Topics Justice

Question There's an exciting election coming up over here in the UK. I'm not sure if I'll vote because I honestly don't feel I know enough about the key issues. I wouldn't want to vote on which medication should be used for which illness, because I'm not a doctor. Equally, I don't feel able to choose between policies on defence, the economy or foreign policy because I lack expertise in these areas too - areas where making the wrong decisions have arguably greater consequences than medicine. One might say I have a responsibility to learn about these issues, but I would respond by pointing out that that's why we have experts! I'm also not convinced that choosing not to vote is somehow offensive to people who fought for my right to vote (I don't want to give up my right, I just don't want to exercise it) or that it's a dereliction of some duty that goes with being a civilian. The way I see it choosing not to vote because I recognise my ignorance is the right thing to do - particularly when the three main parties all consist of reasonably sensible and decent people and there is no risk of someone truly awful getting in. I expect all main parties consist of people with a high capacity for decision-making on the basis of evidence and reason. Choosing between what they have decided - as reflected by their policies - is beyond me. I don't think most people in our country understand the issues to the required level of depth. I don't see how adding in my ill-informed tuppence is going to resolve this! I expect I don't even know enough about the issues involved in choosing whether to vote or not - I'd be grateful for any advice or corrections to my reasoning!

Accepted:
May 6, 2010

Comments

I am sorry that I saw this question too late. My answer would be, in brief, that some people do indeed have a reason not to vote of the kind you describe: they can conclude on solid grounds that the remaining voters are no less committed and more competent to get it right. But judging from your question, I doubt very much that the reason applies to you. You seem more conscientious than most voters and you also seem more intelligent. So your abstention is not going to raise the quality of the pool.

This would be even more true (not a phrase a philosopher should use!) if you had put your mind to questions at stake in the election -- questions that concern not merely the competent management of Britain, but also important moral issues: from access to medical care to military action in Iraq, Afghanistan, and (potentially) elsewhere.

In this context it is worth stressing that the period before an election is also an especially auspicious one for raising important issues that politicians ought to be responsive to. So your task as a voter is not merely that of helping the better candidates take or retain control of government, but also that of helping direct public discourse toward issues that receive insufficient exposure and discussion.

The way Britain is governed matters hugely: for the welfare of the country, for the well-being and thriving of many groups within the country, and also (through British foreign policy) for the well-being of many foreigners who may be affected by British military interventions, by British environmental or trade policies, or by British initiatives within the European Union, for example. Ultimately, responsibility for how Britain is governed lies with its citizens -- and this includes you, regardless of whether you vote or not. Voting is not merely a privilege that you may magnanimously waive in deference to the superior wisdom of your fellow voters. It is also a responsibility you have especially to poor and marginalized people at home and abroad, who have the most at stake in the outcome.