Be Careful What You Vote For

There are, rightly, many forms of guidance and warning regarding activities that affect our wellbeing. What we eat, how often we exercise, the way we drive, manage our finances, the dangers of smoking and drinking alcohol, and numerous other areas where good advice is sought and provided. But when it comes to one of the most important things that can impact on our lives – voting on who gets the power to rule – it’s anything goes! 

It really is time we let people know why they need to take great care over the casting of their vote. We can start with a few words on five types of misguided vote:

[1] The Blinkered Protest Vote

Many have felt so frustrated with what is happening around them that they want to scream at something. Some may feel that whoever is in power should be ejected. Some become obsessed with blaming the EU for everything. Some are furious no one has managed to instantly resolve all conflicts in the Middle East. But instead of voting for what would bring about real improvements, they cast a protest vote that – in helping to get a party with dire policies elected – only makes things much worse.

            

[2] The Amnesiac Vote

We hear about the likes of Donald Trump and Boris Johnson who routinely lie without compunction; politicians who seek financial gains for themselves and their wealthy associates at the expense of the country; people who have consistently exhibited callousness and incompetence. And yet when another election comes around, some voters do not so much forgive but totally forget about what these charlatans are like, and fall for their empty promises and vicious slanders.

[3] The Friendly Fire Vote

There are some amongst us who, having seen a particular politician – in person, or in the media – and found them pleasant and friendly, decide to vote for them even though that politician’s party has seriously harmful policies. Since it is down to the party with the majority in the legislature (by itself or in coalition with partners) that determines what law is enacted, voting for the ‘friendly one’ will only increase the chance of power being handed to those who will bring about the most detrimental outcome.

[4] The Comeuppance Vote 

Some people believe that society needs ‘strong’ leaders who will dispense with checks and balance, and get things done swiftly without hesitation – to the extent of undermining judicial impartiality, independent oversight, democratic accountability, and protection of the innocent. They are therefore willing, enthusiastic even, to vote for authoritarians who, once they are in power, ruthlessly pursue personal gains at the expense of the public, crush opposition, and ruin people’s lives without constraint.

[5] The Self-Harming Idealist Vote

There are also those who will only vote for the ‘ideal’ candidate – even if that person stands no chance of winning. These voters feel that it is important for their vote to express what they believe truly merits their electoral endorsement. But in refusing to vote for the ‘not good enough’ candidate whose party can actually win and make real improvements to people’s lives, the idealist vote could in practice allow the ‘not good at all’ candidate and their party to win and usher in years of greater harm and suffering.

Voting affects people’s lives. It’s not simply a matter of expressing how we feel, or going along with what seems attractive at first glance. To vote responsibly, we must take into account what consequences different options may very likely lead to, and act accordingly.

--

NOTE:

On the problem of idealistic and partisan voting ignoring practical impact, consider the case of the North West Essex constituency (in the 2024 UK elections). Many people who wanted to see the incumbent Conservative MP ousted were keen to explore which rival candidate stood the best chance of achieving that. Local as well as national polling found that the Labour candidate was well ahead in being that candidate. Unfortunately, there were Liberal Democrat and Green voters who refused to give tactical support to the Labour candidate, and the Conservative candidate retained her seat (and went on to become the leader of the Conservative Party). In fact, even if just the relatively small number of votes that went to the Greens had gone to the Labour candidate, the latter would have won the seat from the Conservatives. (See below)

·      Kemi Badenoch (Conservative): 19,360

·      Issy Waite (Labour): 16,750

·      Smita Rajesh (Liberal Democrats): 6,055

·      Edward Gildea (Green): 2,846

Verulam’s Progress: modernity revisited

It’s been fashionable for some time to knock modernity. 

It is attacked for promoting blinkered technocracy; for oppressive rationalism; for liberal permissiveness; for pushing a Western-centric cultural imperialism; for materialistic obsessions; for male bias; for being disrespectful towards non-intellectual forms of communication; and to top it all, for needing to be disrupted and displaced by the ‘post-modern’.

Just about any societal change some people dislike or any aspect of status quo some others object to can seemingly be blamed on ‘modernity’. Somehow, this amorphous ‘Western’, Enlightenment-related, notion of ‘progress’ – advancing from the outmoded to the modern – is the culprit of everything that is wrong under the sun.

But instead of going along with ‘modernity’ as a label for whatever some disgruntled naysayer wants to lambast, let’s focus on the progressive ethos that actually informed the quest for modernity. We’re talking about the philosophy of improvement set out by Francis Bacon (Lord Verulam) in early 17^thcentury, developed by John Locke’s empiricist critiques, David Hume’s and related Enlightenment arguments against dogmatic and irrational thinking, J. S. Mill’s utilitarian analysis of science and society, through to John Dewey’s pragmatist exposition of problem-solving in the 20^th century.

The starting point is an abiding concern with making life better – reducing suffering, removing barriers to cooperation, tackling threats to wellbeing, opening up new opportunities for fulfilment. The measure is what people themselves experience as damaging or helpful, not what an arbitrary authority dictates as the ‘Good’ life. The improvement sought is not just for oneself or a few, but for as many people as possible.

In order to improve on things as they are, we need to understand what can change, how changes can be brought about, and what consequences may result. To do that, we need to carefully set aside dogmas and prejudices, and rely on the gathering of evidence, meticulous experimentation, impartial testimony and observation, to build up information and hypotheses which can be tested by objective means, and revisable in the light of new findings.

To facilitate the practice of critical empirical learning, we need to inculcate an ethos of cooperative enquiry. This calls for openness and civility in the exchange of ideas and findings, respectful deliberations, and the readiness to subject claims to test and investigation. For this to happen, along with educative development, we also need to keep at bay attempts to deceive, intimidate, coerce, bribe, and manipulate participants seeking to learn.  

To sustain objective learning and connect it with improving people’s lives, progress requires institutional support and protection. On the one hand, it is essential to have a public authority that can enable the development and application of cooperative enquiry to proceed in the service of the people. On the other, such an authority must be democratically grounded so that it is accountable to the people in learning to undergo changes to improve.

The above elements encapsulate the progressive modernity that is at the heart of the philosophical ethos advanced by thinkers from Bacon to Dewey. It rejects both dogmatism and scepticism in favour of continuous learning, provisional guidance, and evidence-based revisability. It is inclusive and participatory, and supports neither technocracy nor luddism. It respects traditions of the past and of diverse cultures, but seeks to improve prevailing practices where they are found to be harmful, or when better outcomes can be secured in the light of cautious explorations. It is concerned with social and cultural development as well as material ones. It does not regard preservation or disruption of the status quo as an end in itself, but advocates change when it is likely to improve people’s lives sustainably.

In the 21^st century, we should cast aside arbitrary rejections of modernity, and stay true to the course of Verulam’s Progress.