|
since the americans do not count blank votes, abstention does not function as a mode of protest--in french trade-union elections, for example, there was along tradition of casting blank ballots, and these ballots would be counted along with the marked ones. the blanks would therefore function as a silent protest of sorts.
the problem with that is obvious: the meaning of the protest is unclear, and usually comes down to spin generated by the agency that does the counting.
but the americans dont work that way. if they did, then the problem of voter apathy would turn into one of political dimensions--no-one could have ever spoken in the 1980s about a "reagan landslide" based on 27% of the registered voters, for example---low turnout could call the legitimacy of the system itself into question. if, that is, the american system was a democracy.
but it's funny--the americans hate one of the basic aspects of democracy, which is uncertainty---think of the chaos that surrounded the last elections in florida--in principle there was no problem with taking extra time to actually count the votes, but the uncertainty over that 3-4 extra days would have...well, what?...the republican lawyers were able to chickenlittle the supreme court, arguing that something dreadful would follow on a period of uncertainty--of excess democracy, presumably...
but i digress.
in this election, abstaining would be a bad idea, i think. low turnouts generally benefit republicans. i find myself holding my nose and voting for a reactionary like kerry, figuring that at least he seems saner than what is in office now. not voting is a vote for bush.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|