It’s that time of year again folks. In less than a week we’ll be lining up to cast our votes in the 2022 midterms. Right now the polls suggest that Republicans will retake the House and, if the trends are to be believed, it seems likely that they will retake the Senate as well. Much has been said and written regarding the subpar quality of candidates both parties have put up across the country, but given how severe our partisanship is this lack of quality seems like it will only cost one or two candidates a chance at election. From Arizona to Georgia to Pennsylvania, people are preparing to vote for candidates undeserving of office solely because of their fears of what the other side might do.
These last few elections and the discussions around some of these candidates have prompted me to wonder; what is a vote, exactly? What does it entail? And why do we keep seeming to vote for the worst among us?
I’ve been known to be philosophical at times, so in keeping with my habits I’ll start at the beginning. The entire notion of democracy rests on the idea that governance is legitimate because it comes with the consent of the governed. Our approval of those who rule is the sanction upon which rule is based. If we decide we don’t approve of our representatives, we replace them in regular elections. This system has worked for centuries largely because we believe it works, and we use to work hard to make it work.
This is all well and good, but it’s useless without individual context. Abstractions about millions of people mean very little; abstractions about one are useful, though. The principle of consent that I described works on the individual level, too; your vote is a sign of consent. When you pull the level for someone, when you fill in those little bubbles, you are sanctioning that person to govern our nation. It is a signal of individual approval; every vote you cast is you saying, “whatever this person’s flaws, whatever I disagree with them on, I approve of them governing and will accept those flaws.”
Seems a little intense, right? How many people think about voting in this way, do you imagine? If I had to guess, I would say not many. Instead, most of our thought process goes like this; “the other guys are so bad and so demon-like that I must vote for this guy, no matter how flawed they are.” I don’t blame anyone for thinking this is how they should vote. In a two-party system, what the other side is up to should certainly factor in to your vote.
But when that becomes the entire calculus—when you judge who you will vote for only by what you’ll vote against—you end up supporting some terrible candidates. A philandering, brash billionaire becomes an acceptable candidate because the alternative is the witch of the Swamp. An old, mentally-unwell creep becomes perfectly fine because the guy in office is another old, equally mentally-unwell creep who also happens to be degrading to our institutions. A bumbling man who suffered a stroke and is clearly not okay must win because the tv celebrity quack on the other side has been demonized, and a former football star with a really terrible track record (including paying for multiple abortions) has to be voted for because the radical pro-choice pastor on the other side has to be voted against.
If we want to stop this spiral downward—if we want less brash billionaires and mentally-addled football stars—we have to set standards. It is not enough to vote against something; we need to choose to vote for people, or not vote for them, even if that means we lose.
When you go to the voting booth next Tuesday, you’ll be performing a sacred civic duty that our ancestors have engaged in for over 200 years now. Your vote will decide who governs our nation for the next two years. Whoever you choose to vote for, and however you decide to rationalize it, remember that your vote is a seal of approval. It is not as flippant an exercise as we often make it out to be, and we should all take it more seriously for the good of our country.