September 14, 2007
I’m Disillusioned and I Vote; Or, How to Change the System in Five Years

Old arguments are perhaps not as attractive as old wine, but they don’t have an “Enjoy by” date either; and unlike a new bottle for the wine, a new context may do no violence to the idea. Sometimes, indeed, ideas can enter the foundation of a theoretical structure and cause ripples of change.

So indulge me if you please as I re-remake my argument.

Sure, It’s Science Fiction, But…

Here’s a thought experiment. Suppose a society like ours in every particular but one: they’re so disillusioned they want to change things, and they begin voting for the candidates, laws, and propositions they think are the best on the ballot.

Take a moment before you say, That’s what I always do.

Many of us, myself included, employ voting strategies. We pick the main opponent of the person we detest the most, or the most likely to win of those we can stomach. This is precisely the thought experiment: suppose we dumped those strategies, and voted for what we really want, given the limited choices on the ballot, for three straight elections. For convenience, I designate those elections with numbers: 2008, 2010, and 2012.

First let me define my terms. Suppose you completely agree with Mike Gravel’s analysis of the Democratic establishment; fine, vote for him. Pick the choice that’s closest to yours. If you think John McCain has the soberest plan for victory, vote for him. If you detest triangulation, don’t vote for anyone who does it. If you respect anyone who’d spend $400 on a haircut, vote for them; if you think that’s equivalent to warmongering, vote against them.

In this hypothetical society, no one votes based on a calculation about winning or losing. We’re not talking about Nebraskans rooting for the Lakers because the Lakers are likely to win. We’re talking about doing what our innermost selves tell us is right. The only legitimate criticism of a vote would be insincerity.

The First Election

Imagine the possible results.

Maybe there’s a movement, with a website where people pledge to vote their conscience, organized like those for people pledging not to do so. Froomkin raises the issue, Broder disses it, the Times ignores it, Olbermann approves, O’Reilly’s frantic.

In other words, there’s no effect. The talking heads do so, and the deciders do so. Moderate Democrats win the election we’ve designated “2008”, and by “2009” the US still hasn’t figured out how to get out of Iraq.

In the America we know, that’s the end of it; the experiment has failed, politics is a one-armed bandit. We go back to football or beer or Xanax.

But in our hypothetical society, they want change. In fact they want Jefferson’s generational revolution, but they’ve decided to try the non-violent path before deciding whether they’re miserable enough to erect barricades in the streets of Paris, Kentucky.

When the vote tallies come in, the head-scratching starts. An unprecented level of protest votes! Eight percent of Paris, Kentucky, votes Green? Peace and Freedom beats the Democrats in San Francisco for second place? Five percent of the country voting for what TV ridicules? What’s this?

Fox Noise makes a living on the meaninglessness of the vote. MSNBC combines the honesty of Microsoft with the environmentalism of General Electric and gives both sides: the vote was meaningless, but the voters in question made a costly mistake.

A section of the blogosphere trumpets the size of the vote as a measure of discontent, but the Times reminds us how unreliable bloggers are. Why, look at what this one said…

The Second Election

By the run-up to the election we’re calling “2010”, candidates on the political fringe are courting the Disillusioned, and Time is using initial uppercase for the word. Despite some warnings from the punditry, no real playa takes them seriously.

In the election, those who voted their true beliefs the first time do so again, and are joined by a number of others: some driven over the edge by the unresponsive system; some first-time voters who get the vision of their vote actually pissing someone off; some who decide that this is really a viable strategy for change. Perhaps the total increases by half, or maybe goes as high as twice the “2008” election, say eight to ten percent.

In the weeks immediately following the election, a number of media executives decide to spend more time with their families. Politicians try not to look like they’re scrambling to retool their messages and organizations. Congress finds that Iraq can really do just fine without our presence. Tax cuts for the rich aren’t even proposed; education and health care are front and center.

Proposals for proportional representation and better voting methods like Condorcet are tabled countrywide, and pass in all college towns and a few heartland places.

The Third Election

Like the year we’re living through, “2011” would see a lot of Presidential politicking. But in the hypothetical society, Presidential candidates have changed. Unable to assume the majority will be silent, they’re confronting a new job: trying to reconcile the conflicting interests in our society, rather than representing the satisfied against the disillusioned.

Democrats bring up FDR a lot; Republicans mention Kennedy, and talk about their empathy for LBJ. Two Democratic candidates for President promise to name Dennis Kucinich the first Secretary of the Peace Department. Union leaders play important roles in planning domestic policy. Average hourly wages begin to keep pace with the increase in productivity of American workers, nearly matching the increase in profit margins of the companies they work for.

When, in the “2012” election, the Disillusioned persist, whoever’s elected will face enormous pressure to find accommodations with them. With fifteen percent of the votes, they’ll have non-symbolic presences in real campaigns and government offices.

