(FreeImages.com / Roger Buser)
After Ted Cruz dropped out of the race, I started seeing a ton more of “If it’s Trump vs. Clinton, I’m not voting.” I can see where that point of view comes from: if you’re offered two options, and you don’t want either one, declining seems like a good idea. It’s like if you’re going to a wedding, and the reception menu choices are shellfish, when you’re seriously allergic to shellfish, or steak tartare, when you avoid beef for health and ethical reasons, and RAW beef freaks you out even more. If you don’t WANT either one, don’t PICK either one. Hoard some extra appetizers, drink extra wine, ask your tablemates if they want their rolls, eat the mints in your purse, and order a pizza when you get home.
But this is not a wedding reception. Instead it’s an episode of Survivor, where everyone on the island has to vote for what will be served for dinner, and then everyone will be forced to eat the winning option. You CAN abstain from voting, declining both options. But then you will be force-fed whatever everyone ELSE chooses, even if it means dying of a shellfish reaction.
No one who knows you will mistake your vote for enthusiastic support. No one will think, “Oh, she’s choosing BEEF? After all these years of declining beef at my parties and ranting about how bad it is, now suddenly she WANTS beef??” Everyone knows this is Survivor.
Related
This is great! I’m sharing it.
One additional point: if some of your friends are deathly allergic to fish, and will also be forced to eat it no matter what if it gets chosen, you might vote for steak even if it’s disgusting to you, to save your friends.
I have seen a lot of Muslims and people of color express actual terror over what will happen to them if Trump becomes our president. That terror seems pretty justified. Even if I wasn’t going to vote for whoever runs against him for my own sake, I would want to for theirs.
Excellent addition.
Well said!
Brilliant!
Also shared! This is Survivor (or SURVIVAL!)
Agree! It’s one thing to protest corruption or blatant disregard for democracy by voting with a blank ballot, or somehow vocally abstaining. But just not choosing because we don’t like the choices will not get us anywhere.
I don’t understand how anyone thinks not voting – in ANY situation, even the one above – is a protest. SOMEONE is going to win, whether you vote or not. By not voting you are simply throwing away your voice, not “protesting the lack of options”. You are voluntarily handing over your right to a voice, to your fellow countrymen who can in fact be bothered to choose. At least if you vote you may help ensure the country ends up with what is perhaps the lesser of two evils. THEN, you can protest all you want to change the system.
Oh, what a good take! Thank you.
YES YES YES. Such a good analogy, including Ginny’s addendum. YES.
Yes! My husband and I were talking about this just this morning and decided that not voting is just not an option because, as you put it so well, this is Survivor.
BRILLIANT. Best explanation I’ve read so far.
THIS! I am sharing this too. This is exactly what I’ve been trying to articulate. Swistle, you are so good at this. And Ginny’s point is spot on too.
I normally panic at the idea of a write-in vote because I feel that it takes votes away from a non-fringe, non-racist candidate, but my mom is planning to write in her favorite candidate-who-has-not-yet-dropped-out but-is-not-likely-to-win-the-nomination. In this case, I support her. She is voting her conscience, and, honestly, I think a lot of people might do this as well.
I would never recommend abstaining from voting or turning in a blank ballot to make a statement, but voting for a third option (however scant the chances of winning) is another right and privilege we have as voters.
Yes, write-ins are a right that every voter has, but as a tool in this survivor style election they are functionally no different than abstaining or turning in a blank ballot. They are a lost opportunity to fight against shellfish. (To further the original metaphor.)
A third party vote says, “I’m paying attention to the menu, and I don’t approve.” Or, “Actually, could you provide an allergy-friendly vegetarian option?” Neither shrimp nor most beef is kosher, so it may not be as simple as “beef is better”.
If you’re the lone objector at a 300-guest wedding there may be no response, and it IS losing an opportunity to choose beef over shellfish, but it’s not saying nothing. If the menu is chosen by the table and you know that your table always votes one way, a third party vote can matter. In the US it’s ultimately the electoral college who count, so there’s no way we get a nice salad this time, but if enough people write in, it does get noticed.
Noticed by who? The media? Write in votes have historically only gotten attention when they have had a (negative) impact on a recount, and usually then only to point out how those votes were effectively wasted in such a close contest. (See: Nader, 2000.) Write in votes aren’t even allocated by candidate in most places– they just appear as “write in”, so the weirdo down the street who wrote in “Yoda” gets his vote counted in the same column as yours. Not an effective vehicle for change, to say the least. Staying with the tortured metaphor, I would not want to be force fed shellfish because someone decided that they wanted to write down salad on the card in the (misguided) hope that enough other people would do the same, causing a wedding controversy that would force the bride to at least consider salad. She’s not choosing salad–this is a two entree wedding, period. The caterer is not open to a third entree, and it is too late to hire another caterer before the wedding. Either write down beef or shellfish.
