Voting and Nolo Contendere
June 25, 2008
Nolo Contendere: I do not wish to contest.
Upon a defendant offering this plea, the judge will then say, “The court finds the defendant guilty.” For the man who chooses not to contest an election by voting, do we likewise claim he abides whatever candidate is elected?
Advertisement
57 Comments
Comments are closed.
Perhaps. But one could just as persuasively argue, based on Socrates’ reasoning in the Crito, that by voting at all you have agreed to abide by whatever candidate is elected.
I would add that neither voting or non-voting changes whether one is required to “abide” with the candidate elected. It’s not a matter of personal choice – it’s a matter of public law. And you can still complain and protest all you want, too.
The idea is a red herring….
… by voting at all you have agreed to abide by whatever candidate is elected.
Precisely. You’ve assented to the legitimacy of the process and the outcome.
Not voting is more akin to St. Thomas More’s approach to his trial – that is, refusing to participate or legitimize the process except as coerced by force (only with voting, we are not coerced to participate – yet).
off topic – are you guys happy with Word Press ?
It is not necessary for my argument to establish the merits of demerits of a particular vote, so I won’t argue the point. It would seem in so much as its intended to be a commentary within the political process, a null vote or a TP vote would not enjoy a special privelege that santifies it against effects of the political process.
One may be able to complain while not voting, but I would give it as much respect as a spinster commenting about art of making relationships.
off topic – are you guys happy with Word Press ?
Very much so, at least me.
Good to hear. I checked it out and it seems to run nicely, great administration tools.
One may be able to complain while not voting, but I would give it as much respect as a spinster commenting about art of making relationships.
I suspect, having discussed this with you at some length here and there, that that is because you have a blank spot in your capacity to reason. Either that or you are so desperate in your attempts to justify your intended vote for Obama to your conflicted conscience that you simply must paint the decision not to vote as an unreasoning moral failure: if vocal abstention were at all an acceptable or – heavens! – even potentially respectable option, you might actually have to accept it.
if vocal abstention were at all an acceptable or – heavens! – even potentially respectable option, you might actually have to accept it.
Correct or at least if it could be shown as being efficacious in any way. Not voting doesn’t change anything except give those who do vote more power. If I were Amish this wouldn’t be an issue. I am not however, and the policies effected by these politicians will effect me, my family and children, and my community. In so much as I have the power to affect these things, I have the obligation to attempt create a more just society.
Not voting doesn’t change anything except give those who do vote more power.
Keep telling yourself that soothing lie.
I will not be joining you in your nihilism.
If Zippy doesn’t vote, how much more power will my vote have in practical terms?
It seems to me that thinking that your vote will be efficacious in any meaningful sense is about the most absurd reason to vote in a national election (or, for that matter, not voting in a national election). I can say with near absolute certainty – on the order of not being hit by an asteroid on the way to the polls – that the outcome of the election will be the same whether I vote for Obama, McCain, a third party candidate or none of the above.
If I vote in isolation, my vote is of little effect. If I and 10,000 friends vote for someone out of shared principle it is to great effect. If I and 10,000 friends refuse to vote, no one cares except for a few ACORN volunteers.
Any attempt to justify voting in terms of efficacy is doomed to failure, I’m afraid. For better or worse, no vote you ever cast is going to swing an election one way or the other. This doesn’t mean that there is no justification for voting; voting might have some rational that doesn’t hinge on the consequences of one’s individual vote (e.g. civic duty). But voting in order to affect the outcome is, sad to say, irrational.
If I and 10,000 friends vote…
You have 10,000 friends? I didn’t realize you had joined facebook. :)
It’s efficacy isn’t individual certainly. Take 3 coalitions. Coalitions A always votes for Party A; Coalition B always votes for Party B; Coalition C always votes for no one. Coalition C can convince as many people as it wants to join it, and it will never materially change a thing. Such is not the case with Coalitions A and B.
You have 10,000 friends? I didn’t realize you had joined facebook. :)
Our model railroad collector’s club has a viscious PAC. More seriously, the NRA and AARP have clout because they are able to articulate their classes’ interests effectively. A man marching with a gun toward a town and ready to attack is a lunatic. 10,000 men marching toward a town ready to attack is an invasion.
MZ: you are basically stuck with the fact that the USCCB document says outright that abstention is a respectable option.
I agree that if I can somehow influence a large block of people to vote a certain way (and with a very high probability in a U.S. Presidential election, the number needs to be substantially higher than 10,000) then the efficacy argument needs to be revisited. However, very few of us have that type of influence. I know that I’m certainly not one of them.
