Why I Will Not Vote (with one caveat)

Last week a friend of mine sent me a brilliant article that debunks many of the myths surrounding why voting is important. I don't have the link handy, I'll link to it on Monday. With another election cycle set to begin its full-court press of propaganda shortly I figured now was as relevant a time as any to outline my reasons for refusing to vote in this year's (and future) Presidential elections.

We've all heard the ads imploring us to vote, as if the future of our country depends on whether we (or is it the Diebold machine?) pull the proverbial lever for the Democratic or Republican nominee. Scores of people will volunteer their precious time in an effort to get people to turn out and vote using the same logic. While I admire the dedication of those committed to increasing voter turnout, my fundamental disagreement with the entire "Get out the Vote!" philosophy is rooted in my belief that increased Statist control over every aspect of our lives is anathema to individual freedom.

I'm not arguing for anarchy. I fully accept that there is a role for government in our lives. My argument is critical of the size of government rather than the existence of government. A strong argument could be made that federal government has enjoyed relatively unchecked expansion since its inception, and all government expansion is at the expense of individual freedom. I only mention this argument because I view today's election process as a de facto endorsement of government expansion. It matters not who you vote for--any vote cast is a vote against personal freedom.

The typical reaction to the above reasoning usually goes something like this, "Yeah, but, if you don't vote, how can you expect anything to change?" or, my favorite, "If you don't vote then you have no right to complain about the results!" Such responses are the byproduct of voting propaganda and are completely devoid of logic. To illustrate my point, compare this line of reasoning to someone sitting down at a poker table. The deck--as well as the odds--are stacked against all players, regardless of skill level, experience, or knowledge of the game...even before the player takes a seat. Every gambler (but unfortunately not every voter) understands the age old axiom that the house always wins; that's why casinos, like the federal government, always get bigger and expand their sphere of influence.

But what about the few players who overcome the odds and end up winning? Those winners represent the special interests, lobbyists, and the few anointed corporations (such as big oil, big pharma , and the military industrial complex) that benefit regardless of regime. Few would argue such government barnacles have succeeded due to luck or as a result of providing a necessary service to consumers. Perhaps a more appropriate analogy is comparing these "successful" industries to casino employees planted next to unusually successful players in order to determine whether or not the player in question is cheating or to throw the player off of his or her rhythm...but that would be splitting hairs. The analogy doesn't cover all successful players, but it is still relevant.

And so it goes with this year's election as well as future elections. Roughly 60% of American citizens will cast their ballots for either John McCain or the winner of the Democratic nomination. The months preceding the election will be filled with "heated debates" between the supposed philosophical differences between Democrats and Republicans, when in reality the debates should be called what they truly are: a bitter fight over who will control your life. What differences exist between candidates are merely cosmetic, regardless of how the candidates are portrayed on television or present themselves.

That said, I fully expect this year's election to mirror the "closeness" of the elections of 2000 and '04. Such narrow margins of victory for George W. Bush were attributed to a variety of things, ranging from outright voter fraud to television station's influence on state outcomes through premature projection of winners. These reasons, regardless of whether or not they are true, completely misdiagnose the larger problem; namely, that election closeness is more of a function of the similarities between candidates as opposed to some deep-seated ideological divide amongst voters.

Predictably, talk radio and television have outlined the similarities between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. In fact, some "experts" have floated the idea of an Obama/Clinton ticket, but so far that idea doesn't have much traction. The winner of the bitter struggle between Obama and Clinton will run against McCain, who is saddled with the task of shedding his "moderate, political maverick" image in order to justify himself those pesky, "principled" conservatives. Lost amidst the fanfare that will fuel debates between voters, however, is any serious dialog concerning the size and scope of the federal government. Philosophy is reduced to 30 second sound bites; the facade of party differences reinforced by campaign attack ads.

Which brings me to my exception. To date, the only Presidential candidate I've voted for is Ross Perot in 1996. Although I probably couldn't explain Perot's political philosophy at the time (much less today), I remember being encouraged by his against-all-odds bid for the Presidency. Similarly, the 2008 election has produced another candidate whose inspirational campaign has managed to resonate with a segment of today's younger generation. Ron Paul's Presidential campaign served as a catalyst for my new found belief in libertarianism. Unlike my dedication to Perot's campaign, however, Paul's campaign resonated on a much deeper level.

Ron Paul is like the casino dealer who, instead of dealing cards, distributes casino chips. His actions not only diminish the casino's revenue, but also threatens to undermine the very existence of the casino itself. He's running--not for the Presidency--but against what the office of President has become: a bully pulpit dedicated wholly toward the simultaneous usurpation of individual liberty as well as a distribution center of taxpayer dollars to a few privileged industries.

I fully realize my above analogy is extreme, and the likelihood of a Paul Administration has about as much chance of happening as any one of us has of encountering a poker dealer freely dispensing casino chips. But Ron Paul is my caveat. As long as Paul remains in the race, regardless of his exposure in the mainstream press, his uncompromising opposition to federal government expansion serves as a healthy injection of reality in a campaign season otherwise filled with cliches and trivial differences.

Call it a wasted vote, call it foolish, call it a contradiction of my above statements. In my mind, a vote cast for Ron Paul is a vote cast in favor of a return to our Constitutional roots. Feel free to laugh at my support for Paul as quixotic or some other media-generated term used to describe his campaign; but please, I beg you, do not deprive me of my one fantasy.