Why There Is No Such Thing as a “Wasted Vote”
An Existentialist View
This election year is interesting for several reasons;
It may be the first time in over sixty years that a government has sustained just one term in office, and
The emergence of a brand-new party that may just manage to penetrate the fortified walls of parliament for the first time in over 20 years.
What does this mean?
It suggests that our votes may bring about an historic turn of events.
It also means that we’re starting to hear talk of the so-called “wasted vote”.
A wasted vote supposedly refers to a vote for a candidate or party who does not to get into power or otherwise fails to result in any meaningful outcome.
In this context, I’ve seen it refer to electorate candidates who have a slim chance of winning a seat and, of course, a vote for the Opportunity party.
I’m not sure one can call it a wasted vote prior to the election, but nonetheless I have seen the expression used throughout the year thus far, in a way that suggests we’re supposed to accurately forecast the outcome of an election prior to submitting our own votes.
As though we leave the fate of our society to betting on a horse race.
It may be the first time in over sixty years that a government has sustained just one term in office, and
The emergence of a brand-new party that may just manage to penetrate the fortified walls of parliament for the first time in over 20 years.
What does this mean?
It suggests that our votes may bring about an historic turn of events.
It also means that we’re starting to hear talk of the so-called “wasted vote”.
A wasted vote supposedly refers to a vote for a candidate or party who does not to get into power or otherwise fails to result in any meaningful outcome.
In this context, I’ve seen it refer to electorate candidates who have a slim chance of winning a seat and, of course, a vote for the Opportunity party.
I’m not sure one can call it a wasted vote prior to the election, but nonetheless I have seen the expression used throughout the year thus far, in a way that suggests we’re supposed to accurately forecast the outcome of an election prior to submitting our own votes.
As though we leave the fate of our society to betting on a horse race.
Paradigms
An immediate objection to this kind of thinking arises that I wish to deal with before putting forth my own argument. I include it because I find it interesting and if you don’t like my own argument later in the piece, this may still appeal as a reason for voting for a candidate or party with a slim chance of winning.
That is, that if one desires a change in the composition of our parliament, one must vote for a candidate or party that is not currently represented in Wellington.
This argument has merit and I am sympathetic to it.
I tend to adopt a Kuhnian perspective[i] here by seeing a history of political paradigms – where society has lived within bubbles that determined the fundamental characteristics of our political processes and the composition of our political organisations.
It seems to me that the old political paradigm has ended – the old rules-based system that we lived within as a cosy bubble that reassured us by providing certainty and clarity – has burst. Trump and the other populists in the West burst it.
Following the Kuhnian analogy – nothing makes sense anymore – we’re scrambling to establish a new system – a new way of understanding and engaging with politics.
Yet our political parties haven’t got the memo.
They’re still offering policies under the old way of doing things. A cap on public transport fees here, an adjustment to KiwiSaver there…
It all sounds so tone deaf when what we need is a breath of fresh air.
A completely new perspective.
A re-think about what the purpose and function of government is, and how it is to be funded.
Look at the news now. Every few months we seem to get an extreme weather event that in the past would have been described as “once in 50 years” or “only happens once a century” – and now we’re getting them at least twice a year.
And we’re unprepared for them.
Every. Single. Time.
Government is supposed to help mitigate against the effects of such events.
Both on our infrastructure and within our homes.
They keep failing to do this.
Why? Because they don’t have the budget to fortify our nation by helping us to adapt to these events.
There’s no money. The government doesn’t have the money to do what we task it with doing.
That’s on us.
So, a new perspective is what we need.
And we aren’t going to get that by voting for those whose heads are stuck in the past.
It seems reasonable, if not inevitable then, that voting for someone or something brand new is one way of helping to forge that new paradigm – creating a new version of politics.
As I said, I don’t subscribe to this view entirely. It does one thing that I reject: it focuses too much on the outcome of an election.
It takes us out of the moment and into an imagined future.
A future, that may or may not come to pass.
That sound exhausting.