If one wants to make a categorical imperative-like argument and say that I have a duty to vote in the way that I think everyone else should vote, then we have a better argument. Indeed, it’s the argument that I’m leaning towards. However, if we accept this argument, then logically, I should vote for the candidate whom I want to win the election regardless of his actual chances of winning. In other words, one would have a duty to vote for a third-party candidate if I think him superior to the major-party candidates. It’s not quite the same thing as not voting at all, but in your comments above, you seem to equate the two.
Zippy: That opinion is offered contingently. It is also of more recent vintage.
MZ:
That opinion is offered contingently. It is also of more recent vintage.
Getting suddenly all selective in your support for the bishops now, aren’t you?
Bill H:
I am very much inclined to agree with your Kantian-like approach. In fact, as the choices become ever more constrained one might be faced with a situation where one thinks that everyone should abstain completely. Soviet elections come to mind as an example; and it seems to me that two viable candidates on the ballot rather than one, and a symbolic write-in or third party option, is not necessarily as far removed from that example as the comfortable would like to believe: at any rate the proximity of the cases really depends on the objective nature of the ‘viable’ candidates.
“If I vote in isolation, my vote is of little effect. If I and 10,000 friends vote for someone out of shared principle it is to great effect. If I and 10,000 friends refuse to vote, no one cares except for a few ACORN volunteers.”
Perhaps no one will care. If one works to convince a thousand to vote for one’s candidate and to convince another thousand who would have voted against one’s candidate not to vote at all, that might make a difference too.
While I myself will probably vote, Alasdair MacIntyre’s frustration is understandable and explains why one might want to abstain:
We note at this point that we have already broken with both parties and both candidates. Try to promote the pro-life case that we have described within the Democratic Party and you will at best go unheard and at worst be shouted down. Try to advance the case for economic justice as we have described it within the Republican Party and you will be laughed out of court. Above all, insist, as we are doing, that these two cases are inseparable, that each requires the other as its complement, and you will be met with blank incomprehension. For the recognition of this is precluded by the ideological assumptions in terms of which the political alternatives are framed. Yet at the same time neither party is wholeheartedly committed to the cause of which it is the ostensible defender. Republicans happily endorse pro-choice candidates, when it is to their advantage to do so. Democrats draw back from the demands of economic justice with alacrity, when it is to their advantage to do so. And in both cases rhetorical exaggeration disguises what is lacking in political commitment.
The whole article can be found here:
http://ethicscenter.nd.edu/archives/macintyre.shtml
The USCCB document indeed says not voting is a respectable option. But voting is not only seen as respectable, but is actively encouraged. The problem with Zippy’s “proportionalist trap” reasoning is that it tends toward the conclusion that abstention is the only moral option. But that is far from what the bishops teach. And it is because the act of voting in itself need not constitute formal cooperation with any particular evil in question. The USCCB document was very clear about that, to counter the kind of nonsense peddled by the likes of Catholic Answers.
MacIntyre’s piece is interesting. I don’t know if one can give equivalent value to the problems (as he sees them) of a market economy, and those of abortion. Are they morally equivalent?
This I also raise as MacIntyre’s view of this particular issue might be influenced by his economic views. A taste of which is here:
“Market relationships can only be sustained by being embedded in certain types of local nonmarket relationship, relationships of uncalculated giving and receiving, if they are to contribute to overall flourishing, rather than, as they so often in fact do, undermine and corrupt communal ties” (Dependent Rational Animals 117).”
Some might argue that his view here is false and thus his conclusions in the above linked comment are strained.
Comments?
What MacIntyre outlines is probably my biggest frustration with the conference of bishops as a whole. It is necessary to have priorities if one is going to act with solidarity, and our conference of bishops hasn’t exercised the best leadership in this area. Admitedly there are reasons for this with the most important being real disagreement over what should be the greatest priority. And when I say priority I mean as far as what we would like to see achieved within a certain time frame. In other words, world peace should of course be a priority for all Catholics, but are we to understand the exercise of that priority to be removal of our troops from Iraq within the next four years? In short, we are woefully short on the application of principle to concrete circumstance. The plain truth is that the candidate who advocates a 6-month sentence for lynching is better than the candidate who advocates nothing be done even though we can plainly see that a 6-month sentence is entirely insufficient. Likewise, the candidate who advocates doing nothing about abortion is better than the one who would make it a statutory right. Refusing to vote however resolves none of these issues: it gives an illusion of purity, acting as if we are not a part of a society that aborts millions of children or has elected to kill thousands of Iraqis and displace millions of others.
