s points, and I don’t wholeheartedly agree with everything that’s written below. Voting is a very personal decision, and I can understand why people’s opinions on it vary. Apparently I’m passionate about this issue… Go figure.
In an ideal democracy, everyone would vote. Obviously the ideal is unobtainable. Utopias appear, and they fail. One cannot expect perfection in the real world. I agree that 50% of voters not voting is a bad sign, but I doubt that most non-voters refrain from voting for the same reasons as Mr. Lazarow.
I suppose we all have different definitions of integrity and what compromises it. I think that choosing the lesser of two evils is making a decision for what you believe. It’s certainly a more difficult decision to make than would be selecting the “perfect” candidate, but it’s supporting the best option you can find. If you cannot stand to vote for either two of the “evils,” then fill in the blank.
In response to Kaitlyn’s question, “Why would you vote for something you do not believe in, especially if they are controlling aspects of your life?” Because if you don’t vote at all, you don’t have any control over which candidate wins. Whether you vote or not, the elected official will still have control over aspects of your life as a citizen. Don’t you want to have a say in who controls your life?
In regards to the hypothetical situation of three candidates who each had various viewpoints: vote for the view that’s most important to you. Vote for the collection of views that are most important to you. Vote for someone who isn’t listed and who shares all THREE of your beliefs. Vote for someone. Endorse what you are for, rather than endorsing nothing.
Albert: You “practiced the right to freedom of speech” when you posted your own opinion about voting rather than an opinion dictated by the government.
I never said voting is an obligation. I merely believe it is more socially responsible to vote for the best candidate for a position than to vote for none at all.
I’d also like to address an issue brought up by Mr. Lazarow. I am not claiming that it’s better to randomly vote for a candidate than to consciously opt not to vote. My belief is that citizens should learn the positions of the candidates and should vote. Actually, I agree with Albert that “people should exercise their right to vote wisely,” but in my case I feel the wise exercise of the right to vote is to inform yourself of the various candidates’ positions and to select the candidate whom you agree with the most.
-Danielle G
As great as it would be to have a change in the voting system, in this particular system, it works best if everyone works. If everyone is informed and makes an intellectual decision, the system works even better.
As idealistic as it sounds, shouldn't we be promoting people to become more informed about the candidates and cast a vote?
With the huge rate of voter's apathy, especially, I think it's important that you express why you're not voting in some way, whether it by by placing an independent ballet or some other venue. By not voting at all, you're automatically placed in that "didn't vote" statistic and assumed to be indifferent to who ends up being president.
I don't know. I'm very ambivalent about the whole voting thing. It just seemed as if everyone was leaning towards Katilyn's argument.
So... yeah. Reform WOULD be nice. But... in the current system, don't you think that expressing your opinions is really the only way to instigate some sort of change?
Danielle said:
Albert: You “practiced the right to freedom of speech” when you posted your own opinion about voting rather than an opinion dictated by the government.
Thanks :)
Danielle,
My question to you is, wouldn't you feel guilty about knowlingly voting for someone that you disagree with. Wouldn't it anger you that you made the decision against your morals and now he is leading you? How could you live with the knowledge that you voted for someone who stands for something that you are vehemently opposed to.
You quoted, "Whether you vote or not, the elected official will still have control over aspects of your life as a citizen. Don’t you want to have a say in who controls your life?"
If you do not vote for the candidate that ultimetly wins the election then you are free to disagree with his or her rights as you wish. It does not state anywhere that you have to agree with your government official. It is better to hold your viewpoints and be true to yourself instead of conforming to society and just voting for someone. (this is relating to a person who has done a significant amount of research and chooses not to vote)
There is no way to justify forcing someone to vote for a person they do not believe in. It is like telling someone, well you can choose between robbing a bank, stealing jewels, or murdering someone. You do not want to make any of these choices, but you have to choose and you darned well choose the lesser of all evils. (of course it isn't as an extreme example but you get the point.)
Sorry. I didn't mean to violently attack anyone. hope it doesn't come out that way. just arguing a point.
Well, I think we can all agree that whether a person chooses to vote or not, it is important that he or she does research on each candidate. Ultimately, I feel that after research, a person should vote for the leser of two evils or not vote at all, depending on which makes the person feel more integrity.
I agree that the fact that only about 50% of people vote shows that there is something wrong with the system. I suppose we could discuss for hours what we think should be changed, but I think that it is the forced two-party system. The truth is that politicians are forced to pick a party if they want any chance of winning. What this does is somewhere it forces a person to compromise his or her views by associating with a party. However, we see politicians say, "I'm a Republican, but..." or "I'm a Democrat, but..." and we cannot help but wonder what is a Republican or Democrat? The truth is that there is no clear definition becuase no matter what, two people in the same party cannot have exactly the same views. All the party system does is make politicians decide which party they share more views with, but not the party that they completely associate with. The danger of this is even if people research each candidate to see what exactly he or she supports, they are likely to be fooled into assuming that a candidate shares the views of his or her party on some specific issue, when it is very possible that that the candidate doesn't. I also feel that candidates are silent on some of their opinions so that they can attract votes from their party, knowing that their views may turn some voters of their party away.
I know the advantage of the two-party system is that it prevents there from being a gazillion candidates in elections, but would there be that much harm if the country had more people to choose from? Probably this would cause more people to vote because they would be more likely to find someone who shares most of their views. I think it's interesting that Washington advised the U.S. when he left office to beware of a two-party system. I couldn't agree more with old George, but feel free to disagree with me.
--Caroline
Kaitlyn:
No, I would not feel guilty about knowingly voting for someone I disagreed with, so long as I agreed with more of his/her views than those of the other candidates.
Regardless of who I help vote into office later in life, all public officials are bound to make at least one decision that goes "against my morals."
I'd "live with the knowledge that [I] voted for someone who stands for something that [I am] vehemently opposed to" by remembering that I agree with a lot of the official's other views.
Post a Comment
<< Home