Q&A: Voting in Elections
Voting in Elections
Question
As you wrote, voting in elections has no effect at all on the list of candidates, and the reason to vote is not utilitarian but rather deontological. According to your view, is there still a point in voting even for a party that I know will not pass the electoral threshold (by a wide margin)?
Indeed, I can't define it precisely, but the situation seems different to me from voting for a party that does pass the electoral threshold, because there it does receive seats for some of its voters' votes, and the remaining votes also have a negligible effect on the party's index; besides, it has already happened that parties won a seat by tiny margins of just a few dozen votes.
Answer
I think so, but not only because of the categorical imperative; also because part of that party's lack of a chance to be elected is due to considerations of this kind. That perpetuates the existing garbage. If people vote for them, the other parties will understand that change is needed on their end, and maybe they'll even propose a merger with them or something like that. The very existence of votes for such parties is your way of expressing a public position. That is how you explain what you want. If all of us stopped making calculations like these, it might be possible to bring about real change.
The fact that parties passed by a few dozen votes has no significance at all for this discussion. I already explained this in the comments on my column about voting and the categorical imperative.
Discussion on Answer
If you don't vote at all, there is no expression of a position here. Nobody knows whether it's not because of laziness or indifference. But a blank ballot is definitely a position.
You wrote: "The very existence of votes for such parties (that do not pass the electoral threshold) is your way of expressing a public position."
If I put a blank ballot in the ballot box, is that also a way of expressing a position? And if I don't vote at all (as a protest, not out of laziness)?