Barbelith Underground > Conversation

OK, I'm coming to this a little late (why isn't it in Switchboard?) so apologies if I just repeat points made by others. I think its fairly clear that this is a massive topic, so I can't say everything I'd like to. I do want to say something about the idea that voting is 'obligatory' - morally, rationally, or otherwise.

The standard argument for this seems to be something along the lines of: you enjoy benefits, so accept responsibilities. In fact, that's precisely what Nick says here:

On the other hand, I believe you have an obligation to vote. I believe that because I see voting as an integral part of living in a democracy. It's one of the things which allows the democratic game to function. You enjoy the benefits, you accept the responsibilities.

Without being facetious, I immediately want to ask what the benefits are here? It often feels like two different positions are being conflated.

1) That liberal-capitalist democracy, in the various forms in which it currently exists, is the source of the benefits 'we' enjoy: living conditions, material wealth, particular freedoms. The implied contrast is with non-democratic states - this used to be the USSR and co., although nowadays various other theocracies and third world [sic] dictatorships probably take their place. If this were the argument, I think the point would be that because this system ensures our current standard of living, we ought to dutifully turn up at the ballots every few years to make sure it keeps ticking over. The problem, obviously, is that liberal-capitalist democracy as it currently exists quite clearly does not require all of its citizens to dutifully turn up at the ballots. That's before we even begin to interogate the supposed benefits that 'we' (who?) enjoy.

Anyway, perhaps noone here was ever suggesting any of that. So:

2) The benefit of living in a democracy is that you get to play an active role in determining the conditions and character of the society that you live in. (Maybe this is connected to the other 'benefits' that featured in (1), but its not the same as them.)

In a representational democracy, this amounts to chosing a particular party or candidate to represent your interests. Problem is, as people have pointed out, its fairly difficult for large sections of the population to find a party that genuinely represents their interests. Maybe - and its a big 'maybe' - maybe the structure of the Labour party used to allow members to determine party policy. But with the demise of the Labour party conference system, individuals have minimal role in directly determining policies of parties that represent them. Rather, they have to chose whoever seems closest to their concerns - as Nick said, 'make a compromise and vote for the best bad option'. You're left with the hope that parties will be sensitive to your needs - after all, they need your vote; sort of like a good business responding to demand.

So you're still actively determining the character of society, but your role is already beginning to diminish - it now amounts to chosing 'best bad option'. At this point its probably worth looking at why candidates parties are generally the 'best bad option'. Obviously there are problems like conflict between the voter's needs and a candidate's personal ambition within party and government structure, general incompetence, etc.

But I think the problems go a bit deeper than that. I apologise in advance for this dodgy metaphor (I'm tired!), but itts not just that there are a whole shelf-full of political programmes out there, and sadly none of the parties share mine, so I'll have to satisfy myself with the nearest alternative. Rather, the programme I want has no chance of getting on the shelf in the first place (to stretch it the metaphor to its limit!).

You only have to look at the difficulties faced by Labour governments in the past - Harold Wilson's being the best example. My books are elsewhere, so I'll have to duck out of giving concrete examples right now... ('The Vote' by Paul Foot is a good source, even though I disagree with his overall analysis.) Anyway, the key point is that the basic character of society is determined by something other than my democratic activity - government has to be sensitive to market forces, which determine the sort of programmes they can succesfully implement. As Haus put it, democracies generally being in place to keep things running fairly smoothly while the economy - that is, business and banks - gets on with the serious stuff - generating jobs, raising house prices, lowering the cost of bananas, all that.

Saying 'Stand yourself' in response to that is pretty ridiculous. Let's just say one did manage to raise the £750, and then additional capital needed to run a decent campaign. Its ludicrous to suggest that this is just a matter of determination, as though one could just sit down with as many individuals as possible and persuade them to cough up the necessary cash. Its inevitably going to require approaching bodies with decent amounts of capital, capital which its in their interests to donate to a political campaign. Already you're moving away from a group of like-minded individuals with shared political goals... But lets just imagine that you somehow manage to find transparent sources of capital which either a) share your political goals exactly; b) are willing to give you money and allow you to implement your programme unimpeded even though your interests do not coincide with theirs. Say you do all that, and you win. Even then, you've won a single seat in a parliament, which is going to count for precisely fuck all. It doesn't matter that you've managed to avoid allying yourself with a particular party and its 'best bad choice' platform up to this point, because now that you're in parliament the only possibilities you have of acting are determined by these same parties.

