Every contested primary we are inundated with people who state that they will not vote for the candidate they oppose in the general election In 2008 we got the PUMAs. In 2016 we are getting the #BernieOrBust brigade, because God forbid we have any activism that does not center around a bloody hashtag. As a practical matter, these kinds of movements don’t usually have any practical effect. But they do lean on, in part, a particularly pernicious notion: voting as consumer choice. My vote belongs to me, goes the cry. Well, no, no it does not. Your vote is not a piece of personal property. It is an obligation of living in a participatory democracy.
Democracy is not only a matter of personal freedom. Democracy is a social organization with rules that everyone agrees to abide by. Good citizenship is one of those rules. Good citizenship is, in fact, the core of the social contract. Democracy is an organization of government that says that all people have intrinsic value and worth. And since all people have intrinsic value and worth, we will form our government based on the notion that all people should be free to participate in it. But just as importantly, we will place the burden, the obligation, of maintaining good civil order into the hands of the populace.
It used to be that we relied on men on horseback with sharp, pointy stick to ensure good order. They fought off the bandits and the men on horseback with sharp, pointy sticks from other societies. In exchange for that protection, they got some (often quite a lot) of what other people produced so they could focus on being good at fighting on horseback with sharp, pointy sticks. They also got a lot of control over what other people did, so that they could be sure that they had all of the supplies they needed to beat up other men on horseback with sharp, pointy sticks. Since the men on horse back had either a monopoly on sharp, pointy sticks or were so much better and handling the sharp, pointy sticks, they tended to the maximalist interpretation of their level of control over others. Eventually, through, aided by technology and philosophical advancements, it becomes conceivable and possible for the great mass of people tell the men on horseback with their sharp, pointy sticks to bugger off, they’d handle it from there.
The above is obviously rather simplified, but at its core true: democracy is the assertion that the masses can handle the affairs of state quite well, thank you, and no longer need to bow to the metaphorical men on horseback and their slightly less metaphorical sharp, pointy sticks. But that means the obligations of statecraft are now everyone’s problem. If you live in such a society, your freedom from the oppression of pointy sticks is bought at the cost of your treating that responsibility as the obligation it is. You, collectively, have said we got this. So you, individually, have an obligation to participate in society in a manner that is most helpful to all.
Some people do not vote; they pay their taxes and respect the laws created by their peers. This, too, is a method of discharging their social obligation. Voting with the intent to help strengthen the social order as much as is possible is another way. Voting without the intent to help strengthen the social order is not. Politicians, it is often said, must earn votes. Well, no, not really. In a system like ours, it is the obligation of the citizens to do right by their fellow citizens as much as is humanely possible. You owe your vote to the people around you who are struggling to build the more perfect union. You made a deal: give me the freedom this democracy thing provides, and I will do my level best to ensure the society that it supports is as strong as it can possibly be. Treating your vote as anything other than a means to live up to that obligation is morally wrong.
You may argue that a third party vote is the best for the country; make that argument if you can (though given the structure of our democracy, you almost certainly cannot). But do not complain to me of the lesser of two evils (as if the word lesser does not exist in that phrase), or that the candidate is not pure enough for you (as if anyone but you shares exactly your opinions on anything), or tell me that the only way to advance your goals is to heighten the contradictions (which usually means knowingly letting people suffer and things get worse so that voters will be ready for you to rescue them from the very conditions you encouraged). You accepted an obligation to do the best you can for your fellow citizens when you became a member of this society. Treating your vote as if it was a personal plaything is turning your back on that obligation.
Getting rid of the men on horseback with sharp, pointy sticks was a long, hard process that has ultimately created a societal template the holds out real hope for freedom and decency for everyone. It’s not too much to ask that you take your vote as the serious obligation it is.