Standing Aside

Trey Smith

As even a casual reader should be aware, I will not be voting for Barack Obama this November. I also will not cast a vote for the presumptive Republican nominee, Mitt Romney. In past elections, I have voted for an Independent (Ralph Nader), several Green Party nominees and even a Socialist Party candidate. This year, however, I most likely will not vote for one of these.

My intent is NOT to cast any vote at all in the presidential race. I detest the only two candidates who have a realistic chance of winning. While I might feel good about voting my conscience by casting a vote for, say, Dr. Jill Stein or Rocky Anderson, neither of them (or any other third party candidate) has a snowball's chance in hell of impacting the outcome in a meaningful way.

Yes, I know the arguments for the supposed importance of casting my vote. Some people argue that it is a solemn civil duty. To that I say, Pftttt!

Many people will try to convince me that it's better to vote for a LESSER evil. I don't buy that argument. If you sign on for evil, you can't genuinely complain when evil is carried out in your name, now can you?

Of course, when folks realize that the above two arguments hold no sway with me, then they will decide to bring up the biggie: "If you don't vote for Obama, then Romney will win and that will mean the end of the free world as we know it!" I don't buy that argument either because the "free world" is about to be pushed over the cliff by Obama.

No, I've decided the time has come to take a stand for what I believe in and I sincerely wish more like-minded progressives would follow suit. As Ta-Wan pointed out in a comment of a post from a few weeks ago, the rest of the world is watching us. If hordes of us tromp to the polls (figuratively speaking) to cast our votes for Evil A or Evil B, we will be, in essence, legitimizing the evil that follows!

Since we do not possess a viable option to counter the two corporatist pro-war candidates, the best way to make our voice heard is to refuse to participate in this rigged game. If overall voter participation is low, it robs the winning candidate of the ability to declare a mandate.

For example, if only one-half of eligible adults casts a vote and the winning candidate garners a hair more than 50%, this means that the winner only has the backing of 25% of the electorate. Twenty-five percent is only 1 in 4. Put another away, 3 in 4 did NOT support the eventual winner. Not much of a mandate there!

If nothing else, it will send a signal to the rest of the world that a significant number of Americans are sick and tired of this corrupt system. It would be a powerful message.

But I'm not going to get my hopes up. The majority of my countrymen are lemmings! They would just as soon go scurrying off a high cliff than not vote. Most of them will vote for a candidate they dislike and who does not represent their best interests...because that's what "we" Americans do.