Sounds delusional, eh what? I admit that asking Americans with their famously short attention spans to consider a five-year plan is an unlikely proposition. Probably, too, we’d have to choose a period that didn’t have the Communist overtones. But would it work?


Of course it would, and of course it wouldn’t.

World hunger would not be a thing of the past. Wars would still break out. Given the havoc our corporations and our intelligence agencies — increasingly difficult to distinguish — have wrought around the world, blowback might once again bring violence to our shores.

But if the world saw us choosing democracy over empire, we’d regain some of the esteem our military adventurism over the past half-century has lost us. We’d have real friends and allies again.

At home, we probably wouldn’t break the two-party monopoly, but we’d sure become the object of its toadying, the use of which could allieviate many social ills.

As an experienced government bureaucrat is said to have instructed a new one, you can’t use tact with a Congressman. A Congressman is a hog. You must take a stick and hit him over the snout.

Anyone for pick-up-sticks? How about a bumper sticker, “I’m Disillusioned and I Vote!”?


Posted by Chuck Dupree at September 14, 2007 06:18 AM
Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):


What the hell, it don't cost anything to dream. Great post, Chuck.

Posted by: Aitch Jay on September 14, 2007 7:19 AM

Wasn't this the plan in 2000 in Florida? Never mind the rigged part of it, the Naderites still tripped the circuit breakers and gave us lights out Bush.

But it would be nice to see a two front war. Lefties pulling the left left and some not so leftward righties (libertarians?) pulling the far right left. I'm just afraid that by the time this plan worked out, there'd be no country left. Let's just hope we can hold on to the blogosphere.

Posted by: Buck on September 14, 2007 9:37 AM

One thing you gotta say about Gore fans, they're true believers. Historical facts make no difference to their evaluations; and they read what they already believe, no matter what the words say. Like Bush supporters, it's hard to get any information through the bubble.

Posted by: Chuck Dupree on September 14, 2007 3:01 PM

I'll go you one better, I've been disillusioned for a long time and practiced deliberate abstention for the last several elections. I'm disillusioned and I *might* vote, which means you gotta earn it. But if you can earn it, you're going to get a lot more where that came from.

Posted by: whig on September 14, 2007 8:16 PM

I think not voting actually reduces the perceived value of your vote to the establishment. In general, if they perceive that you've dropped out, they're fine with that, and they're happy not to ofter you anything. Which means you'll never have any incentive to join in, and they'll never be troubled by you. They win.

You're more valuable if you remain in the market. It's like being unemployed: if you stop looking, you don't get counted as unemployed, you're off the books, policy disregards you. That's basically what I'm arguing against.

Posted by: Chuck Dupree on September 14, 2007 8:26 PM

Chuck, I understand the political calculation you and they may be making, but there are social methods of change that are officially invisible to the establishment that nonetheless work very effectively.

Posted by: whig on September 15, 2007 12:53 AM

Certainly there are methods of making social and political change that are officially invisible. William Greider is my hero, and his Who Will Tell the People? and The Soul of Capitalism are chock full of people involved in the vital experimentation and diffusion of knowledge that makes civilization grow.

The question is, how many of these methods actually require one to avoid the voting booth, and why would that help?

Posted by: Chuck Dupree on September 15, 2007 1:32 AM

I haven't undertaken a survey and a numerical estimate of those methods which do and do not avoid the voting booth, but certainly those which derive their whole legitimacy from being a social movement away from politics as usual can derive a great deal from abstaining from the vote, at least temporarily.

Posted by: whig on September 15, 2007 7:49 PM

Then again, progressive bloggers like Chris Bowers and John Morgan took a step in the other direction and are now sitting on the state Democratic Committee.

Posted by: Joyful Alternative on September 15, 2007 8:12 PM

As a proponent of the impeachment of Bill Clinton, who was at the time of the 2000 election unwilling to endorse a continuation of the Clinton administration by and through his Vice President, I endorsed a non-vote and quite deliberately abstained so as not to cast a vote for George Bush.

Posted by: whig on September 16, 2007 3:39 AM

Obviously I am not in favor of Hillary Clinton for president in 2008. I will abstain if she is the nominee, unless something happens that I cannot foresee. I may nonetheless vote for my excellent member of congress, Barbara Lee.

Posted by: whig on September 16, 2007 3:47 AM

When the president speaks to the public he is speaking to me and everyone else, and when he parses the meaning of "is" he is impeached. When he says to the public he did not have sexual relations with that woman, when he is shown to be a liar, he is a liar, and he is impeached.

It's a good thing Yugoslavia didn't turn out such a quagmire.

Posted by: whig on September 16, 2007 3:55 AM
Post a comment

Email Address:



Remember info?