MacIntyre’s problem with voting actually goes much deeper than what one might gather from the previously quoted essay. He seems to think, for example, that representative government is legitimate only in very narrow circumstances which don’t apply to the modern state.
The problem with Zippy’s “proportionalist trap” reasoning is that it tends toward the conclusion that abstention is the only moral option. But that is far from what the bishops teach.
I think my position is perfectly compatible with what little the Magisterium has taught on the subject. (Well, of course I think that. Further, I am in basic agreement with MM’s take on Republican Catholic abuse of the notion of non-negotiables, though I am sympathetic to the notion of non-negotiables generally).
Given that abstention is a legitimate conclusion as a prudential judgment, whether or not it is the only moral option or the best moral option in particular circumstances depends upon those circumstances. IOW, folks who disagree with my assessment are disagreeing not with principles, but with my assessment of the facts which constitute the current circumstances.
The Bishops describe the conditions where abstention should be considered as ‘extraordinary’. If the abortion holocaust and the neocon war for universal democracy as ‘terror’ prophylactic do not constitute ‘extraordinary conditions’ it is rather difficult to imagine what does.
BA,
How so? Do you have a link?
Zippy
I think you will have to provide some evidence for this NEOCON war for Universal Democracy especially as to Mccain that seems to be a tad more reserved about intervention. He does have a history for instance of being restrained on prior conflicts in the Balkins.
If we are going to talk about “extraordianry circumstances” even if you think the one engagement in Iraq constitustes a massive Neocon war ofr Democracy one still has to come ot the grips with the fact that George Bush is not running for President
Therefore I really do not see that as a “extradordinary condition”. If McCain waa announcing that he was about to attack Syria , Iran to bring Democray by force I then think perhaps there is some argument to that if you thought such a thing was perhaps immoral
Edited and reposted from a prior thread:
Real and substantial progress might be made on the abortion issue if pro-lifers did more outreach to the left side of the political spectrum (beyond just telling them to vote for Republicans – an obvious non-starter.)
Pro-lifers don’t have a lot of growth potential with Republicans and conservatives: the ones who can be convinced there are already convinced.
So, reach out to progressives: have a fellow liberal explain opposition to abortion in a way that makes sense to the world-view of your typical Democrat, using progressive premises and framing. I do this myself: there is lots of growth potential here, believe me. Support for abortion is actually pretty soft among many of the rank and file Democrats I’m acquainted with.
Therefore I really do not see that as a “extradordinary condition”….
I don’t agree at all about the war assesment, but the fact is I don’t even have to invoke foreign policy at all in order to judge McCain non-negotiably unacceptable. His consistent support for the medical cannibalization of children can do that work on its own.
MZ,
The application of principles to concrete circumstances is the special responsibility of the lay faithful. It would be wrong for the bishops to give too much direction in this regard. One of the essential aspects of the lay vocation is to transform temporal structures through the application of the principles of CST in the excercise of their secualar competence and knowledge. The problem is that many Catholics have inherited a residual clericalism which tends to wait for clarification from on high before one can act. For instance, I once went to a symposium in which a possible alternative to embryo-destructive research (ANT-OAR) was being discussed. Rather than have scientists and bioethicists collaborate and discuss these matters, many simply wanted an anwer from Rome- an answer which was not forthcoming (this was several years ago). The lay faithful need to be the responsible subjects of CST. This means they might get things wrong. It also means fellow Catholics might have to disagree. But we cannot abrogate the responsibility.
Phillip,
I’m basing this on an article from this book which, unfortunately, does not appear to be available online.
I think we can find a compromise between a Father Coughlin and say Faithful Citizenship.
Matt.
It would be a great idea if there was some PRO -LIFE Progressives to RUN. At some point those people have to bring themselves forward.
Perhaps Catholic groups or others can encourage it. The Pro- life movement is quite diverse. But still there has to be a progressive to take that charge.
They existed at one time and Lindy Boggs was a prime example.
Zippy as to McCain if his “consistent support” and I really have to see how conisistent it has been is enough for a no vote then I think your option according to your councius is to sit out the election. I think that is not the proper interpretation of how to apply these list of non negotaiable items but there you are.
However I do think that a such an intrepretation of those principles is binding on all Catholics as I think Cardianal O’Conner was trying to get across.
Now I understand that view and I was told that I was violating a moral principle when in the past I voted for “Pro Life” people that were for the big three exception when they were agaisnt a pro choice person.
I disagreed and I think I have precedent to back me on it.
