Much has been made on our liberal arts campus of the civic duty to vote in the presidential election. Popular phrases alluding to the imperative of voting, or abstaining from the vote, abound: “It doesn’t matter how much you know about politics. The important thing is that you vote,” and “Bernie or bust!” have been commonly heard throughout the campaign. Many people seem to feel neither of the candidates, one a long-time establishment crony, the other a racist and misogynistic populist whose rhetoric borders on the neo-fascist, represent the interests of the American people. Those who are unsatisfied with both of the final candidates for the presidency feel disenfranchised, thinking that either way they vote, they will lose in some big way. Many of these people take issue with “lesser-evilism,” the idea that conscientious constituents have the imperative to affirmatively choose an evil candidate because the alternative is worse. The question then seems to be posed in terms of whether or not voters have the duty to vote for someone they do not or cannot fully support. For many working class voters, and especially constituents of color, this issue is complicated by the fact that despite rhetoric promoting change, neither a Trump nor Clinton presidency will likely result in much tangible socio-economic progress. For these voters, the choice between Clinton and Trump is truly, and not just rhetorically, a choice between the lesser of two evils.
This all may be true. But perhaps when we focus on the presidential election as the end-all-be-all of voting, we lose perspective on the wider issues at stake in suffrage. In a democratic republic such as the United States, citizens have the right to vote not only for the president, but for the Senate, the House, state legislatures, as well as local city, town, and district government. These offices are all extremely important. State legislatures decide how state money is spent and can enact progressive programs aimed at helping the poor. Lower-level elections, such as those for city and county officials, can be crucially important because of the power these elected officials have to advance progressive causes at the local level. Because voter turnout is generally low in these elections, your vote for lo- cal office has more weight than in national and even state elections. Along these lines, voting for city council can be critically important, especially if judges are on the ballot. (For more information and for recommendations regarding judges for city council, you can check with your local bar association.) At the state level, bond initiatives are also an important factor in voting. Bond initiatives permit state constituents to vote on whether bonds – an IOU from the government which allow citizens in effect to purchase a long-term, high interest saving account backed by the government- will be sold to raise funds for specific purposes, like education, infrastructure, and housing. Citizens can also vote for tax free bonds, where purchasers need not pay income tax on the money they make from the bond.
Those who do not vote in lower-level elections might not be aware of how much influence they are forfeiting. Ultimately, though, it is the citizens who are informed about the issues at stake in lo- cal governments who have the power to weigh in on those issues by voting. It may be more fun to browse Buzzfeed and read Trump’s latest outrageous comments, or to wax nihilistic on the United States of Anti-democracy, than it is to research the policies and platforms of candidates running for state and local offices. But it is the elections for these offices which can have the biggest impact on local communities, for those who do and don’t vote.•