I expect that strategy will get one’s least preferred option elected. But I guess that depends on how many people on each side do it
GENIUS!
It is really tragic that YOU won’t be President; imagine having a President who is WISE and FAIR and DIPLOMATIC!
This is brilliant. And terrifying, and true.
Excellent and wise analogy, Swizzle.
Oh, autocorrect. SWISTLE. You know I know your name OMG.
This comment was the only thing that made me laugh from the entire post/comments. Thank goodness for some levity in the midst of this sh*tstorm. Autocorrect wins the day.
Oh how I wish this was on Facebook so that I could share it.
Can you not just…share the link?
After we decide dinner, can we vote the other dinner off of the island?
As a biologist of sorts, I find it terrifying that there isn’t more discussion of climate change and how the impact might make the planet inhospitable to human life. From what I’ve read, leading climate scientists are much more pessimistic than the articles they publish about our chances of slowing the whole scenario, let alone turning it around. I’ve begun my third act in life, so I guess it won’t really matter to me, but I’m a mom, an aunt, and even a great-aunt, and all of those younger people DO matter to me. So, the choice seems to be between somebody who at least mentions the problem and somebody who wants to double down on coal. Coal! Please everybody vote, and when you do, think about the future of humanity and whether or not there will be one. You can have my roll.
In my state, only once in my lifetime have the electoral votes EVER changed. . .
My two options are:
1 – hold my nose and vote, knowing it won’t matter, or
2 – vote my conscience, even though the Libertarian Party has NOT A SNOWBALL’S CHANCE ANYWHERE of winning anything ever.
Even if, as they say, “resistance if futile,” it’s still resistance, and it helps me live with myself.
This is brilliant. Thank you.
“Survivor” only exists because enough people accept that it is a valid game. The only hope of escaping this contest, which is actually morally bankrupt and indefensible, is for the vast majority to refuse to participate.
I’m not sure this actually is the case for us in our real-life situation, though. Even if only 3% of the American population came out to vote… that 3% would decide the President. It’s not like Congress would stop and say “oh man, 97% of Americans no longer find voting for President a valid exercise; let’s ignore this year’s results and re-write the constitution real quick, then try again and see if more people vote this time!” Note that I’m not saying I don’t WISH that would happen, just that it effectively won’t.
This. THIS. My problem is, how did we get to this point? I mean, how did we, as a nation, decide THESE TWO were the best option? Even if I vote my conscience and vote for whom I think Sucks Less, I’m voting for problems (in the other candidate) that I’m just not comfortable voting FOR. Voting the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil. I totally see caro’s mom and Kris’s point of view…my conscience will be the winner for me this year. Whatever helps me sleep at night.
It literally makes my skin crawl thinking about voting for either the shellfish or the beef. I really, REALLY want the pasta primavera to get the nomination he deserves…
I think that most people mean for abstention to represent reasoned disapproval of both candidates, but it’s always seemed so lazy to me. Surely, with even the smallest bit of research about the candidates’ positions on even one nationally important topic of your choice (for example, someone above mentioned climate change), you can find a distinction between the candidates that makes one preferable to the other. Get informed! Deciding to not vote because “they’re both so awful” screams that you haven’t taken the time to sort it out any further than that. If two candidates have different positions on very nearly everything, then there is almost no WAY they are exactly equally awful.
YES. These candidates could not be more different. Maybe there was a candidate you liked better than the one who will be the nominee, but the difference between that failed candidate and the nominee is MINISCULE compared to the distance between the two nominees. It’s the difference between “I want to help 80 people!” and “I want to help 100 people” versus “I want to punch all the people who need help in the face!” Wise up– it’s time to get REALLY EXCITED ABOUT BEEF.
Hee hee. As someone who is, if not excited about beef, at least finds beef an acceptable option, and is, in fact, excited that ANY variety of beef might be served for the first time EVER at this wedding, I endorse this comment wholeheartedly.
EXACTLY. Make a pros/cons list. You might dislike both candidates, but you can help our country choose the lesser of two evils. Voting is a huge privilege; don’t be lazy about it.
I would rather be reasonably certain my vote will help get my second or third choice candidate elected than end up with someone who was probably my 26th choice just to try and prove a point.
(But I live in a swing state, so my vote MATTERS, hot dammit!)
(Also, my son has legit dual citizenship to Canada and is my ticket out of this circus if everything goes horribly, horribly wrong.)
THANK YOU. The right to vote is a privilege. Even in America, it was a privilege that only white men had until relatively recently. The fact that people are choosing to TURN DOWN their right to vote because they can’t vote for their ideal candidate is mind-boggling to me.
