Opinion L.A.

Observations and provocations
from The Times' Opinion staff

« Previous Post | Opinion L.A. Home | Next Post »

Not voting today? Post your reasons here

Joe Mathews, an occasional contributor to our Op-Ed pages who writes on state politics, offers some expert advice to election-fatigued Californians: Don't vote.

He writes:

Doesn’t it matter, you ask, who the governor of California is? The sad truth is, on the most important issues — fiscal ones — it doesn’t matter much at all. The fierce partisanship of the legislators and the state’s requirement of two-thirds votes on any fiscal legislation means that all governors — whatever their experience, background or party — end up stuck in the middle, able to balance budgets only through accounting fictions and questionable borrowing....


Don’t the ballot initiatives offer some promise? No, only peril. Even the well-intentioned measures are doomed — in the same way that building a good-looking addition on a house doesn’t help when the entire structure sits on toxic soil. Legislative elections? You must be kidding. The state’s election system makes it impossible to change the party in charge of the Legislature. So the results Tuesday are already known: Democrats will control the Legislature, in the same numbers as before....

The most civic-minded thing Californians might do Tuesday is devote the hour they would have spent voting to learning more about how their state works and how they might participate in larger reform. There are a host of websites that provide information in this area, among them California Choices and RethinkCali, the latter an effort to rewrite the state constitution wiki style.

Elections are not cures, but curses, embedding the existing system more deeply in the life of the state. Each new elected official seeks to build upon an existing system (with new laws and regulations) rendered more broken by each new ballot initiative. Enough already: Let’s be done with the attempt to march our way out of quicksand. I am staying home for a change.


Click here to read Mathews' whole piece, posted on zocalopublicsquare.org.

The civic-minded among us may be bubbling with rage at Mathews' new-found contempt for electoral politics in California, perhaps even fighting the urge to hurl platitudes about soldiers' sacrifices and patriotic duties. But he has a point: What good will electing new leaders do in a state rendered practically ungovernable by voter-approved laws?

As someone who's roughly 65% sure he'll show up at the polls later Tuesday, I'm tempted to go further: For those whose political persuasions fall outside the convenient Republican-Democrat dichotomy, what's the point of endorsing positions in any election that may not reflect our actual wishes? This is not to encourage anyone to avoid voting, but it's a question with which this decline-to-state voter must answer -- or at least ignore -- each election day.

Those who exercise their right to stay home on election day are often told that their political opinions are worthless. So in the interest of giving the self-disenfranchised a seat at the table of democracy, post your reasons for why you won't vote (or didn't, for our post-8 p.m. readers) as a comment below. Feel free to also share your views on politics broadly and this election's crop of candidates and initiatives specifically.

-- Paul Thornton

 

Comments () | Archives (6)

The comments to this entry are closed.

Mitchell Young

The only time not voting is effective is when it is organized non-voting.

In 1991 the Serbs in Bosnia-Herzegovina organized as an ethno-national community to *not* participate in a referendum for independence they knew they would lose (the vote was bound to be strictly along ethnic lines). By doing so they gave notice that they didn't consider the election legitimate and that they would not be bound by the results. Likewise towards the end of apartheid in South Africa, the Cape Colored and Asian communities largely boycotted the elections for their proposed separate legislatures, thus denying them legitimacy. A counter example is the US Southern States in 1861 -- had they boycotted the 1860 elections, they might have had a stronger case they no longer accepted the Union's legitimacy However, in participating in the election, but they rejecting the results, they appeared to be sore losers. (Kind of like Murkowski in Alaska).

