In a letter titled Voting not worth hassle if candidates not up to par (SN 11/6), Arthur Manoli gives excuses why his decision to not vote was a more educated and reasonable answer than voting. One of his excuses was that he would only be voting for the “lesser of the two evils,” so why vote at all.
First, I would ask if Arthur had voted in any of the primaries in order to ensure a candidate that shared more of his viewpoints would be one of the final two major candidates. I’m guessing the answer is no. Second, wouldn’t voting for the “lesser of two evils” and having that lesser evil in office be better than not voting and having the “greater of two evils” as the next president of the United States?
Manoli then goes on to say that candidates will get more and more out of touch with his own viewpoints if he decides to vote, but how does he expect candidates to get in touch with him if he never decides to vote? Does he believe candidates are going to take the time to get in touch with someone who is so out of touch himself that he believes not voting will fix anything in the government?
Finally, if you don’t want to vote for any of the candidates because you don’t like their policies, you should at least vote for the various propositions and proposals that were on the ballot this year. How Manoli has no opinion on medical marijuana, stem cell research or even the Capitol Area Transportation Authority millage is beyond me.
It is every U.S. citizen’s privilege, right and obligation to vote, and by deciding to “rock the nonvote” Manoli has done a great injustice to himself and to his country.
Kevin Salata
food industry management senior
Support student media!
Please consider donating to The State News and help fund the future of journalism.
Discussion
Share and discuss “Not voting might ensure 'greater evil' takes office” on social media.
