Skip Navigation - Search the MetOnline

Metonline Logo
Powered by Google

Volume 27, Issue 12, october 28, 2004

Opinion

Won't be voting

From: Donaciano Martinez

After much thought and consideration, I have decided not to vote. After four

decades of voting on a regular basis, this will be the first election of not voting.

For several months I have been among the "undecided voters," a category which all campaigns specifically target. Campaigns seldom waste time on voters who have already made up their minds because that's like preaching to the choir. For many years, I have been an independent free thinker who does not vote along party lines. I am definitely not what the media calls the "party faithful," people who routinely vote for candidates from their respective political parties. The party-faithful concept is akin to what people often say: "Once a Democrat, always a Democrat" or "Once a Republican, always a Republican." Such narrow thinking doesn't allow for people to broaden their horizons and think for themselves.

As a registered voter, I have read everything there is to read (news articles, editorials, debate transcripts, websites) and am not enthused about either of the major parties' candidates for the presidency and the U.S. Senate. In addition to those positions, there are only two ballot initiatives upon which I would vote and I'm not really fired up about those issues either. Even though the 2004 election is widely described as "the most important election" in the U.S., for me it has been like listening to music and not being able to catch the beat. I strongly considered voting for third party candidates, but I'm not enthused about any of them either. Besides, I have been repeatedly told that people who vote for third-party candidates are "throwing away the vote." Some people even uphold that voting for a third-party candidate ends up helping the Republican candidate to win. Ever since the 2000 election, a person who votes for third-party candidates is perceived as a "spoiler" of the election. Despite widespread claims that "every vote counts" in U.S. elections, there is simultaneous pressure on the public to vote only for the

major party candidates.

 

In making my decision I kept coming back to a basic point that I have heard from numerous sources: if a person doesn't vote for one of the major party candidates, then that is the same as not voting. Rather than be a spoiler by voting for third party candidates, I won't vote at all. By bowing out, my non-voter stance won't affect the election outcome one way or another.

Yeah, I know, there will be those who are aghast at my decision. Predictably I'll hear things like: "You gotta vote, it's a special right..." Many people get sentimental and teary-eyed about the voting process, a factor that distinguishes a democracy from a tyranny. Non-voters rank right up there with those who don't celebrate Christmas. With nothing of appeal to me in this election, I simply cannot see the point of going through the voting ritual just for the sake of doing it.

From: Donaciano Martinez (Sun. Oct. 31, 2004)

Wow, my memo about not voting provoked quite a flood of responses. Therewere numerous emails AND voice mails sent to me. My memo seemed to be ALMOSTas controversial as Osama bin Laden's pre-election communique to people in the U.S.

Many thanks to several people who referred me to additional articles to consider. At your request, I will definitely read them. I got six very polite replies from Republicans and several rational replies from third-party activists. I even heard from "Nader Leaders Organized to Defeat

Bush," a group that urges people to vote for Kerry in swing states (wherepre-election polls show the race is close).

The most hostile feedback came from Democratic loyalists. Several irate Democrats noted that my non-voter stance ends up being a vote for Bush. The past few months I was told that voting for a third-party candidate is a vote for Bush, and now I'm being told that not voting is also a vote for Bush. Some third party activists have told me in past months that voting for Kerry is the same as voting for Bush. Gee, it seems like no matter what I do, I end up voting for Bush.

One hothead wrote: "If you don't like the two-party system in the U.S., then move to Russia." That love-it-or-leave mentality came from a strong loyalist to the Democrats, the same party that took the undemocratic step of going to court in Colorado and other states to try to keep Ralph Nader off the ballot in our so-called democracy.

A common theme in almost all of the feedback seemed to be that the major goal is to remove the Bush regime. This is part of the "anybody but Bush" message on car bumper stickers the past few months. Of course, people are immediately bashed if their "anybody but Bush" vote dares to go in any direction other than Kerry.

Out of the many replies sent to me, below you will read a very moving appeal by long-time human rights activist, Jerry Gerash, who has always given me constructive criticism down through the years.

Despite whatever I finally decide to do in this 2004 election, I urge people to vote however you want on Tuesday Nov. 2nd. Regardless of the election outcome, the struggle for peace and justice will continue.

10/31/04 reply from Jerry Gerash.

Hi Donaciano, thank you for expressing your feelings about this election. I hear you and appreciate your observations. However, I am very upset. When I read of your decision not to vote last night, I started to think about how I would respond. It was like this:

(1) The real threat of fascism in our country if Bush is elected. I guess you don't feel the threat. I know you see it as a possibility, but somehow it hasn't impressed you. You know as well as I that Bush and his henchmen and his political base, the evangelical right, feel that civil liberties are not the foundations upon which our country should be anchored, but are mere annoying obstacles in putting an end to personal freedoms and any other basic right that gets in the way of their religious-reactionary views and objectives.

Aside from seeing this as an American, as a Jew, I am deeply concerned about fascism. Hitler was not elected by a majority and would have even been prevented from being the top vote getter if the socialists and the communists would have united under one candidate. I live every day with the memory of the six million martyrs and often with their families who survived, as well as survivors themselves. To me, the threat takes on much larger proportions. As I see the vicious acts of Republicans and their operatives in finding ways to deprive people to vote, and the hate underlying it or at least the contempt for the common person underlying it, I can see how easily they are capable of marginalizing and demonizing one minority after another after another. I see incipient fascists.

(2) The Supreme Court. The five criminal majority of the Supreme Court who selected Bush in the Bush v. Gore case (refusing a recount of the votes ordered by the Florida Supreme Court) is prime evidence of how the Supreme Court will become part of the criminal scheme and serve as a rubber stamp for fascist legislation and upholding fascist executive orders. With Bush, the Supreme Court will get even worse as Bush's ideal Justice is Scalia and Thomas. His appointments, expected to be 3-5, will be young and we will have a reactionary court for 30-40 years. Conversely, a Kerry presidency will restore Law and respect for our democracy in the Supreme Court.

(3) The American people. They don't deserve this.That was all I was going to say. Then I heard Gore Vidal this morning on Pacifica. He expressed a similar view. He said this election is the most important in his lifetime. He sees the end of representative democracy if Bush is elected. He also sees the clear possibility that the Republicans will make this a one party country, and the Supreme Court will uphold it. And we will become a dictatorship and it will be the murder of our Constitution. I hope you will reconsider, especially since Colorado is a swing state, and change your mind and vote for Kerry.