Long story short , participating in elections is all about legitimacy. At times refusing to participate, as an organized group, can be an effective strategy.

petevanpelt

One's vote means absolutely nothing these days for at least three prime reasons. One reason is that the truly important issues aren't listed on any popular candidate's platform. Issues such as the steady decline of the American family - the thing which made our country great at one time. Or, serious pollution legislation - the Mississippi River is a symbol of this country's actual attitude toward pollution. Or, our country's population is out of proportion to the resources required to maintain it. Or, we seem to need to change countries around the world into clones of ourselves, even though we have demonstrated repeatedly that we cannot do even the simplest things correctly - like balance our own budget. Or, our national debt will continue to expand until it crushes us and not a single politician will state the obvious - serious sacrifices will have to be made across the board in order to reverse the effects of our past fiscal lunacy. Or, the number of criminals in our country. There are 2-3 millions locked up now. Tens of more millions who have been locked up. And many tens of millions more who should be locked up. And on and on and on.
The second prime reason that one's vote means absolutely nothing is this: In our early years as a country our original leaders would go to Washington, do the business of the nation for the welfare of the nation, then go back to their businesses. Now we have career politicians whose prime concern isn't the welfare of the country, but rather their own re - election. How does one get re - elected, they put their ears to the ground and give the people what they want. They're not leaders at all, but followers.
The third prime reason is that the form of our government is the most inefficient, cumbersome and incompetent imaginable. It was instituted in this country to eliminate the excesses of the king, queen style of rule. These excesses are no longer an issue. If the Creator Itself gave to Congress the perfect solution to all our problems He/She wouldn't recognize His/Her own work when it emerged from their compromising hands. The one constant in the universe is change. Our present form of government realized it's intended purpose, now we have new challenges, many of them technical in nature. Compromise doesn't work here. We need specific solutions to specific problems. It should be recognized that our present form of government is simply a single step in a stairway towards a rational form of government. A government where each child will have equal access to food, health care and education.

sk8eycat

I didn't vote Tuesday because I voted weeks ago...by mail. I can't not vote because I've always believed that no matter how bad things seem, I have to try to make a difference, however small.

The corporate media, and the revolting campaign tactics this year would have voters believe that congress has done nothing for the past two years. Not true! Despite GOPher obstructionism, this has been the most effective congress in recent years. Check the records.

Dan Jeffs

California's worst case scenario: Voter-assisted economic suicide

As if voters aren't suffering enough from the economic crash -- and Washington-aggravated aftermath -- the worst case scenario for California is the election of Jerry Brown and the slate of Democrats for the executive branch, the retention of a large Democrat majority in the Legislature, the passage of Proposition 25, and the defeat of Proposition 23's delay of the AB-32 Global Warming laws.

Coupled with the State implementing forced Obamacare -- and enforcing AB-32's skyrocketing energy costs -- raising the cost of living to new heights, that certainly amounts to voter-assisted -- job-killing -- economic suicide.

Indeed, driving the national economy into a ditch will be mild compared to our state government and political zealots driving California's economy over a 2010-foot cliff, in a union-driven green machine. Problem is, the indoctrinated and deceived majority of voters are pulling the rest of us over the cliff with them.

LiberalReason

Oh, you're quite mistaken. The voters made decent choices this time. I didn't agree with all of them, but I accept the results. Jerry Brown at least knows how to make the government work, unlike the outsiders who are used to obedience of those dependent on them. Herding the cats in Sacramento requires political experience rather than bullying that our CEO excel at.

Ashley

I didn't vote because it's hardly ever the politician that does the work, but those around him/her, the one's hidden in the shadows and a broken system that does the work. As soon as a total Rebel to the whole system steps forward to create an entirely new foundation, then I'll go ahead and vote.


Connect

Advertisement

In Case You Missed It...

Video


Categories


Recent Posts
Reading Supreme Court tea leaves on 'Obamacare' |  March 27, 2012, 5:47 pm »
Candidates go PG-13 on the press |  March 27, 2012, 5:45 am »
Santorum's faulty premise on healthcare reform |  March 26, 2012, 5:20 pm »

Archives
 


About the Bloggers
The Opinion L.A. blog is the work of Los Angeles Times Editorial Board membersNicholas Goldberg, Robert Greene, Carla Hall, Jon Healey, Sandra Hernandez, Karin Klein, Michael McGough, Jim Newton and Dan Turner. Columnists Patt Morrison and Doyle McManus also write for the blog, as do Letters editor Paul Thornton, copy chief Paul Whitefield and senior web producer Alexandra Le Tellier.



In Case You Missed It...