Do Politically Disengaged Voters Still Have a Civic Responsibility to Vote?

US flag
Photo by Wesley Tingey on Unsplash. Unplash+ license obtained by IVN Editor Shawn Griffiths.
Created: 30 Oct, 2024
10 min read

Editor's Note: This series originally published on Divided We Fall. It includes perspectives from Leah Murray and Jeff Jacoby (read about the authors below). It was republished with permission from Divided We Fall. Photo Credit: Wesley Tingey / Unsplash

 

Voting Is Not about the Individual

By Leah Murray – Director, Institute of Politics & Public Service at Weber State University

Perhaps one of the most pervasive myths in American politics is that a voter should vote because it matters to them personally. Therefore, if a voter does not live in a battleground state—which in 2024 includes Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin—then there is no reason to vote, given the state’s winner is a foregone conclusion. 

Relatedly, the idea that an individual vote matters also leads the electorate to think that if they do not like either candidate for the presidential election, there is no reason to vote. That argument suggests that voting for the lesser of two evils is in itself an evil and voters opt out of the election entirely. It also causes voters to avoid third-party candidates, as they think they are throwing away their votes. Yet the myth that a vote is about the individual voter depresses an active and engaged citizenry and should be debunked. 

The Truth About Voting

First, voting is a civic act, independent of where you live or who the candidates are, and is about the political community the voter is a part of. Every eligible citizen has a civic obligation to keep this Republic, and the most fundamental and easiest way to do so is to vote. Second, in a battleground state, the odds of a single voter making a difference in the presidential election is one in a million. So voters should stop thinking that their vote could be decisive in a national election, no matter where you live. Finally, a candidate will never perfectly align with a voter’s interests because candidates are the result of a party’s collective choice. Who the candidate is and whether the voter likes them is irrelevant; it’s the policy positions the candidate pushes that matter.

We must also debunk the pervasive myth that the only election that matters is the presidential election. There are tens of thousands of elected officials in the United States and voters have a role to play in choosing all of them. Voting in these down-ballot elections significantly increases the odds that a voter can impact local elections since many of those are won by one-, two-, or ten-vote differences. These elections often have significant consequences at the state and local level. 

Voters should vote, even if they do not like Donald Trump or Kamala Harris because it’s not about them, and it’s not about the presidential election–it’s about the political community the voter lives in.

The Politically Disengaged Have the Right Not to Vote

By Jeff Jacoby – Op-Ed Columnist, The Boston Globe

More Choice for San Diego

Countless Americans believe that voting is the highest expression of civic responsibility. In 2022, the Pew Research Center asked 3,600 adults what traits or behaviors go to the heart of good citizenship. By far, the most common reply was voting: nearly 70 percent of respondents described voting as a “very important” aspect of being a good citizen.

Arguments for Not Engaging Are Legitimate

However, voting is a right, not a duty. In our constitutional system, each of us is free to march in a protest, to own a weapon, to worship God, to write a book—and equally free not to do those things. Voting is no different. The right to participate in an election includes the right to stay home.

Citizens choose not to vote for any number of legitimate reasons. They may dislike the candidates, oppose what the parties stand for, or detest the pandering and defamation that dominate political campaigns. They may have more pressing things to do with their time, or they may simply be uninterested in public affairs.

There is nothing wrong with not caring about politics or with having higher priorities than voting. There is something wrong, however, with turning the franchise of voting into a fetish. Voter turnout is not a good test of democratic or civic health. Just as we wouldn’t urge a motorist who doesn’t understand auto mechanics to tinker under the hood of his car, or solicit investment advice from someone who doesn’t know anything about finance—why would anyone think politically disengaged Americans ought to be hectored into casting a ballot? 

Blame the Candidates and the Parties, Not the Voters 

Today, even people who are normally engaged in the political process are turned off by the candidates running for office or by the lack of choices on the ballot. Like millions of Americans, I find myself politically homeless today. Neither major party offers a vision I can relate to. I recoil from the Democrats’ obsession with race and gender no less than I do from the Republicans’ shrillness on immigration. As a citizen, I’m embarrassed by the caliber of the candidates nominated for president this year by the major and minor parties. I wouldn’t want to be governed by any of them, and I won’t vote for either of them.

The down-ballot options aren’t much better. In the overwhelming majority of “races,” the outcomes are predetermined. According to Ballotpedia, the nonpartisan digital research site, 75 percent of state and local elections so far this year have been uncontested. Most incumbents cruise to reelection without even a pro forma challenge.

To be clear, I would never discourage anyone who wants to vote from doing so. But no one should feel obliged to cast a ballot merely to fulfill a civic duty, especially at a time when our politics has significantly degraded. Keeping silent is sometimes the most meaningful exercise of free speech. And sometimes the most meaningful exercise of the franchise is to withhold it.

All Citizens Must Help Protect Our Rights

By Leah Murray – Director, Institute of Politics & Public Service at Weber State University

More Choice for San Diego

Mr. Jacoby argues that voting is a right, not a duty. He argues that each of us is free to march in a protest, to own a weapon, to worship God, to write a book, and equally free not to. I agree that these civil liberties enshrined in our nation’s Constitution protect us from the governments’ either preventing or compelling us from doing these things. 

However, just because voting is not enshrined in the Bill of Rights does not make it any less important. Indeed, the U.S. Constitution protects voting rights in many ways, ensuring that voting cannot be denied based on race, not paying a poll tax, or age being 18. States can and do regulate how citizens can vote, and  have different rules for voter eligibility, voter registration, and voting in general. All of this is necessary to ensure one of the most fundamental rights in a Republic: voting. 