So even when I've made my best bad choice, and my best bad choice has got into power, the government still has to be sensitive to interests that run counter to my own (and I don't just mean 'my' here, do I? I'm talking about whole swathes of the population, or - dare I say it? - a whole class.)

Perhaps you had something else in mind, but 'benefits' of living in a democracy diminish quite rapidly when subjected to closer inspection. Which takes us back to the point I rejected to begin with - maybe 'democratic' liberal-capitalist society will best maintain my standard of living/protect my rights/whatever. But this sort of benefit has nothing to do with whether I vote or not - as I said, representative democracy can carry on quite happily even though large sections of the populace fail to. I reckon I'll leave voting to those most likely to benefit from the current run of things, unless there's some specific situation in which I think my vote might acheive a particular result.

Feel free to tear holes in the above - I'm writing this in a rush. Ultimately, though, I think arguments about the obligation to vote come down to the idea that 'this is they way the world is, and we must be able to do something'. This is often supported by vague sentiments about 'democracy' being 'the best system available' (as though 'democracy' were some abstract entity distinct from the manifold concrete instances of societies which we count as 'democracies'. When did democracy first come into existence? In ancient Greece? Or the first time a country instituted universal suffrage?).

Anyway, maybe its true that 'democracy' (whatever it is) is the 'best political system' possible. Hell, maybe Hegel and his descendants are right and we really have reached the end of history. I don't really see the point in making such grand pronouncements, nor do I understand the justification for them, but that's just me.

But given this background assumption, the claim that one ought to vote seems to rest on the idea that this is the best and most effective way of making a difference to the way the world around you works. Frankly I don't see how that's true.

Indeed, as far as I can see, the best way of affecting the world I live in is to find people around me who share my needs and to act collectively to make people meet them. This might be anything, from trying to stop the local Tesco's buying up our playing fields for its expansion, to trying to prevent market forces determining the nature of our education and health-care. This, before anything else, is what I want to call 'politics'.

Now, there's no point pretending that this will have a drastic effect at a national or international level, at least not initially. It couldn't do anything about the invasion of Iraq, for example. But then again, neither could voting, or marching from A to B and listening to some boring speeches. We did all that and everything carried on regardless.

Point is that to me, and others I know, this seems to be the best and most effective way of affecting the character of the society we live in. Voting seems pretty distant from this. Which isn't to dogmatically insist that I will never vote. I can envisage plenty of situations where voting might have some desired effect - keeping out the BNP would be one example. However, if I were worried about the BNP getting elected in my ward, I'd be doing much more than simply putting an X on a piece of paper come ballot day - this would be my final resort. Same goes for the rest of my politics.

So, for the sake of argument, I'll accept that liberal-capitalist democracy is the 'best system available', even though I seriously doubt that's the case.
When its defenders willingly admit I'll end up supporting a party that only vaguely approximates my own interests, etc., I feel precisely zero obligation to vote just because I live in a democracy.

OK, I'm coming to this a little late (why isn't it in Switchboard?)

Essentially because it started here and has a somewhat relaxed tone. In the Switchboard, people might be apt to become a bit less exploratory and a bit more formal. Or, for all I know, because no one's moved it. And remember, it was never the idea that you couldn't have a discussion here in the Conversation.

The problem, obviously, is that liberal-capitalist democracy as it currently exists quite clearly does not require all of its citizens to dutifully turn up at the ballots. That's before we even begin to interogate the supposed benefits that 'we' (who?) enjoy.

That's questionable; we've had low electoral turnouts recently in the UK and we have a government which is massively eroding our human rights. So our situation is not stable. Similarly in the U.S.. You could say we need to vote in a few more Lid Dems (the Conservatives have apparently abandoned their liberal/indivdualist aspect in favour of less complicated arguments). Our style of society is changing, and not in a positive way. I don't believe there's an actual revolution coming, and we've seen how much notice this government takea of mass protest in the streets.

So you're still actively determining the character of society, but your role is already beginning to diminish - it now amounts to chosing 'best bad option'.

