When Brian was through on his Dance of Dogs puppet tour, he brought the newest issue of our friend Kane’s zine that had an article giving an anarchist/anti-authoritarian perspective on voting (and punk rock bands/figures supporting voting), making the familiar and mostly sound arguments about the problems inherent in voting and how utterly disappointing the platforms of viable candidates tend to be.
I was listening to the August 15, 2005 episode of Rust Belt Radio which had a segment about the Leauge of Pissed Off Voters. I think I have written in the past about being impressed with this organization after seeing a representative talk at Boxcar Books last year.
The Rust Belt Radio interview of a Leauge representative mentioned, though somewhat indirectly, what I think is cool about this group. Certainly, I liked how they organized non-hierarchically and did a very good job or reaching out to youth in groups traditionally marginalized in politics, but what I really like about the group is how they add some new perspective to the “voting doesn’t work” debate. A common objection to voting is that the candidates are indistinguishable from each other in terms of platform and voting record and that one’s vote only validates the candidates continued bad judgement. The way the League works is that it publishes a voting guide based on progressive values. This happens at a grass-roots level (i.e. organizers in each city, such as Columbus, OH, which I thought had a very nicely constructed voting guide, research and construct a guide) and anyone can submit a guide through their website. They then allow people to report whether they voted based on the guide and then contact candidates with information like the number of voters who voted based on the guide and also the rationale for endorsing various candidates. The benefit of this is that it gives additional value to ones vote because it shows candidates that you, along with hundreds or thousands of others voted a certain way, for instance, not because you supported certain policies, but because you viewed them as a lesser of two evils, or they can see that you supported other candidates, specifically because they were truly progressive in their platform or track record. Provided that enough people express their voting choices in this matter, it could shift the policies of mainstream candidates, or at least offer encouragement to losing candidates who had a cool platform or have been traditionally progressive. Essentially, your vote goes from an categorical support of a candidate to something that reflects more of the subtleties and concerns of an individual or small group. If one feels like the politics or decision criteria of the Leauge isn’t radical enough, there certainly isn’t anything stopping people from copying their model.
I still feel that voting is a pretty marginal tool for social change, but I think with groups like the League of Pissed Off Voters doing what they do, some of the more common arguments for not taking the few hours of researching issues and candidates and the few hours at the polling place don’t hold as much water.