The Problem with Non-voters

            “It is much better for one to be morally gray than morally neutral.”

 

America is in a time of Trump. On November 9, 2016 Donald Trump officially became the 45th President of the United States. This came as a shock to many Americans, as this once-unimaginable scenario became reality leaving some Americans with a feeling of deep uncertainty for our country’s future. Donald Trump and his opponent Hillary Clinton had several different views on Individual Rights, such as abortion, hiring women and minorities, and EPA regulations, their views also differed in domestic, economic and defensive views. These contrasting views created a divide amongst the nation.

Through out the election supporters from both sides were incredibly vocal, and post election they continue to be so. While many people actively show their support for President-elect Trump other Americans are holding protests. In New York City alone, it was estimated that 5,000 people showed up for a protest against Donald Trump yelling “Not my president! Not today!” However, there were many Americans that actively supported either candidate, there still remained a significant amount of people who didn’t feel comfortable in making a choice.

According to The New York Times, for every 10 people who vote there are 4 that do not. Benjamin Highton, a professor of political science at The University of California, Davis stated that “Most of the differences between people who vote and those who don’t vote can be accounted for by motivational reasons — levels of political interest and engagement.” Two weeks after the election many nonvoters are voicing their dissatisfaction with the election. I believe that these people who initially lacked political interest should be ashamed. We live in an irrational society, and if one is given the opportunity to have free choice then one should take advantage of that freedom and become engaged in the world around them. It’s important for one to speak up in situations where silence can objectively be taken to mean agreement with or sanction of evil. Voters may think by not voting it excludes them from agreeing with either party, and leaves them “neutral.” But people need to accept that there is no escape, that rational men must make difficult choices.

I understand that both candidates have very different views on very controversial subjects. It is possible that an individual may agree with different aspects of each candidates platform; for example an individual might simultaneously agree with Hilary Clinton’s stance on gun control and Donald Trump’s stance on abortion laws. The individual then may choose not to vote because it is easier to remain neutral in this situation than to engage in critical analysis of the individual platforms in order to choose who they feel is the best candidate. I acknowledge that this is not an easy task, however, an individual must engage in objective and rational analysis in order to make these difficult choices so as not to remain in a state of moral neutrality.

Therefore, when people are claiming that these two distinct parties are dividing our country I believe what is really dividing our country is the lack of engagement. Ultimately, I believe it’s important that individuals speak up. If people don’t speak up, we will develop and even more irrational society because people will let their fear of judgment drive their disengagement in important political decisions.

 

Leave a Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Leave a Reply