If i had taken my view I do not think we would be in positon to where more Pro-lifers are willing to take the political stand of no exception. Henry Hyde at one time was a lonely voice to that at ome time. At least as in relation to past pro life politicains in my neck of the woods
JH – one of the exciting things about Obama’s candidacy is that he is showing it is possible to finance campaigns with small-dollar donations: the possibility of financing a pro-life progressive in this way has great potential to break the power that Emily’s List (especially)and NARAL exercise over the Democratic Party.
Well matt I do agree that what Obama has shown and also to some extent what the Ron Paul folks did does show there is an avenue to fund campaigns that is different. I agree there that lessons from that should be learned
I think the boiling frog analogy is flawed. Suppose that in an election you are faced with a choice between two candidates: A and B. Both are awful candidates, but B is worse, so you vote for A. Next election the candidates are C and D, both of whom are worse than either A or B. Would your choices now be better if you hadn’t voted in the last election? No. Your individual vote is inconsequential. Would your choices now be better if you and lots of other people like you hadn’t voted in the last election? Also no. Candidates in a democracy tend to shape their policies to appeal to the median voter. If people who favor good policies abstain, the only effect this would be to shift the median voter towards someone who favors bad policies.
To put it another way, if pro-lifers sat out the last few elections, it wouldn’t have gotten us better candidates. If anything, it would have gotten us Rudy Giuliani.
one of the exciting things about Obama’s candidacy is that he is showing it is possible to finance campaigns with small-dollar donations
Except that Obama hasn’t financed his campaign with small-dollar donations.
Blackadder: From the link you provided:
What Obama probably meant to say is that 90 percent of his donors gave smaller donations, and that’s likely true. A total of 81,637 persons have given donations to the Obama campaign that exceeded $200 and thus had to be itemized. Since the Obama campaign says that more than 1 million donors have given in total, it would follow that more than 90 percent of them gave smaller amounts. But that’s not the way Obama put it.
Matt,
If 100,000 people each give a candidate a penny, and one person gives him a million dollars, would that prove that candidates can finance campaigns with small-dollar donations? Hardly.
One third of Obama’s total money came from small donors: that is, if I recall, more money than McCain has raised from all sources.
Also, what is the source of even the larger donations? Are they still individual (as opposed to corporations or union) donations? If so, that doesn’t quite undermine my point, does it? Me giving $250 to Obama, for example, is not the same as some fat-cat lobbyist buying influence.
Matt,
Corporations haven’t been able to give money to federal candidates since the early 1900s, and unions aren’t allowed to give money either.
Here is a more recent article on the same subject. It notes that while most of the campaigns’ donors give less than $200, most of the money still comes from big donors. It also notes that even the small donors tend to be disproportionately wealthy.
Personally, I tend to think that the “influence” that donors supposedly have on candidates is overrated. It’s true that candidates tend to vote in line with their donors wishes, but all the evidence I’ve seen suggests that this is because donors seek out candidates they know agree wit them, not because the candidates change their views as a result of the contributions. and Obama certainly has done a great job of raising money from all sorts of sources. But one shouldn’t overstate the case.
Quibbling aside — If there are, as I said, substantial opportunities to make inroads among progressives on the abortion issue – far more than among conservatives – it would seem to make sense for pro-lifers (of whatever political persuasion) to donate to the campaigns of pro-life progressives and thus make progress on the abortion issue, right?
I mean, abortion is such an over-riding concern that none of you conservatives would have problems putting partisan concerns aside and generously donating to pro-life progressives in the interests of making progress toward ending abortion, right?
Matt,
I’d donate to a principled Democrat with a voting record to back up his/her rhetoric.
But is there such a thing as a pro-life progressive? I hope so. I’ve never seen one run for office successfully, especially against a pro-choice alternative. The Democrats in the Northeast cry heresy when faced with such a person.
And most of the Democrats who claim to be pro-life (e.g. Harry Reid) don’t vote pro-life when faced with an actual piece of pro-life legislation. And they certainly don’t make the pro-life argument to their Democratic colleagues.
It’s like Policraticus has said – the pro-choice platform is sewn into the fabric of the Democratic party.
I wish it were otherwise.
To put it another way, if pro-lifers sat out the last few elections, it wouldn’t have gotten us better candidates.
Counterfactuals are a fun game. I can play too. If pro-lifers had sat out the last few elections, the GOP would have had to come up with more genuinely pro-life candidates in order to woo them back.
Perhaps more importantly, pro-lifers would today be different themselves than they are in fact.
Counterfactuals are a fun game. I can play too. If pro-lifers had sat out the last few elections, the GOP would have had to come up with more genuinely pro-life candidates in order to woo them back.
Not really, no. When a party loses elections, it tends to move closer in its positions to the winning party. That’s not speculation; it’s history.
