LETTER TO THE EDITOR

Dear Editor,

Around presidential elections, voters bring up a particular argument against non-voters to guilt-trip them into voting.

It goes like this:
1. If you do not vote, then you cannot express your opinion on the political environment and processes of the nation.
2. You are not registered to vote.
3. Therefore, you cannot express your opinion.

Before I delve into my critique of this argument, I would like to point out that this argument is applicable to local elections. After all, the population is much smaller and your voice can be heard louder. Yet, most local elections have horrendously poor turnouts.

However, as this argument applies to presidential elections, I find it to be flawed.

It is a logically sound argument, so I must find certain premises that are at fault. Specifically, I find fault with the first one.

First of all, this idea goes against the very notion of the First Amendment.

The First Amendment, after all, doesn’t say you only have the right to free expression if you vote. It guarantees them to you regardless of your voting status.

“But wait,” you will say. “If you are removed from the process, there is no way you can comment on elected officials, since you decided to remove yourself from the process of choosing said officials.”

Again, on a presidential level, this makes no sense.
There is the real possibility that you live in one of the many numerous states that have a vast majority for one party or the other. Even if turnout is low, and the minority party suddenly has a real chance in these types of states, it probably won’t be enough to change the outcome.

Even if you live in a “battleground” state, and decide not to vote, I believe you are still entitled to your opinion and to voice it. After all, presidential politics are usually so removed from the average person, the average person’s opinion about the president’s job doesn’t matter much in the grand scheme of things.

Another real possibility is there are no groups that represent you.

Someone can still have their opinion and not cast their vote since they are in such a small minority that no politician caters to. It doesn’t make sense for them to cast their vote for anyone. Atheists, socialists, racists and polygamists probably don’t feel at home with any party, and thus feel uncomfortable backing any one candidate.

But then, if one’s individual vote doesn’t count, wouldn’t it be that no one’s vote counted?

Well of course not. A group’s vote counts, and a collective’s vote counts. A non-voter wouldn’t be a non-voter if they felt they were part of a large group that has political interests.

After all, candidates do target groups’ interests because it’s a lot easier for them to count on their votes. While they hope non-voters will be inspired to register to vote for them, they don’t necessarily tailor their message to attract them. Candidates have a much higher probability appealing to those groups that already have political power and an interest to keep that power.

This critique only applies when people use this for presidential elections. There is a valid and sound argument for local elections, as they really are individuals in a community deciding who should best represent them and their ideas. On such a grand scale of a presidential election, however, a non-voter should still have the right to express their opinion, even if they don’t decide to join the party.

Sincerely,
Christian Wright