Is voting always the best option?

By Chris Cavagnero and Roey Rahmil

Senior political science majors Chris Cavagnero and Roey Rahmil have been contributing to The Santa Clara on various issues this year, and with the mid-term elections fast approaching, they were asked to face off on the California gubernatorial race between Republican incumbent Arnold Schwarzenegger and Democrat challenger Phil Angelides. The two struggled to form a debate for either candidate, so they decided to alter their focus, and face off on a different issue concerning our current political situation in the United States -- voting.

RR: This is not what we were supposed to do. We are both political science majors, and we both have strong political opinions. So, it made sense when the editors asked us to face off on a California election issue.

CC: Roey is fairly liberal, and I am somewhat libertarian. Our views on politics often clash, but when it comes to the issue of the upcoming gubernatorial election, we both agreed that we really don't care all that much.

RR: It looks stark when you put it that way. Our current political apathy has kind of surprised both of us. After all, I used to be heavily involved with the College Democrats. We both like to study politics and government. And being debaters, we're forced to stay on top of both national and international news. The natural question, then, is why doesn't the election matter to us?

CC: So, instead of having a superficial debate along party lines in support of candidates we really don't care for, we are going to explore a much more important, fundamental issue in democratic politics.

RR: Besides, Arnold is nothing but a glorified GI Joe, and Angelides just wants to take our money.

CC: That's basically all I know about either candidate. But even though I am uninformed, around election time there are always a ton of organizations independent of the candidates trying to convince me that I should care, whether it's Puff Daddy telling me to "Vote or Die" or campus organizations trying to get me to vote. But shouldn't the issues themselves be enough for me to be interested in voting?

RR: These organizations also try to persuade people to vote based on a party platform, scare tactics, or other simplistic angles. What they don't do is genuinely educate people about the problem they're trying to solve. And I would say that an uneducated vote is actually harmful because it cancels out people who are really informed and who really do care.

CC: We need to look at motivation. The whole "Vote or Die" campaign is completely misguided in how it has tried to encourage young people to get involved in politics. I know that the purpose is to encourage youth to get informed about the issues they are voting for, but on the surface the message is "vote because we said so." And furthermore, it has a pretty clear political agenda. Statistically, young people overwhelmingly vote democrat.

RR: Well, it's not like that's a bad thing.

CC: You would think that way.

RR: I think that what we are agreeing on is that you shouldn't vote for voting's sake. Instead, you should vote because you care about the issues, and have a strong opinion. I guess the natural flip side of that is, if you don't have anything to add to the political conversation, acknowledge it and ask yourself why this is true. And if you don't like your situation, then work to change it.

CC: Maybe it is just the libertarian in me, but I think there is value in not voting at all. Vote if you are interested and informed, and don't vote if you are not. Don't vote if you don't care about the result and are completely fed up with the election or politics in general. I didn't vote in the last presidential election because I thought both candidates were uninspiring. And approximately 50 percent of eligible voters agreed with me.

RR: That's a great point -- if 25 percent of the country can determine who is president, why shouldn't we listen when almost half of the country says that neither candidate is suitable? It's easy to write non-voters off as lazy or unintelligent. But maybe they're voting with their feet.

CC: Well, I definitely voted with mine, and I can't speak for everyone, but none of the candidates inspired me. John Kerry was boring and George W. Bush seemed unintelligent. Both candidates' agendas fell along party lines, and had no innovative ideas. I think the same thing is happening in California. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Phil Angelides are both uninspiring candidates with nothing new to offer.

RR: And if on the off chance the candidates actually have some merit, they really hide it well. By appealing to the lowest common denominator of politics (whether it's focusing on issues such as abortion to rally the political base or appealing to the fears of the American public), candidates lose all their credibility; you can't rely on the commercials. I know that Schwarzenegger didn't invade Iraq, and that Angelides won't make people walk backwards. But if you take the candidates at face value, that's all they have to say about each other. It's depressing.

CC: The commercial that tries to link Schwarzenegger to President Bush is especially terrible. I think I would rather have a root canal than have to suffer through watching that kind of propagandistic appeal to the liberal base. But Schwarzenegger hasn't done much better. The fact remains that neither candidate has found an issue that people our age really care about.

RR: To be fair, Bush's speech writing isn't that far removed from "I'll be back." I think the saddest part about your observation is that there are plenty of things that we should be concerned about. Our livelihoods depend on the economy; our lives depend on the environment; our safety depends on everyday laws that the governor enforces. I really think that the election should matter to us because we live here. But the candidates are making us wish that they didn't.

CC: Well, here is where I think you are going to disagree with me because I think not voting is understandable. In fact, I encourage people to not vote if they aren't informed about the issues or candidates, don't care about the election, or are simply fed up with politics. And I have a feeling that in the upcoming election, most people are going to fit into one of those three categories. Not only will this limit votes to people who are passionate about the issues, it will also continue to send the message that our political system desperately needs to evolve.

RR: Well, I'll grant you that, but only to an extent. If you're refusing to vote in order to make a point, go for it. But if you're not voting because you're too lazy to get informed or too cool to care, maybe you should take a long hard look at your choices. Ultimately, the system will be better if more people participate.

CC: That would be ideal, but realistically, the political system has to change, not the voters. Until then, whether you vote or not, do it with a purpose.

Roey Rahmil is a senior political science and philosophy major. Chris Cavagnero is a senior political science major.