Voting

“Why vote if nothing ever changes?”

Picture someone coming home after a long shift, looking at bills they cannot pay comfortably, and hearing another politician promise that life will improve. They remember promises made before. “Why should I give these people any more of my time?” they ask. This is an illustrative situation, not a particular person’s story. The frustration deserves to be heard. The next question is what choice gives that person the best opportunity to influence what happens.

Anger at government can be a response to real failures: unaffordable essentials, neglected services, corruption, discrimination or leaders who do not listen. Telling a frustrated person simply to be a better citizen does not address those failures. But choosing not to vote does not stop elected officials from making decisions about those same problems.

The election continues when you stay home. Those who vote choose who receives power. Voting can be one way to challenge a record you oppose while continuing to demand deeper changes to the system. It does not require declaring that the system is fair, that a candidate is perfect or that a ballot alone will fix everything.

Listen to the reasons people give

These examples are reported interviews and research findings, not invented testimonials. They illustrate different experiences rather than representing every voter in a country. A person’s explanation documents their perspective; it does not automatically establish that their beliefs about candidates or the electoral system are accurate.

Some people vote from civic responsibility, some to improve a service, some to protect rights, and some to prevent a result they oppose. Others abstain because they distrust the choices, feel powerless, lack information or cannot overcome a practical barrier. Understanding the reason helps identify a useful response. It should not be used to shame people or assume their political allegiance.

What broader surveys show

In Pew Research Center’s survey following the 2024 US election, 35% of nonvoters said believing their vote would not make a difference was a major reason for not voting; 31% cited not liking politics and 15% cited inconvenience. Respondents could give multiple reasons, so these figures should not be added together. After the election, 42% of nonvoters said they wished they had voted, while 57% did not. These are reported attitudes, not proof of what their participation would have changed. Read the survey.

A CIRCLE survey of Americans aged 18–34 after the 2024 election found that 46% of young voters identified taking action on issues they cared about as a primary motivation, and 40% identified a responsibility to vote. Among young nonvoters, 24% cited disliking the candidates and 20% said voting was not important to them. The research also describes information, registration and practical barriers. The age group and survey questions matter: these percentages should not be treated as directly comparable with Pew’s measures or as a description of every young person. Read CIRCLE’s findings.

The UK Electoral Commission’s report on the 2024 parliamentary election likewise distinguishes political reasons from circumstances such as illness, being busy or being away. Participation is affected by both confidence in political choices and access to voting. Comparisons across countries require attention to their different electoral rules and survey methods. Read the Commission’s report.

Is not voting a vote for the person you oppose?

Michael’s concern is about the practical consequence: withdrawing in anger can leave the people or policies you oppose facing less electoral resistance. Not voting is not literally a vote for any candidate. But if you would otherwise vote for an alternative, staying home removes that support and can help the candidate you oppose win.

The effect depends on the particular race, electoral rules, other voters’ choices and what you would otherwise have done. Abstention does not automatically benefit the incumbent or a particular party everywhere. It also does not disclose whom an absent voter would have supported.

A simple example

This is an illustrative election with two candidates, 100 eligible people and a rule that the candidate with more votes wins. Candidate A is someone a group of voters opposes; Candidate B is their preferred available alternative.

A gained no additional votes. The result changed because B lost eleven votes. The absent voters may have intended to reject the whole system; their absence nevertheless helped determine who obtained power. This example shows a mechanism, not a prediction that one person’s ballot always changes an election.

In the United States, a presidential election is decided through the Electoral College rather than a single national vote total. Other countries use parliamentary, proportional, ranked or different systems. Examine the rules of the actual contest. Local offices, legislative seats and ballot questions can matter even when one prominent race seems predictable.

A clear way to express the underlying point is: “If I stay home to protest a government I oppose, I may make it easier for that government—or another candidate whose policies I oppose—to gain power. Before withdrawing, I should consider who benefits from my absence.”

“But none of the candidates represents me”

That can be a genuine problem. Voting is a choice among the options available in a particular contest, not a declaration that every available option is acceptable. Compare the candidates’ actual powers, records, proposals and likely consequences. Differences in healthcare, education, rights, environmental protection or oversight may remain important even when no candidate meets all your standards.

You can examine each contest separately and learn which ballot options your jurisdiction permits. Do not assume that a blank ballot, an invalid ballot or staying home has the same legal or political meaning everywhere. A ballot left blank in one race generally does not tell election officials why a voter rejected the choices; check local rules rather than relying on a slogan.

Organized election boycotts are also different from private disengagement. In some circumstances people deliberately boycott to challenge an election’s legitimacy. Evaluate the stated demands, safety, legal context, achievable strategy and evidence of effects. Neither “boycotts always work” nor “abstention always supports the incumbent” is a sound universal rule.

Where elections are competitive and meaningful, voting can operate alongside advocacy, lawful protest, community organizing and efforts to improve representation. Where people face coercion or serious danger, their circumstances deserve careful understanding. A worldwide guide should not assume that everyone enjoys the same freedoms or a genuinely fair choice.