For some people. Not necessarily for most. This is the other drawback of democracy, of course, which Haus points out: the views of posters on this board are a stark minority (never mind that say, ten per cent of us think that another ten per cent are deranged criminals at any given moment) and no truly democratic society is going to look like anything we would hope for. We're a bunch of secret Leninists here - we want to teach people, show them, reveal to them what they ought to want, which of course is our version. And some of us think that if that doesn't work, it should be imposed in one way or another.

the basic character of society is determined by something other than my democratic activity - government has to be sensitive to market forces, which determine the sort of programmes they can succesfully implement.

It's also true that the government can determine the framework within which the market operates - which is what it's going to have to do to provide us with a green economy, howevermuch the American industrial right doesn't like it. Stiglitz is very interesting on this in connection with utilities regulation in developing nations. Or we could ask Steven Levitt to incentivise the relationship between government and commerce for us so that it feeds back positively rather than negatively.

But in any case, the basic character of society is determined by this relationship? That's a depressing idea. I'm not sure it's true; yes, our economic and systemic setup is a key factor in determining the shape of our institutions and our lives. I'd hope the individual and his or her relationships has a role, too - and that the basic character is determined at a more human level. If it's not, of course, then we really are in deep trouble. We're back with jellyfish-like colony organisms superceding us as the dominant lifeform.

Its ludicrous to suggest that [standing yourself] is just a matter of determination, as though one could just sit down with as many individuals as possible and persuade them to cough up the necessary cash. Its inevitably going to require approaching bodies with decent amounts of capital, capital which its in their interests to donate to a political campaign.

That depends what you stand for, and where you do it. It's still possible, in the UK, to run a cheap campaign. You have to have a hook to hang it on, but if you're in any way appealing as a candidate, you can get it running. And Kinky Friedman took 12% of the Texas vote for governor, which is a reasonably impressive loss, and puts his issues firmly on the state agenda.

I'm not suggesting you have to win. I'm saying that standing gets you a seat at the debate where the eventual winner has at least to listen and argue with you. That's not something to ignore.

Even then, you've won a single seat in a parliament, which is going to count for precisely fuck all.

Ok, so the thing is, it's not voting you have a problem with. You think the entire system of government is bankrupt. I think it's crap but occasionally works, and as has been discussed here, the alternatives are a little alarming, or hard to come by.

Perhaps you had something else in mind, but 'benefits' of living in a democracy diminish quite rapidly when subjected to closer inspection.

Pick a non-democratic country and let's do some comparisons.

this sort of benefit has nothing to do with whether I vote or not

Assuming you live in the UK, the next parliamentary elections will determine, among other things, whether you get a prime minister with a solid majority in the house who believes in ID cards, loosening of evidence laws and extending the period for which you can be held without trial, and ATC privatisation. If you don't want those things to go through (and by the way, you really shouldn't) you need to vote Lib Dem and get as many people as you know to do the same, because they are the only group with a shot at winning seats which is lined up against these policies. Quite a lot of the things which are being done now which people on this board object to are possible only because the Labour government has a solid majority. Get it down, and more resonsive politics are possible, including maybe even alteration of the electoral system to make a more representative setup. If Labour get their solid majority again, no chance of that. It is entirely up to you. I think the risk of disappointment is outweighed by the possible gains, and the possible losses are significant enough to merit action.

This is often supported by vague sentiments about 'democracy' being 'the best system available'

Well, not so vague. It's possible that some form of socialism could handle many of these issues better, though it's not certain, but there simply is no prospect of that happening at the moment. It seems to me you'd either need for the situation under capitalism to get bad enough for the hoary old Revolution, or for us to drift left again to the point where it's possible to speak the word in public without people thinking you're a bit odd. It's likely that a dictatorship would handle the relationship between corporate power and government better, and certainly sweeping emergency powers would be nice for dealing with the environment and so on, but I don't much fancy the side effects, and I don't trust the Dear Leader unless he's me or someone I chose personally. I'm not persuaded that an Anarchy would have sufficient cohesiveness to deal with climate change, or that we're in a place where it could happen. I don't think Corporate Rule is a good idea. So...

Hell, maybe Hegel and his descendants are right and we really have reached the end of history.

Fukuyama is an idiot. And you were complaining about vague sentiments?

as I can see, the best way of affecting the world I live in is to find people around me who share my needs and to act collectively to make people meet them.

I think that's a great idea. And when you've gathered this group together, do me a favour and just see whether you can't get them all to vote as well. It really doesn't take very long and as you see, there just might be some good reasons to do it. Where's the harm?

I feel precisely zero obligation to vote just because I live in a democracy.

That's very sad.

I am a bad American