Some folks seem to believe that the only purpose of voting is to maximise the likelihood of some preferred candidate or party forming the next government. Where all votes have value only insofar as they result in desirable outcomes.
Perhaps I’m wrong, but that’s the assumption I’m extracting from what I’m reading online.
That is, that if one desires a change in the composition of our parliament, one must vote for a candidate or party that is not currently represented in Wellington.
This argument has merit and I am sympathetic to it.
I tend to adopt a Kuhnian perspective[i] here by seeing a history of political paradigms – where society has lived within bubbles that determined the fundamental characteristics of our political processes and the composition of our political organisations.
It seems to me that the old political paradigm has ended – the old rules-based system that we lived within as a cosy bubble that reassured us by providing certainty and clarity – has burst. Trump and the other populists in the West burst it.
Following the Kuhnian analogy – nothing makes sense anymore – we’re scrambling to establish a new system – a new way of understanding and engaging with politics.
Yet our political parties haven’t got the memo.
They’re still offering policies under the old way of doing things. A cap on public transport fees here, an adjustment to KiwiSaver there…
It all sounds so tone deaf when what we need is a breath of fresh air.
A completely new perspective.
A re-think about what the purpose and function of government is, and how it is to be funded.
Look at the news now. Every few months we seem to get an extreme weather event that in the past would have been described as “once in 50 years” or “only happens once a century” – and now we’re getting them at least twice a year.
And we’re unprepared for them.
Every. Single. Time.
Government is supposed to help mitigate against the effects of such events.
Both on our infrastructure and within our homes.
They keep failing to do this.
Why? Because they don’t have the budget to fortify our nation by helping us to adapt to these events.
There’s no money. The government doesn’t have the money to do what we task it with doing.
That’s on us.
So, a new perspective is what we need.
And we aren’t going to get that by voting for those whose heads are stuck in the past.
It seems reasonable, if not inevitable then, that voting for someone or something brand new is one way of helping to forge that new paradigm – creating a new version of politics.
As I said, I don’t subscribe to this view entirely. It does one thing that I reject: it focuses too much on the outcome of an election.
It takes us out of the moment and into an imagined future.
A future, that may or may not come to pass.
That sound exhausting.
Some folks seem to believe that the only purpose of voting is to maximise the likelihood of some preferred candidate or party forming the next government. Where all votes have value only insofar as they result in desirable outcomes.
Perhaps I’m wrong, but that’s the assumption I’m extracting from what I’m reading online.
An Existentialist Perspective
I’m an existentialist.
I say let us live in the moment and express who we are.
What do you believe in?
Who do you stand with?
What party or candidate do you genuinely want to express support for?
Sartre said we define ourselves through our choices[ii]. In that light, voting isn’t necessarily instrumental towards some desired outcome but rather a stance – an opportunity to define who we are.
This is where I’ll introduce the notion of “authentic voting” as an act that declares “this is who I am, and these are the values I affirm”.
It’s an act of self-expression. And as such cannot be wasted.
Why?
Because one of the purposes or functions of self-expression is itself.
Look at protests. I often see morons on social media mock those who protest, smugly asking aloud, “Do they think they’re going to change anything?”
No, you dumb fuck, although that’s undoubtedly an ambition underlying a protest - that’s not what they’re always about. That’s not the only purpose it serves.
It’s a means of channelling anger, frustration, passion, indeed COMpassion and empathy into an act of self-expression that itself becomes an act of solidarity: This is who we are, and this is what we stand for and/or against.
Just as morons feel the need to express themselves with inane commentary online, so too do we feel the need to channel our ideals and values into some form of expression that has some meaning within our wider social sphere.
By that, I do not mean to suggest that an authentic vote is just voting for whatever you feel – my entire argument would collapse upon itself if I took that stance. Rather, we must stand by who we vote for – even in the face of scrutiny of others.
We must stand by and own our choices.
I appreciate this is particularly difficult in the so-called “cancellation era”, where people are getting horrifically bullied online and in-person for their beliefs. But rather than backing down, authenticity is demonstrated in the continued affirmation of our choices by owning them – not backing down and hiding one’s comments in the face of a jeering mob of emotionally under-developed cringe zombies.