Turn frustration into a question you can act on

A recurring theme in Michael’s earlier discussions is that people can reclaim influence through informed participation instead of remaining trapped in anger, fear or blame. This does not mean individuals are responsible for every institutional failure. It means asking what action is available and what its likely consequences are.

1. Name what needs to change. Choose concrete concerns such as affordable care, reliable water, education, corruption or environmental damage. A clear problem is easier to investigate than a general feeling that everything is broken.
2. Find the office with relevant authority. A mayor, legislature, school board or national government may have different powers. Ask whether the promised action falls within the office’s control.
3. Compare the available choices. Use records, complete proposals, budgets and credible evaluation. Apply the same standards to the person you favor and the person you oppose.
4. Consider the consequences of each action. Compare voting for an available option, choosing another lawful ballot option and abstaining. Ask who is more likely to benefit under the actual rules.
5. Keep participating after the election. Follow votes and results, ask questions, attend accessible public meetings and work with others on specific reforms. Accountability should continue between elections.

Anger can identify something that needs attention, but it cannot by itself establish which candidate will improve it. Enthusiasm and fear also need scrutiny. Ask: What evidence supports this claim? What would change my mind? Am I excusing conduct from my preferred candidate that I condemn in another? The fuller guide below provides consistent questions for making that comparison.

Voting is one contribution to a collective decision. Most individual ballots are not decisive on their own; collectively, turnout and preferences determine representation. The fact that your ballot joins many others does not make it meaningless. It also does not guarantee that leaders will deliver: continued scrutiny and practical civic work remain necessary.

“I want to participate, but it is difficult”

Illness, disability, transport, work schedules, caregiving, language, confusing instructions and registration problems can prevent participation. These are access problems, not evidence that someone does not care. Helping remove a barrier may accomplish more than another speech about civic duty.

Use your official election authority to check eligibility, registration, deadlines, polling locations, permitted voting methods and accessibility arrangements. Rules can change and differ by jurisdiction. In the US, USA.gov’s voting information provides a starting point for reaching the relevant authorities. Elsewhere, consult the official national and local election bodies. Confirm instructions before relying on social posts or forwarded messages.

For a community seeking greater participation, useful work includes clear nonpartisan information, accessible events, lawful assistance, listening to people’s actual concerns and showing how an office’s decisions connect with daily life. People should be free to make their own political choices.

What would it mean to make a country great?

Imagine two families living on opposite sides of a border. Each wants safe drinking water, meaningful opportunities for their children and a secure home. If a policy improves life for one family by sending pollution, danger or hardship to the other, what kind of success has it achieved? This is an illustrative question. It asks voters to look beyond the immediate benefit and consider the wider consequences.

The phrase “Make America Great Again” invites a question that applies to any country: What do we mean by greatness, and who is included in it? Michael’s perspective is that lasting greatness requires a wider change in how humanity sees its responsibilities—toward choices that serve the highest and greatest good of every human being and every form of life on the planet.

In that view, a country’s success should contribute to a world in which others can flourish too. A larger economy or greater power is an incomplete measure if the gains depend on harming people elsewhere or degrading the living systems on which future generations depend. The standard proposed here is durable well-being: dignity, security, opportunity, quality education, healthy communities and a healthy environment, considered across borders as well as within them.

Seeking greatness at other countries’ expense can undermine the conditions that sustain a country’s own prosperity and security. Policies that create hostility, deepen instability or shift environmental damage onto others can bring costs back through conflict, disrupted cooperation and damaged shared resources. These are risks to examine in specific cases, not proof that every competitive policy must end in national downfall. Cooperation also requires attention to legitimate differences, rights and fair terms.

Michael’s warning is that a country cannot build a dependable future by treating the rest of the world as expendable. The aspiration is to make national progress part of progress for the life we share. That is a proposed ethical standard, rather than a claim that all countries must agree before any country can improve its people’s lives.

Questions to bring to the ballot

• How does this candidate define national success: by power and economic totals alone, or by improvements in people’s lives and the health of the environment?
• Does the proposal create value, or achieve its gains by transferring harm and costs to other people, countries or future generations?
• What are its likely effects beyond our borders, and could those effects undermine our own long-term security and prosperity?
• Can the candidate protect legitimate national interests while cooperating on shared needs such as peace, public health and environmental protection?
• What evidence would demonstrate that the policy improves lasting well-being, and who would independently examine its consequences?

Apply these questions to every party and candidate. A patriotic slogan does not establish that a policy serves the public; an internationalist slogan does not establish it either. Examine the actions, costs, benefits and accountability behind the words.

A choice about the life we share

Imagine a family concerned about school support, a worker worried about injury, and a community trying to protect its drinking water. Their concerns may differ, but all are affected by public decisions. Participation gives them a way to weigh who should make those decisions and to insist that consequences be examined.

You do not have to approve of the whole system to use an opportunity to change who exercises power within it. Before deciding not to vote, ask whether that decision strengthens your ability to pursue the changes you want—or leaves more of the choice to people whose priorities you oppose.

