Oracle Online

Well, my vote doesn’t count. It’s meaningless. Always has been, always will be, and no amount of wishful thinking will change thatčnor is this the apologism of an apathetic voter, as I’ve voted in every election I could for the past six years. But now it’s time to acknowledge that “if voting could change things it would be illegal,” as Emma Goldman once said. We have so many safeguards built into our political system--barring radical change, citizens will remain powerless indefinitely, and voting does not entail radical change.

What voting is about is this: two wealthy, politically connected candidates run against each other, emphasizing the differences in their views on, say, abortion or gay marriage so that no one will notice their overall similarities. The candidates who can best convince the public that they represent their interests win. Of course, this idea of representation is not grounded in reality. Politicians are predominantly rich, white males, and their vested interests do not generally coincide with those of people from differing socioeconomic backgrounds. In other words, pretty much everyone else.

A model of our political system is useful. If America were 100 people, around six would own about half the wealth. Now, split those six into two groups of three called Democrat and Republican. Each picks one of the three, then spends a lot of money to persuade those 94 that their candidate has their interests in mind. Once one is elected, that candidate writes laws to make sure that those six continue to own half of the wealth. If the 94 other people get upset about this arrangement, in two or four or six years they can vote for one of the other sixčwho will then also write laws to make sure that those six continue to own half of all the nation’s wealth.

Who you vote for really doesn’t matter that much, as long as you’re buying into the system. By voting, you are giving tacit approval to this system; in effect, you are saying that it is okay for those six people to possess half the wealth, and write laws to keep it that way. Voting legitimizes this inequality by giving it your stamp of approval. To refer back to the model, as long as the 94 people continue to vote for one of the six wealthy people, the winning candidate can claim a mandate. Those six people who rotate making laws to preserve their wealth can say, “you 94 people must be okay with this system, because you keep voting for one of us.”

So what’s the alternative? That’s the problem. “Representative democracy” isn’t the least bit democratic. If you vote for certain candidates, you are abdicating all responsibility for policy-making to them. You are giving them permission to make whatever laws they want, with the understanding that if you disapprove, next time you might give permission to the other person. Nowhere in this agreement do you have a say in the content of the laws themselves (unless, sometimes, you are a lobbyist).

So how do we get to a system that actually is “of the people, by the people, and for the people” from the travesty that is the current political system? I’m not sure, but I know that the more we vote, the more legitimate this system appears, and the harder it will be to delegitimize and change it. So it’s time to stop voting in order to strip the wealthy politicians of the pretense of “representing” us. Then maybe we can see the system for what it really is: the legal perpetuation of inequality, with our consent.