Stop Vote-Shaming People: Democracy is a Lifestyle, not a One-Day Event

(Photo Courtesy of WikiCommons)

Today marks the 2014 midterm elections, and all throughout the nation organizers and volunteers are making phone calls, knocking on doors, and organizing other folks to do the same—all in order to get people to vote. Or, as they describe it, “to get out the vote.”

This is an incredible public service; it is, indeed, the most practical way to foster participation in our democracy. I admire their fervor, and I agree with their overarching message that folks should vote.

However, a popular argument that surfaces amongst the fervent GOTV-ers — as they describe themselves — is that “one doesn’t get to complain about our government unless he/she votes.” This argument typically surfaces mostly on the left, and for understandable reasons: when more people vote, progressives, liberals, and Democrats are more likely to be elected. This is a simple fact reflecting our changing electorate: people of color, young people, Latinos, and materially poor people tend to vote Democrat, but typically vote in lower numbers. Vote-shaming, in short, becomes a sort of tactic for the left to press those who don’t turnout to vote in high numbers to vote, as they will most likely vote Democrat.

While the argument “you don’t get to complain unless you vote” may seem somewhat compelling on its face, it is problematic—and even silly—in many ways.

To begin, this argument is a form of victim blaming. As it is implicitly directed at those who don’t typically vote, it is therefore also aimed at those who are typically marginalized and underrepresented by our political system, once again: people of color, Latinos, and poor people. But to suggest that just because these folks don’t participate in the same system that functionally marginalizes them, is akin to blaming women for being sexually harassed or assaulted — though certainly on a different scale. “Don’t complain about cat-calls,” so the logic goes, “If you continue to wear revealing clothes.” Similarly, “Don’t complain an oppressive system if you continue to refuse to participate in it.” Indeed, we can all agree how silly this line of argumentation is.

Moreover, for people on the left who make this argument, it is quite circular — and even self-defeating. More specifically, many folks on the left — myself included — charge the political system as plutocratic; that is, in the American context, disproportionately favoring wealthy white me. For the champions of this argument, however, one has to vote for, or chose between, this narrow variance of plutocrats in order to complain about plutocracy. 

Further, this argument ignores political issues that can’t be solved singularly through the ballot box. For example, no real alternatives are offered by either dominant party vis-à-vis the racist War on Drugs, or even systemic racism at-large. Certainly, one party is better than the other, but only to an extent. Indeed, the Democratic party is not running on a platform to end the mass incarceration of people of color.

Finally, this argument has a very limited understanding of democracy. For those who champion this argument, democracy is showing up to the ballot box every year and casting a choice. Certainly, this process is part of it — but democracy should be thought of as a much more rich process, one of participating in the direction of one’s society. For this latter definition to hold true, it seems participation in democracy is constituted by something much more robust than voting. That participation ought to be constituted by, among other things, protests, town-hall meetings, and, ultimately, a popular and continuous discussion about the principles that we govern ourselves by.

Democracy, in short, should be a lifestyle — not a once-a-year holiday. If we start acting and thinking this way, there will be “less complaining,” for we can begin to actualize some justice.