The commonest of all arguments surrounding the dog-and-pony show that is the quadrennial election season in this country is the one where someone—generally either a voter or a partisan activist of some sort—tells another someone—generally a non-voter or someone who prefers the “third-party option”—that they can’t complain if they don’t vote (for the former’s preferred candidate).
Never mind the fact that this is literally not how the social contract works; let’s look honestly at the implications of this mindset.
Voting is the logical extent/conclusion of any and all activism
If not voting precludes one from complaining about elected officials or policies the state decides to adopt, then this means that the only goal of any activism is to get someone elected to public office. This is, of course prima facie untrue.
One needs only to look at last fall’s Occupy Wall Street protests—where people were marching and occupying public spaces to call attention to, and start a dialogue over, the collusion between financial institutions and the state. Electoral politics were an afterthought, if they were present at all.
Outside the realm of protest, it’s silly to assume that all activists everywhere are purely concerned with getting someone who represents them elected. Anti-poverty activists, for instance, probably don’t spend more time campaigning for one presidential candidate or the other than they do trying to feed, clothe, and shelter the homeless and poor. The same goes for anti-war activists, people who support animal welfare and so on.
Voting is the ultimate and conclusive expression of freedom of speech
This point of view really depends on the background of whoever it is you’re talking to. For instance, white males probably don’t view this to be nearly as true as women (gained the right to vote in 1920), African-Americans (effectively gained the right to vote in 1965) or immigrants from various countries. Additionally, depending on the issue most prevalent in the days, weeks and months leading up to a major election, certain groups may find it prudent or necessary to “get out the vote” more than others.
But to say that voting is the ultimate expression of free speech is to say that approximately half of the voting population rendered their speech meaningless if their candidate lost. Even though I can’t imagine why anyone would vote for Mitt Romney, I also can’t conceive of telling a Romney voter that they all of a sudden have no agency if Obama wins.
Likewise, non-voting is not automatically indicative of apathy or disenfranchisement. Many anarchists, for example, are vehemently opposed to voting on anything except ballot initiatives. Despite this refusal, it’s not uncommon to find anarchists helping at food co-ops, organizing workplaces and communities and creating methods of information dissemination—all forms of activism and speech.
Bottom line: my choice is my choice. Your choice is yours.
I’m not voting for president this year. I made that choice about three months ago. I didn’t come to it easily—especially with all the “lesser evil” discussions occurring around me at the time—but I realized that out of the candidates I could actually vote for in Oklahoma, I can’t support either on matters of policy. When one candidate is effectively George Bush III with better speaking skills and the other is a Dalek, can there really be a “lesser evil?”
That said, do what you feel is right. If that’s voting for Obama, then great. If that’s voting for Romney, then… well, we’re probably going to have to talk about our relationship (if I know you). I fully realize that for many people, the perception is that their future is riding on their guy winning this election. But realize that no matter what choice you make, you’re going to wake up tomorrow and be faced with the same issues you’re faced with today—even if you come out on top. If you vote, don’t make that the only thing you do.
And for Pete’s sake, vote or not, don’t ever stop complaining.