Thanks, we couldn't agree more

Lou Esparza's column on the benefits of not voting ("Why Vote?" 11/5/02) is a rich satirical masterpiece. His column is rife with examples of why people should vote, cleverly disguised as reasons to let yet another election day go by without bothering to cast a ballot.

The column states that our elected officials get to vote on public policy that affects us everyday. However, it later argues that the issues are never directly relevant to us. They are usually "abstract" ideas about wars on "terrorism, drugs, or poverty." Of course, we know how the war on terrorism is pretty relevant to those who lost relatives in the World Trade Center attack and college age males that had to register for the draft, how drug use is a major issue on college campuses, and how unpopular groups like LCS constantly strive to do their small part to aid those in need.

Next, the column argues that "voting is such a pain." Trekking down to some place that we have probably never been to vote for someone we have probably never met. Putting it in those terms is sure to make those lazy bastards feel guilty for not walking around the corner to the local VFW, community center, or hall to fill out a multiple choice test that they can use notes on and take as much time as they want to complete. Or better yet, walking to a mail box for an absentee ballot. I sure know I never pass a mailbox as I walk around campus, right?

"There are so many problems with the electoral process," the column laments. The best way to deal with this problem is to not vote, since by not voting we are expressing our disgust with the electoral process, not that we do not support any of the candidates. Haha, good one!

According to the column, "most of the candidates are lame." To get this joke, the columnist is hoping that someone like Bill Clinton will come to mind: a fatherless boy from a poor background attends a prestigious college, becomes president and is the only white man to be inducted into the Arkansas Black Hall of Fame. Or someone like John McCain, who launches a "Straight Talk Express" bus across the country to run a different kind of campaign and to get voters fired up about campaign finance reform. Lame? You call Jesse Ventura lame? Not to his face you don't.

Still not convinced that voting is a waste of time? The column offers a rhetorical question on the value of voting: "What difference does it make?" Obviously, it wants us to think back to November 2000, when we learned about butterfly ballots and hanging chads, and President Bush won by only a few hundred votes.

If all this isn't enough to discourage fence sitters _ those voters who only come out for presidential elections because they feel a sense of "duty" _ the column criticizes the structure of our government as a last-ditch attempt to push them onto the side of the electorally confident.

"Most districts are rigged to stifle competition because those in power want to minimize the chances of facing strong opposition." We agree with this idea, gerrymandering is an issue and really cuts to the bone of partisan politics. And so let's help those Democrats and Republicans stay in power by not voting for others! Yeah!

The column offers an alternative system of voting, beginning by suggesting that a pure democracy would be a more fair and efficient form of government for the United States than a republic. What a hoot! Everyone knows what a disaster it would be if 285 million people tried to assemble together into one place to make decisions for the good of the entire group. But then it reminds us that "The constitution (sic) guarantees a republican government to all states; therefore, any efforts to change it would be unconstitutional." Right, because even if we wanted to throw a nationwide party with millions of people on the National Mall as our government, we could not amend the Constitution.

"God forbid that everyone have the right to vote on all political matters! Like communism during the age of McCarthy and terrorism today, democracy is the greatest threat to the American way of life that we may ever see." It would be quite threatening if all 285 million citizens eighteen and over descended upon Washington, DC, in a bizarre attempt at direct self-government. And we think Congress is slow and inefficient! What a way to hammer the point home!

"Whether you vote or not, the will of others will be imposed upon you. The only difference is that if you do vote, you sometimes have a small say in who gets to impose their will upon you." The column purposefully contradicts the rest of the argument because, given the choice between no say and some say, everyone knows that the logical choice is some say.

The column is full of contradictions to disprove the point that we should not bother to vote. "I agree that low voter turnout is a problem. But the solution is not to encourage others to vote. The solution is to make it so that our votes actually make a difference." Of course, the columnist knows that we will immediately realize that the only way to increase turnout and the only way to make our votes count is to vote more. Everyone knows that saying about either being part of the solution or part of the problem.

The column provides many poor examples to justify not voting to prove the real point _ that voting is important and it actually does make a difference! The only way to change the system is to become engaged in it _ not to whine and complain and never do anything to try to change the system. Thanks! We couldn't have made a better argument to vote ourselves. And guess what _ the next election is only two years away.



Daniel Mandell is a sophomore designing a plan of study in public policy. He is president of the Debate Society of Tufts University. Allison Goldsberry is a senior majoring in political science. She is president of the Tufts chapter of United Leaders.