Research reviewed October 1, 2026. Interviews illustrate individual views; surveys describe their stated populations. The election example is hypothetical. This discussion encourages informed participation without endorsing a candidate or party.

A fuller guide to examining candidates

Drawn from the Governing for Life discussion paper. Linked references open the supporting sources.

What voters are choosing

Voting delegates public power. A candidate’s decisions can affect education, family security, health, infrastructure, rights, environmental conditions and the resources inherited by future generations. The relevant question is therefore broader than whether we like the candidate: What are they likely to do with that power, and what supports that judgment?

Facts can establish a recorded vote, a budget figure or what a person said. They cannot alone settle every disagreement about priorities. People may accept the same evidence and weigh liberty, fairness, cost, risk or environmental protection differently. Responsible judgment separates the factual claim, its interpretation and the values behind the proposed decision.

Questions to ask about every candidate

• What authority would this office actually give them? Can they deliver the promise themselves, or does it require legislation, funding or cooperation from others?

• What is their relevant record? Look at actions and results over time, including failures, rather than relying only on campaign language.

• Are their proposals specific? Ask what will change, when it will happen, how it will be funded and who will carry the costs.

• What evidence supports the proposal? Can the sources be checked, and have credible counterarguments been addressed?

• Who benefits and who may be harmed? Consider households with limited resources, children, people with disabilities, future generations and ecological systems.

• Can they work with disagreement? Examine whether they answer substantive questions, treat people respectfully and negotiate without concealing meaningful differences.

• Do they correct factual errors? Distinguish an acknowledged mistake from a pattern of continuing claims contradicted by strong evidence.

• Are interests and finances transparent? Disclosures can identify relationships worth examining; a donation by itself does not prove corruption.

• Do they respect lawful accountability? Consider how they respond to oversight, independent scrutiny and limits on their power.

• How will success be measured? Ask what results would show the plan worked and what would lead them to revise it.

These are proposed evaluation criteria, not a scientific formula that calculates the correct vote. Voters can decide their priorities, but should apply their chosen standards consistently.

Questions about someone we support

• What is the strongest verified criticism of this person, and have I investigated it?

• Would I excuse the same action or statement if an opposing candidate did it?

• Am I treating confidence, familiarity or agreement as evidence of competence?

• Have their promises survived scrutiny of cost, authority and unintended consequences?

• What evidence would make me reconsider my support? If no conceivable evidence could change it, am I still evaluating the person?

Support can remain firm after scrutiny. Its credibility improves when a voter can explain the evidence, acknowledge limitations and demand accountability from the person they favor.

Questions about someone we oppose

• Can I describe their actual position fairly, using their full explanation rather than an opponent’s summary?

• Is my objection to an established fact, a predicted consequence, a value difference or a personal impression?

• What problem are their supporters trying to solve, and is any part of that concern legitimate?

• Have they proposed something useful or achieved a positive result that I should acknowledge?

• Would I accept this accusation against a candidate I support on the same evidence?

• What evidence would make my criticism more precise, or cause me to withdraw it?

Fair examination does not require treating every claim as equally credible or every action as equally serious. If evidence differs, conclusions should differ. Understanding a person’s position also does not oblige us to agree with it. The purpose is to examine evidence accurately and evaluate consistently.

A practical example of consistent scrutiny

Suppose a campaign advertisement says a candidate “voted against children’s education.” First locate the recorded vote and bill text. Determine whether the vote concerned the whole bill, an amendment or a procedural motion. Examine what education provision it contained, what other measures were included, and the candidate’s explanation. Then assess that explanation against the record.

The verified conclusion may be narrower than the advertisement: the candidate voted against a particular bill containing education funding. Whether that means they opposed all education, objected to another provision or offered an alternative requires further evidence. A candidate’s explanation is relevant, but it should not automatically override their actions. Apply this same process to a person you favor and one you oppose.

For a promise of tuition-free education, ask who is eligible, which institutions and costs are covered, how places and teaching quality will be funded, and how results will be measured. For a proposal to retain fees, ask how capable people without money will gain access and how borrowers will be protected. Either proposal should face scrutiny of practical consequences.

Choosing with clarity rather than certainty

A voter can keep a short evidence record for each candidate: the issue, relevant action or proposal, original source, date, what is established, what remains uncertain and why it matters. This prevents an impression from silently becoming a fact and makes later reconsideration easier.

The goal is an informed, accountable choice, not complete certainty about future behavior. Evidence may be incomplete, and a new candidate may lack an officeholding record. Evaluate relevant experience and detailed proposals while acknowledging that prediction remains uncertain. A commitment to governing for life includes retaining the ability to question the leaders we elect.

Education and democratic judgment connect the whole framework. People need both the opportunity to develop their capabilities and the ability to evaluate those entrusted with public power. Publicly supported learning, support for families and teachers, and transparent political accountability can be pursued together. Their success should be assessed by what they actually improve for people and the living world.

How this connects

Checking claims and sources · What governments can change