Intentionally opting out of voting is an ethical choice
In the U.S., we love to tout how important our right to vote is — but what about our right not to vote?
Voting is currently mandatory in 23 countries. In some, violators of the law can be fined, lose their right to vote in future elections or even face jail time. Here, people often face intense criticism from friends and family when choosing not to vote. Although that's not as extreme as jail time, it still shouldn’t be the case.
We are often told that democracy is at its most vibrant when everyone participates, but this narrative overlooks something important: Democracy is also about the right to choose how we participate. This includes the right to abstain from federal elections.
Voting is an important civic duty, but choosing not to vote can be an equally valid and ethical decision — one that should not be met with shame or derision.
Opting out of federal elections can be a profound form of political protest. For many, this decision reflects dissatisfaction with the choices available — an intentional rejection of a political system they don’t feel represents them or their interests.
When I look at the candidates placed before us in 2024, I’m not sure that I can, in good conscience, place my vote for either. Both hold policy positions I strongly disagree with and have character defects I find hard to stomach.
Reuters/Ipsos polling from January found that 67 percent of Americans are fed up with having the same bad choices and want someone new. We’ve seen the current candidates fail us before. I’m still wrestling with whether or not to vote this election cycle.
Political theorist Jason Brennan argues that voting can be harmful if done without proper knowledge or informed support for the candidates. In his view, uninformed voting — or worse, voting based solely on habit or party loyalty — undermines the integrity of democracy.
Voting for the "lesser of two evils" validates a broken system and perpetuates a status quo many find intolerable. “Get Out the Vote” campaigns almost always lack informative substance about the various candidates and are often fear-based instead — attempting to scare the voter into voting for a proposed candidate because if they don’t, they will surely lose something dear to them.
These campaigns are missing the point. The more informed the citizenry, the better they are able to make decisions that make sense for themselves and their families. Sometimes, being principled is more important than holding your nose to vote for someone whose policies you vehemently disagree with and believe will be detrimental to our country. And in my experience, not very many people make good decisions when they are afraid.
The now infamous Sean “P. Diddy” Combs formed a nonpartisan group in the 1990s called Citizen Change. Its main slogan was: “Vote or Die.” We should wholeheartedly reject this cynical tactic of fear-mongering by public figures who often end up with at least a few skeletons in their closets that undermine their character and credibility.
Voting should be an act of conscience, not compulsion. In countries with compulsory voting, citizens might vote simply to avoid punishment. The American model allows people to express dissatisfaction by stepping back from the ballot box.
Rather than writing in my late grandfather or voting for a sure-to-lose independent candidate, not voting sends a message to the powers that be that they have not done their jobs well enough to garner my participation. It’s the closest thing we have to a presidential performance review. My grandfather used to always say he wished there was a “none of the above” option, but unless and until that becomes available, abstaining is the next best option.
The shame associated with not voting typically comes from friends or family who have bought into the fear-based model of political campaigns. They believe that their preferred candidate prevailing is the only thing standing between America and societal collapse — whether by way of the far-left or far-right.
I reject this approach and believe it is the smaller daily choices we make as citizens, friends and family members that matter the most. Whether it’s voting in local elections, participating in legal advocacy work, or attending city council meetings, there are plenty of other viable ways to participate in society and do your civic duty.
Critics of non-voters argue that democracy is a privilege that should not be taken for granted. Although that is true, it’s important to acknowledge the right to abstain as an expression of individual autonomy. People may abstain for personal, moral or political reasons, and each of those reasons is worth consideration and respect.
A healthy democracy doesn’t force participation; it encourages genuine engagement. Forcing, shaming, or scaring people into voting risks eroding that foundation by devaluing the essence of freedom this country was founded on.
Rather than stigmatize non-voters, we should acknowledge the complexity of the choice to abstain and respect it as a legitimate decision, whether or not we agree or disagree with the choice itself. Democracy is not only about voting; it is about honoring our right to make informed, conscious decisions, and that includes the decision not to vote.
This November, I am thankful for my right to abstain from voting in an election that does not serve my interests or mirror my values, should I so choose. I’d encourage my fellow citizens to do what they think is right, and I will support their right to do so.
Reid Newton is the lead editor at Ideas Beyond Borders.