As a 19-year-old Black man from Brooklyn, New York, I plan to vote for former President and Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump. I know my choice isn’t tasteful to some, and I’m completely fine with that. But, if we look at the current electorate, many people don’t see Trump or Vice President and Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris as viable options. Many of those people will not vote. It doesn’t matter how many voter registration forms we wave in front of their faces or how many endorsements either candidate gets, some people won’t vote. It sounds ridiculous to accept such a reality at a place like Hofstra University, where the importance of voting is constantly beaten into students’ heads. If students don’t like the choices for president, they’re told to vote “down ballot” (in congressional and local elections). Besides the fact this thought process is often stopped by a further disdain of the “down ballot” candidates, voting is presented as more of a performative duty rather than a choice to influence true political change. In the United States, you’re not mandated to vote, and there are some valid reasons not to.
The point of voting is to choose a candidate you believe fits your values and puts forth policies you agree with. If none of the candidates fit with your values, you probably wouldn’t vote, and rightfully so. You’re not abandoning your civic duty by not voting. You still make your voice heard in the sense that you aren’t engaging in the system you feel disenfranchised by. You have the freedom to make independent political choices and not engage in a process that doesn’t represent your beliefs. There’s nothing wrong with voting pragmatically. Yet, for some, voting pragmatically becomes a “lesser of two evils” situation. Many people would rather not vote for evil in any regard.
Consider the tragedy in Gaza. Many people don’t feel either candidate is addressing the situation appropriately. This causes people to be more likely to vote for third-party candidates like Jill Stein or not even vote at all. Now, what would happen if large swaths of the nation just decided not to vote? Would millions of Americans go without representation? Well, these people already didn’t have representation in the first place. By not voting, they just make it known to the system that forgot them. While this is a silent rebellion, the action should be loud enough for everyone to hear, especially political scientists.
However, instead of listening to what issues they care about, we just harass them into voting. We tell them that they don’t have a right to complain about politicians if they don’t vote. If a politician isn’t doing their job of listening to the complaints of their constituents, whether they voted or not, they have failed as a public servant. If a politician performs poorly in office, they do so independently of whether I vote or not. I also have another question: where in the Constitution does it state that you must vote to retain your First Amendment rights? If both major parties end up taking pro-abortion, stances as a devout Christian, I will not vote for them in any election. If I don’t see any of my values represented in either major party, why would I vote, and why shouldn’t I complain about the lack of representation I have on the ballot?
If you want to convince a person to vote, consider these questions and the reasoning behind them. Think about the reasons elaborated here before you go on the same diatribe they’ve probably heard a thousand times.