Very well said! As a citizen of the United States of America, I do have the right to enter a polling location and cast my vote. I am thankful for this privilege and to all the people that made it possible. Maybe, we don’t like the candidates, and they are really awful people. They are one person and they do not decide the fate of our country alone. The members we have voted into Congress and the House of Representatives are also important. They too decide laws, and help to make changes. And we should be aware of who is casting their vote and what they are voting for….is it what we believe in? Be informed and do your best as a citizen to vote in the most responsible, intelligent candidate. WE the PEOPLE are an important part of this process!
I absolutely agree with Swistle, but I will also say that if you are absolutely determined to abstain from a vote between beef or shellfish, you can still show up and vote on the rest of the menu. Especially if others will be forced to eat shellfish that might kill them, you can at least make sure they don’t also get served peanut butter and strawberries as a side.
I’m Canadian and trying to think of something clever to say along the lines of how we chose our own hunk of beef in our last election…
(And to be fair to Mr. Trudeau, he’s more than a pretty face. I wasn’t excited about him when he was just a potential leader of the Liberal Party, but now that he is the leader and that party has won (and yes, I voted for him because I considered the last party in power to be shellfish), I’ve been very happy with him as a Prime Minister so far. It feels like Canada has gone back to being more what I think Canada should be: caring about the environment, gender parity, cultural diversity, etc.)
This process shouldn’t be Survivor. Given two horrible options, I am going to choose a third option. Maybe if enough people vote and choose “none of the above” the people in charge of the “menu” will take notice. It may not make a difference for the current “dinner” but it very well may help us have better options in the future.
You are taking a big chance that significant enough damage won’t be done that it renders next time irrelevant.
Every election is framed as being the “most important ever” and that we are at risk the end of days if we get it wrong. This hasn’t been the case for any of the previous elections and I doubt it’s the case for this one either.
Perhaps you are right. Maybe this is just another election and everything will be about the same afterward. In that case, choosing not to vote won’t make a difference – we have had incredibly low turn out rates in the past and we still have the two candidates we have this year.
But I do think the choice betweèn shellfish and beef is a significant one this year. It is a choice that will set the direction for the Supreme Court for years to come. It is a choice between incremental change and a sharp reversal of course in foreign policy. Not voting means that you are giving up your voice in those and letting others decide. The right to have a say on the direction we are likely to go in the future is not something I would abdicate. I may still end up with shellfish rather than beef (or vice versa) but I will know I did what I could to prevent that outcome.
I didn’t say I wasn’t going to vote. I am going to vote. I am just going to vote for a third party (what I meant by “none of the above”). Choosing not to vote means your voice is not heard. Choosing to vote outside the mainstream sends a message.
Yes, I know that it may mess things up to vote 3rd party. It disgusts me that rancid shellfish is a possibility. But my conscience directs me not to vote for either. I really can’t vote for beef. Sorry.
There is no way I would not vote, as that does no good.
But for the first time ever, I’m looking for a 3rd party candidate to have my vote.
People of color, women, gay people, transgender folks, Muslims, not to mention the environment, are in deep shit if rancid shellfish wins. Protecting these groups from the grave dangers that a rancid shellfish presidency would bring, is more important than your conscience or sending a message. The ugliness we’ve seen so far would be just the beginning.
I really appreciate what you are saying, but my own analogy is what if neither option is survivable? What if both are poison? One will be chosen, even if only person votes, but to intentionally vote for poison? I can’t make myself do it. I plan to vote 3rd party for president so that I can still vote for decent candidates down stream.
If you genuinely believe that the producers of the show are offering you two equally poisonous options (as opposed to offering one option that will kill you and one option that will behave in the digestive system just like normal food does, even though you really hate it on many levels), that is when it seems as if you would have to quit the show. Staying on the show but voting for a non-option doesn’t save you or anyone else from being poisoned. The producers of the show don’t care if someone chooses a non-option and then is force-fed one of the other two anyway; that’s just good television.
I held off on commenting on this, because I think I have started to get a bit lost with the shellfish, raw steak analogy. What I do agree with, that you should look at both candidates and find someone you have a point of common ground with. The write in ballot, in this kind of election is not at all a viable option. I absolutely understand that you don’t like either candidate-but yes, this is the time to vote for the lesser of your two evils.
The movers and shakers don’t give a CRAP if the majority of people don’t vote for the two candidates-it doesn’t matter to them at all. You can have all the write ins from fed up voters, but not one of them will win the election, because there won’t be a majority.
I truly feel this is going to be an election where every vote counts-and whether you feel the same way I do or not, I want whoever is elected to be truly the decision by the majority of the people. That is the only way I reconcile myself if the person I hate gets elected. Democracy is the will of the people, and with that, I have to take the good with the bad.
I am late to this, but I have voted in many presidential elections and I think the system is corrupt and unworkable. I did vote in my primary and I am hoping to vote in the general election but I don’t think it’s helpful to assume that because I don’t, I am lazy or want anyone to be poisoned. I didn’t create the system, I’m just trying to work in it!