In defense of the non-voter

The non-voter is a fashionable villain this time of year. He is lazy, selfish and unpatriotic. Millions of dollars are spent trying to “get him off the couch,” a phrase implying that this potato has nothing better to do than re-empower people who live and die for power. And so the nation is littered with mailers and editorials that all say the same thing: There is no excuse for not voting.

But the non-voter has plenty of good reasons not to vote, many of which are pro-democratic, and we ought to consider his inactivity as the political act that it is.

Democracy produces both great and horrible outcomes. It giveth, and it taketh away. But democracy’s redemption comes from the consent of the governed, the idea that legitimate government must have the permission of the citizens. Because if the government doesn’t need permission, then it is a limitless, unaccountable tyranny. Consent of the governed is the idea that makes the difference.

Hence, elections. The people get together and lift leaders up using the wisdom of crowds. This is good.

But the non-voter sees it differently. He — and he’s a “he,” because most non-voters are men — sees a false choice between candidates who don’t represent his beliefs.

The choice is false, in his eyes, because candidates for Congress and the White House don’t emerge naturally from the font of citizenry, but are created in a lab by billion-dollar political machines to be perfectly electable action figures. To the extent that a candidate may be imperfect, he or she is still enmeshed within a giant political party that cares only about its own power. And these parties actively suppress genuine groundswell candidates.

So the demand is on the citizen to adapt to the party, instead of requiring the party to accommodate the citizen. The non-voter hates this.

And let’s say the non-voter is a pacifist. He believes that violence is wrong no matter what. How, in any sense, are his beliefs represented in this election? Both candidates have their pet wars. Both parties build their soapboxes on graves. His beliefs simply preclude him from voting. You may think the pacifist is an outlier, but the point is that if a person’s sincere beliefs are not represented, then he may feel that not voting is his only reasonable option. For how could a pacifist vote for war and not have completely violated himself?

Finally, the non-voter may be repulsed by what he sees as the nationalization of the American mind. Local and personal concerns have taken a backseat to national political melodrama. People care more about what happens in the Oval Office than what goes on in their living room. He thinks this is more than just a distraction — it’s actually hollowing out genuine human relations. Our mental map of what matters has gotten so broad and thin that hometowns and families are lost in the low resolution. He wants nothing to do with it, and withdraws.

In the end, the non-voter expresses his discontent by burning his ballot. And would we really prefer he voted against his wishes? Or should he file a protest vote instead — going through the ritual of voting, but writing in “Bart Simpson” for commander in chief?

Or maybe our real discontent is that by not voting, he’s against our political aims, and should be shamed for that.

The nasty truth of American democracy is that no one really loves democracy. Because during every campaign, we call the opposition voters ignorant, stupid, brainwashed or evil. If we lose, we impugn the integrity of the system.

No losing side ever thinks that the will of the people got it right. Everyone disdains our democracy; the non-voter just admits it beforehand.

But the non-voter is more pro-democracy than we give him credit for, because he knows the government must earn its consent. Consent cannot be forced. We all understand this in sexual relations and medical procedures, but forget about it when it comes to politics.

Refusing to engage in politics is a political act as important as the right to vote. Because citizens do not work for the system. They are not the property of the state, or owe their ballot to any machine. The non-voter does not have to give the system anything more than the middle finger.

And I respect that.

Shaun Cammack is a writer from Appalachia.