In response to my recent request for feedback, a reader shared a very intriguing perspective (not what I asked for, but better):
When you vote, even more significant than your vote is the tacit agreement to the democratic process and, by extension, to accept the results even if you don’t like them.
In areas where people don’t vote (Meah Shearim/Arab cities) the government has less of a hold. These areas sort of become independent (or autonomous) of the government.
The same thing happens in countries with low voter turnout – the government is weak because it doesn’t represent the people. Which is why protest movements often call to boycott the vote. That weakens the government more than voting for the opposition.
In my ignorance, while I have heard this claim before, I am unfamiliar with an orderly presentation of evidence for this. Officially, actual results appear mixed (but that’s not referring, as he does, to “Soft Power”, which is what matters most). Wow.
The reader went on:
Of course, on the individual level voting is better than not, but mass non-voting weakens the government.
Aha! So, he’s turning the conventional Downs’ paradox (and equivalents) on their head. Instead of regarding voting as individually irrational, but rational for groups, he’s saying it makes sense for the individual in the short term (I assume that’s what he intends), but irrational for the group in the long term. So, it isn’t selfish and shortsighted to sit at home, quite the opposite!
How come the Meah Shearim Jews et al. don’t give us their observations and perspective on this in print, instead of the nonsense on the irrelevant Three Oaths (aside from a few scattered hints, like pointing out the government enforcement of Corona tyranny and the draft is far weaker in their parts)?
I write to give others homework, but instead, they give me homework?!
