Our Time is Now

01Not voting hurts us more than it does politicians. We need to care about voting

Stacey Abrams makes a powerful point when she says that our casual approach to voting hurts us more than it does our politicians. This is a wake-up call, reminding us of the importance of being actively involved in the democratic process and the potential fallout of voter indifference. Let's unpack this a bit. When we talk about a "casual approach to voting", we're referring to a lack of passion or interest in voting. This could mean not voting at all, or voting without really understanding what or who you're voting for. This kind of attitude can come from a variety of places - maybe you're fed up with politics, maybe you don't have enough information, or maybe you just don't think your vote matters. So, how does this attitude hurt us, the voters? When we don't vote, or vote without really understanding what's at stake, we're basically giving up our power to shape our society. We're giving up our right to have a say in decisions that directly affect our lives, like education, healthcare, and economic policies. This can lead to outcomes that don't really match up with what we want or need. But what about our politicians? How does our casual approach to voting affect them? Politicians are supposed to represent us, their constituents. If a lot of people don't vote, it can lead to a skewed representation. But here's the thing - politicians can still get elected and make decisions, even if those decisions don't reflect the will of all the people. In other words, they can still hold power and influence, even if voter turnout is low. Take the 2018 Georgia gubernatorial election as an example. Stacey Abrams, a Democrat, lost to Republican Brian Kemp in a race that was riddled with allegations of voter suppression. Abrams argues that tactics like purging voter rolls, closing polling places, and enforcing strict voter ID laws disproportionately affected minority and low-income voters, effectively silencing their voices. But despite these tactics, the election went ahead, and Kemp took office. This example shows the potential fallout of a casual approach to voting. The alleged voter suppression tactics might have put some people off voting, which could have affected the outcome of the election. But the election still happened, and the politicians still took up their roles, showing that our lack of involvement in voting hurts us more than it hurts our politicians. In a nutshell, Abrams' point is a rallying cry for us to take our voting rights seriously. It highlights that our lack of involvement in the democratic process can lead to outcomes that don't reflect our wants or needs, while politicians can still hold power and make decisions. So, it's in our best interest to be active, informed participants in our democracy.