The danger is not that a particular class is unfit to govern. Every class is unfit to govern.
Don't Vote: It just encourages the bastards!
Apropos of my post the other day about trust in the political system, in this week's Introduction to Politics seminar we had a little questionnaire to complete about trust and patriotism.
After questions like "how much confidence do you have in Parliament?" (not a lot, said most), "Do you regard yourself as a convinced supporter of a political party?" (very few, it seems) and "On the whole, are you …very satisfied…. Satisfied…. Fairly satisfied….. not very satisfied…. Dissatisfied….. with the way democracy works in your country?" (most said not very) we got "Thinking about voting. If there was a national election tomorrow would you vote?" where lo! and behold, most said "yes".
Even the seminar leader was surprised. Surprised not just at the overall lack of trust and confidence shown in the system (she's from South Africa and compared to there her trust in the British establishment is much greater than any of us gave it credit) but obviously also surprised that having shown such little trust most people there would go out and vote if asked to.
There were many different reasons: that if you don't vote you don't have a right to criticise; that it's the only system we've got so we should support it, even if we don't think we can make a difference; that we should be proud in the system even if we don't have trust in the people in the system and so on. Few did seem to believe they would achieve change by voting, indeed.
It's an age old debate amongst libertarians and anarchists too. Should you try and achieve change by joining in the corrupt, venal, illegitimate system you despise because it's the only one we have? That's where libertarian political parties come in. Is voting actually giving your consent to that system even if you loathe everything about it - even if you spoil your ballot to try and make that point?
I've come down previously on the side of P J O'Rourke: "Don't vote, it just encourages the bastards" (2010) but that a spoiled ballot, done properly, with a brief explanation of why you are abstaining is at least seen by the candidates and their agents. It will achieve nothing, but let's face it, the politicians are not going to go away just because only a few of us bother to turn up and vote. They'll just get a "mandate" on an ever smaller number of positive votes. So we ought to try to tell them why we are not consenting to their system.
Lysander Spooner concedes one possible circumstance (Spooner. 1870: para 2.8) in which voting might be acceptable for an anarchist, and that is if you can positively help, by voting, to prevent something worse, and I know a lot of people who think that is a reasonable way of thinking. I just think that the chances of your vote being decisive in that sort of situation are so relatively small that the credence you give to the system by joining in outweighs the potential for your vote to be decisive in preventing something worse, that it's probably not worth it.
Hoppe, on the other hand, says that if you could identify a policy you could vote for that is a step toward liberty, then it might be acceptable to do so, but that since political parties stand on a bundle of policies, out of many of which perhaps one is pro-liberty, the chances of being able to support that one policy whilst not advancing the state through their other policies are next to nothing (from a vaguely recalled lecture of his, possibly during a MisesU session).
Neither therefore offer particularly defensible reasons why one might vote. Spooner, in particular, ought to be recommended reading for this part of my course!
Oh, and I got a 62 (B or 2:1) for the first essay we got handed back in the seminar this week too. Not good enough for my assault on the Nobel Prize perhaps! But passable I suppose for four hours' work starting at four in the morning having not read the rubric properly and having to rewrite my original piece. 44 years of political socialisation was quite difficult to fit into such a short piece as those half my age had to. Well, that's my excuses and I'm sticking to them!
O'Rourke, P.J. 2010. Don't vote: it just encourages the bastards. New York. Atlantic Books
Spooner, L. 1870. No Treason No 6: The Constitution of No Authority. Boston. The Author.
Related reading
Here are some stories that may be on related subjects, based on the tags used in this post:
- Trust and democracy
- What politics is
- Public Goods in economics and politics
- Political simony
- Participatory problems for syndicalists?
- Who are ya? Who are ya?
- And what society is not...
- Political socialisation - can it be countered?
- Fallacies of state: 1 - only states can establish, maintain and defend property
- Democracy the cause, not the victim of press abuse

Main articles or...
All comments 
Random Blogroll Links
About Jock

Name: Jock Coats
Age: 40s
Lives: Oxford, UK
Works: IT Development, Oxford Brookes University, where I am also a Warden in a hall of residence and was previously a staff elected Governor of the University and Academic Board member. For a few years I was also a local Oxford City Councillor.
I am a card carrying Lib Dem, but am a confirmed market-anarchist, of the US Individualist Anarchists or Mutualist tradition. Other passions are social enterprise, monetary reform and housing. See full profile and contact form and at the following web-haunts:




















Comments
"a spoiled ballot, done properly.... They'll just get a "mandate" on an ever smaller number of positive votes."
Actually, you may be undermining your own strategy. Spoilt ballots still count towards turnout, so you are actually boosting the turn-out at the election and making it appear more legitimate!
Hi Tom. I know, it's a fine line as to whether it's worth it. But let's say, just for fun, that a ward contains a third of its voters in student halls. Many do not vote. If those who won't can be persuaded en masse to go and spoil their ballots, you get a turnout, yes, but few "positive votes". Some day someone might just ask why turnout was say fifty per cent, but only 25% voted for any candidate - i.e. "spoiled" won a majority :)
I doubt it would happen. But it seems that for most politicians, not voting is a sign of satisfaction both with the system and consent to the result no matter who wins. I don't see any other way to make the point. It's a bit of a catch-22
Post new comment