Be like Atticus Finch[iii].
What matters to me more than the outcome a single vote contributes towards, is whether that vote was made authentically – whether you owned the choice you made.
If there is any such thing as a wasted vote, it is when it is the result of some mechanical calculation resulting in supporting someone or something that one cannot wholly commit themselves to supporting. It is when someone abandons their principles to focus solely on a particular outcome.
We are not mechanical beings. We are humans with a near infinite capacity for self-expression alongside an awareness that we always have a choice.
I say we’ve been asking the wrong question about voting. Instead of reflecting on whether a vote might be wasted before an election, ask whether it’s authentic.
A vote that authentically expresses support for a person or party who you chose, that you are willing to stand behind, cannot be “wasted” because it has already performed its task.
As Camus might say: Imagine Sisyphus voting.
Or don’t. It’s your choice.
=============
[i] Kuhn’s work, “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” referred to scientific advances but famously coined the term “paradigm shift” – the essence of which I invoke here.
[ii] “Man is nothing else but what he makes of himself.” – Existentialism is a Humanism
[iii] Harper Lee “To Kill a Mockingbird”
I say let us live in the moment and express who we are.
What do you believe in?
Who do you stand with?
What party or candidate do you genuinely want to express support for?
Sartre said we define ourselves through our choices[ii]. In that light, voting isn’t necessarily instrumental towards some desired outcome but rather a stance – an opportunity to define who we are.
This is where I’ll introduce the notion of “authentic voting” as an act that declares “this is who I am, and these are the values I affirm”.
It’s an act of self-expression. And as such cannot be wasted.
Why?
Because one of the purposes or functions of self-expression is itself.
Look at protests. I often see morons on social media mock those who protest, smugly asking aloud, “Do they think they’re going to change anything?”
No, you dumb fuck, although that’s undoubtedly an ambition underlying a protest - that’s not what they’re always about. That’s not the only purpose it serves.
It’s a means of channelling anger, frustration, passion, indeed COMpassion and empathy into an act of self-expression that itself becomes an act of solidarity: This is who we are, and this is what we stand for and/or against.
Just as morons feel the need to express themselves with inane commentary online, so too do we feel the need to channel our ideals and values into some form of expression that has some meaning within our wider social sphere.
By that, I do not mean to suggest that an authentic vote is just voting for whatever you feel – my entire argument would collapse upon itself if I took that stance. Rather, we must stand by who we vote for – even in the face of scrutiny of others.
We must stand by and own our choices.
I appreciate this is particularly difficult in the so-called “cancellation era”, where people are getting horrifically bullied online and in-person for their beliefs. But rather than backing down, authenticity is demonstrated in the continued affirmation of our choices by owning them – not backing down and hiding one’s comments in the face of a jeering mob of emotionally under-developed cringe zombies.
Be like Atticus Finch[iii].
What matters to me more than the outcome a single vote contributes towards, is whether that vote was made authentically – whether you owned the choice you made.
If there is any such thing as a wasted vote, it is when it is the result of some mechanical calculation resulting in supporting someone or something that one cannot wholly commit themselves to supporting. It is when someone abandons their principles to focus solely on a particular outcome.
We are not mechanical beings. We are humans with a near infinite capacity for self-expression alongside an awareness that we always have a choice.
I say we’ve been asking the wrong question about voting. Instead of reflecting on whether a vote might be wasted before an election, ask whether it’s authentic.
A vote that authentically expresses support for a person or party who you chose, that you are willing to stand behind, cannot be “wasted” because it has already performed its task.
As Camus might say: Imagine Sisyphus voting.
Or don’t. It’s your choice.
=============
[i] Kuhn’s work, “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” referred to scientific advances but famously coined the term “paradigm shift” – the essence of which I invoke here.
[ii] “Man is nothing else but what he makes of himself.” – Existentialism is a Humanism
[iii] Harper Lee “To Kill a Mockingbird”