That’s not speculation; it’s history.
You can’t really invoke history when your own proposed counterfactual – all pro-lifers abstaining vocally as a bloc – has never happened.
To the extent that is is “sewn in”, well, those stitches can be broken. Emily’s List has acquired immense power in the Democratic Party, mostly because pro-life progressives have not organized concerted opposition to them. They need to be to be taken down (e.g., if they target a prolife dem in a primary, that pro-life dem gets counter-support): pro-life progressives ought to make this job one.
You can’t really invoke history when your own proposed counterfactual – all pro-lifers abstaining vocally as a bloc – has never happened.
I’m invoking history in support of the claim that parties who lose elections tend to move closer in their policies to the policies of the winning party. The Eisenhower, Kennedy, Nixon, Clinton, and Bush administrations are all examples of this, as are the reaction of Labour to the success of Margaret Thatcher, and the reaction of the Tories to the success of Tony Blair. There may be comparable examples of where a political group has boosted its power by repeatedly not voting, but none come to mind.
By the by, it’s not quite true that pro-lifers abstaining as a bloc has never happened before. During the 1960s and 1970s, evangelicals were largely not involved in the political process (they thought politics was dirty, etc.). As a result, they were treated the way politicians treat any group that doesn’t vote – they were ignored.
I’m invoking history in support of the claim that parties who lose elections tend to move closer in their policies to the policies of the winning party.
Well, yes. If we pick and choose our premeses carefully we can tell whatever story we like. This is supposed to make a compelling case for Christians to choose which of two cannibals they favor in the upcoming election?
Er, what?
Perhaps people should think in a profane political sense here for a sec.
I do wonder if Pro -Life people vote for the most abortion friendly Senator in the the US Seante because John McCain’s 75 percent PRO-life rating is so insufficent what message that will send to other politicans.
I think people at times makes these races too personal. They make it too personal with the people running. It is almost like they think it is a even trade off to show a person who is boss or get out a frustration thougt they lose far more in the long run and is very destructive and moment passes will quick. IT is almost like it is politcal masturbation
THe point is this. THere has been too much of a attitude of electing people then saying that is it. It never occurs to the people in the field that they electing a person in part gives you breathing space, and a bully puplit so to convert hearts and minds.
If you doubt this look at what happens tommorow morning when the NRA acheives a major victory in the SC. There is much we can learn from their attitude
I hate to inform people here but the mean ole neo con , war mongering, soak the poor, exploit the weak Republican party had nothing to do with us losing Ballot iniative Missouri on Stem Cell, it has nothing to do with Voters (after the legislature got it on to the balloT) losing on the Abortion issue in the Dakotas, and it none of what we are discussing had anything to do with Parental consent failing on the ballot in California.
We can talk about how John McCain is horrible for not being 100 percent pro-life but we cannot even get the message accross to Mass going Catholics about the Adult Stem alternatives.
Last night in Utah a Republican that had been doing more on Immigration Reform and doing battle with one of the anti Catholic lobby groups in the Country for years(the Tanton Groups IE -CIS, FAIR, NUMBERS USA, etc) went down to defeat. Many Republican Catholics that are moderate on the issue had no clue he was in trouble . Yet for a man that has been on the front lines of a major Catholic issue there appears to have been no concern and no rallying the troops. Perhaps it is because Catholic SOcial Justice Groups don’t care what happens in Republican primaries.
THe point is we are in positon of weakness. The weakness is of our fault not a politial party. We can barely deliver on the vote that we promise politicans anyway. I do wonder if politicans will take note that if we can all have such a temper tantrum so easily and take out toys and go home whether we are worth the trouble.
I imagine if Obama gets on and appoints young Pro- Choice Liberals to the Court it is very likely that the Pro-life movement will become demoralized when they realize the Status quo will continue for another 20 to 30 years.
What is ironic are the same people that saying the Supreme Court does not matter (Look at Republicans and their Judges!!!) and there is nothing you can do will be in 4 years going
” look Obama put two Pro Choice people on the Court and ROE V Wade will be law for deacdes. Thus using Catholic principles it makes no sense to vote for the Pro-life Republican because they really can;’ do anything about Abortion now”
Some here will not have to worry and fret as long over this development because no doubt these same justices will find a privacy right in Euthanasia and perhaps you at the urging of your children raised in this culture of deat will be prompted to make a early exit
Staying home or voting for Obama has long tern consequences in more ways than one as the PRO-LIFE movement. IF there is a time to show we are a force it is now.
It might be our survival at stake as a viable political force. Next time we may not be able to hold a Rudy like person off.