Perhaps more importantly, the rights that Mr. Jacoby points to all come with corresponding duties. We all have a role to play in keeping those rights, as the Declaration of Independence states, “it is their duty to throw off such government,” or as Founding Father Ben Franklin said, it’s “a republic if you can keep it.” 

Civic Responsibility Includes the Politically Disengaged

Good citizens should stay abreast of what is happening in their communities; good citizens should be aware of how our government is doing its job; good citizens should be well-informed and take advantage of the First Amendment right to a free press to keep the government accountable. Accountability is enforced through voting, regardless of the many legitimate reasons—including political homelessness—that citizens may have for checking out. 

The Bill of Rights also lists a person’s right to be heard by a jury of one’s peers. That right comes with a corresponding expectation that when citizens are called for jury duty, they will abide. The right to a trial by a jury of one’s peers depends on the civic responsibility of Americans who may know little to nothing about jurisprudence or the law, and who may feel alienated from the judicial system for a host of legitimate reasons, serving anyway. Keeping the republic does not require expertise, it requires showing up even when you really don’t want to. This election is precisely one of these opportunities. 

Not Engaging in the System Can Change the System

By Jeff Jacoby – Op-Ed Columnist, The Boston Globe

Like Ms. Murray, I agree that good citizenship includes staying abreast of local issues and paying attention to how officials are doing their jobs. As a career journalist, I agree that keeping up with public affairs is one mark of a responsible citizen. 

But I cannot follow the logic that leads to the claim that good citizens ought to vote even when there is no candidate or party they support. That is like telling someone browsing in a bookstore that he ought to buy something to read before he leaves, even if nothing appeals to him. Or like urging someone perusing a dating app that she ought to swipe right on someone, even if it isn’t anyone she would want to meet. We wouldn’t make such an argument when it comes to matters as limited as reading material and socializing; surely we shouldn’t make it about something as consequential as government power.

More Choice for San Diego

Individual Interpretations of Civic Duty Can Vary

Of course, the fact that voting isn’t mentioned in the Bill of Rights doesn’t mean that “voting is not a right.” Four amendments to the Constitution—the 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th—all deal with voting and all begin with the words “The right of citizens of the United States to vote . . . .” I think we can agree that, in the eyes of the Constitution, voting is indeed a right. And like all rights, constitutional and otherwise, the right to vote comes with “concomitant duties,” as Ms. Murray stated. 

To my mind, the right to vote encompasses a duty to vote wisely. What that means in any given election will vary widely from voter to voter. Millions of voters think the wisest thing they can do is support the nominees they believe to be the most trustworthy; or have the right experience; or belong to a party they favor; or make promises they find attractive. Some may decide that the better part of wisdom is to hold their nose and cast a ballot for the least offensive option. But millions of other citizens will conclude that the wisest course on Election Day is to not vote for candidates who are unfit for the job. 

Today, fully half of all young people say they identify with no political party. The share of Americans who generally trust the government to do the right thing has plummeted from 77 percent in 1964 to just 22 percent today. Disillusionment with America’s electoral and political system is deep-rooted and widespread. The solution to that disillusionment isn’t to tell politically disengaged voters they are obliged to keep voting for candidates or parties they cannot abide by. When manufacturers realize that consumers are shunning what they sell, they work to improve their product. Granted, politics isn’t commerce. But if America’s political leaders realize that more and more voters are declining to cast their ballots for severely defective candidates and parties, perhaps they too, at long last, will offer something better to the American people.

 

About The Authors

Leah Murray is the Brady Presidential Distinguished Professor in the Department of Political Science and Philosophy at Weber State University and currently serves as the Director of the Walker Institute of Politics & Public Service as well as a Radio Talk Show Host for KSL News Radio in Salt Lake City. She was recognized as the College of Social and Behavioral Sciences Endowed Professor for 2017 - 2020. Murray earned a B.A. in political science and newspaper journalism from Syracuse University and a Ph.D. in political science at the University at Albany. Her primary research interests are in American politics, specifically youth political engagement and her recent publications include pieces that focus on campus climates for political learning. Murray teaches courses on all aspects of American politics.

Jeff Jacoby, who has been a columnist for The Boston Globe since 1994, is a conservative writer with a national reputation. A native of Cleveland, Jeff has degrees from George Washington University and from Boston University Law School. Before entering journalism, he practiced law at the prominent firm of Baker & Hostetler, worked on several political campaigns in Massachusetts, and was an assistant to Dr. John Silber, the president of Boston University. In 1999, Jeff became the first recipient of the Breindel Prize, a major award for excellence in opinion journalism. In 2014, he was included in the “Forward 50,” a list of the most influential American Jews.

Latest articles

voters at the ballot box.
4 Principles of Change Open Primary Advocates Must Embrace
This was a big year for the open primaries movement. Seven state-level campaigns and one municipal. Millions of voters declaring their support for open primaries. New leaders emerging across the country. Primary elections for the first time at the center of the national reform debate....
23 Dec, 2024
-
5 min read
House Speaker Mike Johnson
GOP vs GOP: Party Fragmentation in the New Congress
Shawn and Dan dive into the fragmentation within both parties, Elon Musk's entrance as a Republican power broker, and a recent poll showing a surprisingly high level of support for Donald Trump among people who voted for Jill Stein....
23 Dec, 2024
-
1 min read
Young person voting.
2024 Recap: Lessons Learned from the Successes and Failures of Statewide Primary Reform
In 2024, a historic number of statewide initiatives appeared on the ballot to open primary elections to all voters and candidates. Most of the initiatives failed, but reformers were successful in Washington DC. ...
19 Dec, 2024
-
2 min read